conc said:

---

Agree, but it's not just a state thing, it's a national thing. Travel is easy these days so distance is not such a barrier as long ago. But you'll see the same thing in every state.

Out of state pulls in more money. So we pay taxes to state as residents, but don't get the benefit.

And yet, the Republican Party wants to reduce reduce reduce taxes, and plummeting Dept of Education is s popular place to state.
Sad.

---

plummeting Dept of Education is s popular place to state.

Can you say where you meant to go with the above?

JMHO, but you've really been clear and interesting.

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

In re-reading my words above, I come down to another conclusion.

I'd like to see this country seriously increase funding for education and development of our children. The USA does not respect the teacher profession. We don't pay teachers much and nurturing of children's psyche is a real art. I have riffed about this issue many times on BI.

Finland requires a masters to be a teacher. And look where they rank on the education ranking globally.

Meanwhile, in the USA, we have many teachers who are wholly unfit, unprepared, or stale but have stayed because they need to reach their retirement dollar figure, and are unfireable due to the union. And we rank not so high on the global OECD rankings.

If we raised the bar and reset our mindset about teaching, we'd attract the best and the brightest. Schools would not be quite the zoos they are today. Schools would not be so big, and classes less crowded with a lower student-teacher ratio.

---

Reading this has me moving outside my own OP, but IMO many states, particularly California, have abandoned their obligation to educate their states citizens through higher education. State college like Cal were more friendly than today in the admissions process for California residents as a result. And their is a factor of driving away excellent state students with high tuition. Not educating deserving citizens and seeing them often go elsewhere (e.g., out of state privates who provide scholarships) is a drain on the state economy and just bad news overall for the state. End of sermon.

---

Agree, but it's not just a state thing, it's a national thing. Travel is easy these days so distance is not such a barrier as long ago. But you'll see the same thing in every state.

Out of state pulls in more money. So we pay taxes to state as residents, but don't get the benefit.

And yet, the Republican Party wants to reduce reduce reduce taxes, and plummeting Dept of Education is s popular place to state.
Sad.

---

why is the funding of a state university a different thing? Why is this have to be federally funded, along with all the federal mandates on conduct? All that does is provide a nice threat for our current President to remove funding. In this high tax state, it is a difference in priorities.

bearup said:

---

conc said:

---

Agree, but it's not just a state thing, it's a national thing. Travel is easy these days so distance is not such a barrier as long ago. But you'll see the same thing in every state.

Out of state pulls in more money. So we pay taxes to state as residents, but don't get the benefit.

And yet, the Republican Party wants to reduce reduce reduce taxes, and plummeting Dept of Education is s popular place to state.
Sad.

---

plummeting Dept of Education is s popular place to start.

Can you say where you meant to go with the above?

JMHO, but you've really been clear and interesting.

---

For instance:

1)
Dec 13, 2016 Rick Perry once wanted to abolish the Energy Department. Trump ... Commerce, Education, and the what's the third one there? (Vox)

2)
During the 1980 presidential campaign, Gov. Reagan called for the total elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, severe curtailment of bilingual education, and massive cutbacks in the federal role in education. Once in office, President Reagan significantly reduced its budget. (Wikipedia)

3)
https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Brief-History-of-GOP/243739

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

In re-reading my words above, I come down to another conclusion.

I'd like to see this country seriously increase funding for education and development of our children. The USA does not respect the teacher profession. We don't pay teachers much and nurturing of children's psyche is a real art. I have riffed about this issue many times on BI.

Finland requires a masters to be a teacher. And look where they rank on the education ranking globally.

Meanwhile, in the USA, we have many teachers who are wholly unfit, unprepared, or stale but have stayed because they need to reach their retirement dollar figure, and are unfireable due to the union. And we rank not so high on the global OECD rankings.

If we raised the bar and reset our mindset about teaching, we'd attract the best and the brightest. Schools would not be quite the zoos they are today. Schools would not be so big, and classes less crowded with a lower student-teacher ratio.

---

Reading this has me moving outside my own OP, but IMO many states, particularly California, have abandoned their obligation to educate their states citizens through higher education. State college like Cal were more friendly than today in the admissions process for California residents as a result. And their is a factor of driving away excellent state students with high tuition. Not educating deserving citizens and seeing them often go elsewhere (e.g., out of state privates who provide scholarships) is a drain on the state economy and just bad news overall for the state. End of sermon.

---

Agree, but it's not just a state thing, it's a national thing. Travel is easy these days so distance is not such a barrier as long ago. But you'll see the same thing in every state.

Out of state pulls in more money. So we pay taxes to state as residents, but don't get the benefit.

And yet, the Republican Party wants to reduce reduce reduce taxes, and plummeting Dept of Education is s popular place to state.
Sad.

---

why is the funding of a state university a different thing? Why is this have to be federally funded, along with all the federal mandates on conduct? All that does is provide a nice threat for our current President to remove funding. In this high tax state, it is a difference in priorities.

---

What I meant is that this happens in every state, where the university systems receive more $ in out-of-state tuition than in-state tuition. Thus, a $ bias to admit more out-of-stste kids when all other selection criteria is equal. (I'll add that schools prefer a more diverse student body, geography included, to make it appear to be a better overall place to be.)

And what I meant is simply that we need the increased focus on Education to be a National thing and not just a state thing. It's s National cultural issue.

I did not mean to suggest that state schools be federally funded. I do not actually have, currently, an opinion on such a thing.

I agree with you that "we" need a change in priorities, and not in just this state.

bearup said:

---

JMHO, but you've really been clear and interesting.

---

Thank you.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Drop the SAT and ACT as a requirement for admission, top UC officials say https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-23/uc-officials-recommend-dropping-sat-admission-requirement

Cal has become absurdly competitive (I would never get in). How to best differentiate too many qualified applicants? Thoughts?

---

A couple of points:

1. I believe they are not talking about eliminating the tests from consideration. They are talking about making it optional. To some extent, this is kind of BS. My daughter's college counselor says nothing is "optional". If something is optional, you do it and increase your chances. If you think the no SAT kid will get in over the 1600 kid, you are dreaming. What this means is that kids will take the test and if they do poorly compared to the rest of their application, they won't report. I don't have a problem with that. It'll give a handful of kids a spot that might not have got one. I doubt it will make a big difference.

2. Let's be frank here. Most elite private schools have a ton of people reading applications. You get at least 2 people reading them. They generally have essays that allow a kid's personality to come through. Some have interviews. Cal and other elite public schools have each application skimmed. The essay questions are bare bones. I find it hard to believe in practice they will chuck one of the few criteria they look at.

3. I don't like the tests much, but focusing on them alone gives them a bad rap. EVERYTHING pretty much gives an advantage to people of wealth. Everything in the application process and everything in life. More resources = more success. If they study every criteria they use and eliminate all that have this problem they will have no criteria. The solution isn't "fixing" the system at the higher education level. It is fixing it at the K-12 level.

4. Genetic component to socioeconomic wealth and success - I cannot deal with this except to say Jesus H Christ, Seriously?!?!?!

5. Value of college education not that great - can barely deal with this but to say Jesus H Christ, Seriously!?!?!?! and that goes against every statistic and study like in the history of time. The value of the degree goes without saying, but the value of the learning is tremendous as well. At minimum, on average a higher education teaches analytical thought, creative thinking and individual problem solving in a way that high schools do not even attempt. Those are skills that become more and more important with each passing year as the work force becomes more and more split. Good luck in a world of artificial intelligence without those skills.

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

In re-reading my words above, I come down to another conclusion.

I'd like to see this country seriously increase funding for education and development of our children. The USA does not respect the teacher profession. We don't pay teachers much and nurturing of children's psyche is a real art. I have riffed about this issue many times on BI.

Finland requires a masters to be a teacher. And look where they rank on the education ranking globally.

Meanwhile, in the USA, we have many teachers who are wholly unfit, unprepared, or stale but have stayed because they need to reach their retirement dollar figure, and are unfireable due to the union. And we rank not so high on the global OECD rankings.

If we raised the bar and reset our mindset about teaching, we'd attract the best and the brightest. Schools would not be quite the zoos they are today. Schools would not be so big, and classes less crowded with a lower student-teacher ratio.

---

Reading this has me moving outside my own OP, but IMO many states, particularly California, have abandoned their obligation to educate their states citizens through higher education. State college like Cal were more friendly than today in the admissions process for California residents as a result. And their is a factor of driving away excellent state students with high tuition. Not educating deserving citizens and seeing them often go elsewhere (e.g., out of state privates who provide scholarships) is a drain on the state economy and just bad news overall for the state. End of sermon.

---

Agree, but it's not just a state thing, it's a national thing. Travel is easy these days so distance is not such a barrier as long ago. But you'll see the same thing in every state.

Out of state pulls in more money. So we pay taxes to state as residents, but don't get the benefit.

And yet, the Republican Party wants to reduce reduce reduce taxes, and plummeting Dept of Education is s popular place to state.
Sad.

---

why is the funding of a state university a different thing? Why is this have to be federally funded, along with all the federal mandates on conduct? All that does is provide a nice threat for our current President to remove funding. In this high tax state, it is a difference in priorities.

---

What I meant is that this happens in every state, where the university systems receive more $ in out-of-state tuition than in-state tuition. Thus, a $ bias to admit more out-of-stste kids when all other selection criteria is equal. (I'll add that schools prefer a more diverse student body, geography included, to make it appear to be a better overall place to be.)

And what I meant is simply that we need the increased focus on Education to be a National thing and not just a state thing. It's s National cultural issue.

I did not mean to suggest that state schools be federally funded. I do not actually have, currently, an opinion on such a thing.

I agree with you that "we" need a change in priorities, and not in just this state.

---

Okay, I misunderstood.

It's a round-about way to try and diversify racial identities and socioeconomic status of students at the top universities at the expense of more qualified students, though publicly they will claim they're not, which is ridiculous.

I'm surprised this idea wasn't completely sh*t on.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Drop the SAT and ACT as a requirement for admission, top UC officials say https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-23/uc-officials-recommend-dropping-sat-admission-requirement

Cal has become absurdly competitive (I would never get in). How to best differentiate too many qualified applicants? Thoughts?

---

A couple of points:

1. I believe they are not talking about eliminating the tests from consideration. They are talking about making it optional. To some extent, this is kind of BS. My daughter's college counselor says nothing is "optional". If something is optional, you do it and increase your chances. If you think the no SAT kid will get in over the 1600 kid, you are dreaming. What this means is that kids will take the test and if they do poorly compared to the rest of their application, they won't report. I don't have a problem with that. It'll give a handful of kids a spot that might not have got one. I doubt it will make a big difference.

2. Let's be frank here. Most elite private schools have a ton of people reading applications. You get at least 2 people reading them. They generally have essays that allow a kid's personality to come through. Some have interviews. Cal and other elite public schools have each application skimmed. The essay questions are bare bones. I find it hard to believe in practice they will chuck one of the few criteria they look at.

3. I don't like the tests much, but focusing on them alone gives them a bad rap. EVERYTHING pretty much gives an advantage to people of wealth. Everything in the application process and everything in life. More resources = more success. If they study every criteria they use and eliminate all that have this problem they will have no criteria. The solution isn't "fixing" the system at the higher education level. It is fixing it at the K-12 level.

4. Genetic component to socioeconomic wealth and success - I cannot deal with this except to say Jesus H Christ, Seriously?!?!?!

5. Value of college education not that great - can barely deal with this but to say Jesus H Christ, Seriously!?!?!?! and that goes against every statistic and study like in the history of time. The value of the degree goes without saying, but the value of the learning is tremendous as well. At minimum, on average a higher education teaches analytical thought, creative thinking and individual problem solving in a way that high schools do not even attempt. Those are skills that become more and more important with each passing year as the work force becomes more and more split. Good luck in a world of artificial intelligence without those skills.

---

I appreciate the first 3 comments. Others will need to response to 4 and 5 as these are not my issues per se.

Okay, I will comment on 5. IMO, college is important overall for good students, for the State's economy and for overall society. And I include research institutions like Cal. I'm not convinced it is appropriate for everyone, particularly lousy students, some people with entrepreneurial mindsets, people with artistic or mechanical skills (trade colleges would be better to the extent they exist anymore), etc. to attend traditional colleges or research institutions.

There is a college for everybody who wants to attend and there is a college for virtually every cognitive level of ability. It's the school's prerogative to loosen admissions and move away from historical goals, which was to admit the best (generally). Going away from that will backfire -- if a school loses its prestige by admitting too many lesser qualified to to ignoring the most objective testing, less of the best will apply and employers won't view degrees from those institutions the same. But they're free to do it. Certainly private schools, I couldn't care less.

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a round-about way to try and diversify racial identities and socioeconomic status of students at the top universities at the expense of more qualified students, though publicly they will claim they're not, which is ridiculous.

I'm surprised this idea wasn't completely sh*t on.

---

Maybe UC figures if the federal government isn't going to narrow the rich-poor gap (e.g.: thru taxation and other policies) , they will take matters I to their own hands, via admissions).

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

It's a round-about way to try and diversify racial identities and socioeconomic status of students at the top universities at the expense of more qualified students, though publicly they will claim they're not, which is ridiculous.

I'm surprised this idea wasn't completely sh*t on.

---

Maybe UC figures if the federal government isn't going to narrow the rich-poor gap (e.g.: thru taxation and other policies) , they will take matters I to their own hands, via admissions).

---

Why would the goal be to close the gap rather than raise the wages of the middle class.

That's not what they're thinking. They're worried the composition of the identities at top schools is unjust and discriminatory

LudwigsFountain said:

---

If California schools are underfunded, it's not because of insufficient tax revenues.

If you look at the 1978 California budget (when 13 was passed), divide it by the population, adjust it by inflation to current dollars, you'll find that per capita spending (which I assume is a reasonable proxy for State tax collection) is about 5% higher today than in 1978.

Of course that doesn't take into account local spending, where I assume property taxes are more influential. But per capita property taxes, again adjusted for inflation, are about 2.25 times what they were in 1978.

So I don't see a revenue problem; we must be spending our taxes far differently.

And speaking as a retired CPA, the change in tax rates isn't particularly relevant. While the rates were much higher in the 50's the opportunities to shelter income from taxes was equally higher. You could 'invest' a dollar in a tax shelter which would borrow a bunch more dollars and generate deductions at multiples of what you put in. There were also lots of ways in which compensation that is taxed today wasn't taxed then. Despite the change in rates federal taxes as a per cent of GDP are a little higher today than they were in the 50's.

---

"We must be spending our taxes far differently."

I am going to guess that pensions and other benefits for public employees account for a lot of this difference. I am overall pro-union, but public sector collective bargaining should have never been allowed to happen.

The total compensation for public employees in this state is way out of line with the private sector. Remember the BART janitors pulling in over $200K per year? Ridiculous!