<p>“I also don’t believe that auditioning is only about who is the best actor but also about who fits a role or a director’s vision of a role and/or type” </p>
<p>what fits the role is the best actor!</p>
<p>and Directors don’t cast actors. Casting agents and Producers choose actors for roles. And for bigger roles it’s almost always the Producers that casts the actor, casting agents just tee the actor up to the producer for the final decision.</p>
<p>Pacheight, you are predicting that the four year graduation rate will decrease in the coming years at Berkeley and other UCs. But that is not the same as quoting statistics such as others have provided here, ones that put Berkeley on par with the likes of USC in terms of grad rates. The rest remains to be seen. It is good to bring to others’ attention about budget cuts, but predictions about their effects are not yet facts. </p>
<p>Talking about theater and actors is truly off topic on this thread. It seems you brought that all into the discussion in a way to discredit me in some fashion. My opinion about who is cast is not being just about a talent contest as to the best actor or singer remains. I believe to be cast you have to have the talent. But as many do have the talent, it can come down to who fits the type they are seeking and the vision for the role. Those who are casting may think someone has the best talent and is the best actor in the audition room but doesn’t quite fit the part (can be a matter of looks, etc.). By the way, I know how casting works. Sorry I used “director,” in my statement. Sometimes the creative team does have a say in casting (my D has been part of the casting process on the casting end of things and has had a say as part of the creative team, even though a casting agency was being used and there were also producers involved). She has been on both sides of the table. She is cast in something this week and didn’t even audition but a major casting agency in NYC was aware of her work and offered her a part and contacted her agent with the offer. I may not be an actor myself, but I know a thing or two as my kid is a professional actor. You are not an actor and so your “advice” comes from the vantage point as a parent yourself.</p>
<p>It may be Yudof’s fear, but it is not “already the case” as you claimed in post 79.</p>
<p>Somehow my UCLA kid, an engineering major (CS - one of the most course-packed majors), managed to graduate in 4 years although the average for some engineering majors specifically, including my kid’s, may be a quarter or so beyond that. Somehow all of the roommates she had, who were all non-engineering, managed to graduate within 4 years quite easily. Some could have graduated in less than 4 if they really wanted to.</p>
<p>At a UC a number of students graduate in more than 4 years because … they can. This is especially true for those who are commuting since the cost of the UC is a quarter or so that of many full-pay privates. This allows them more flexibility to delay graduation because they’re taking less than a full load because they’re working while going to school, they change their major a number of times, they decide to take certain difficult major/minor combos, they take less than a full load because they just feel like taking it easier, they can spend some time in a study abroad that doesn’t count as fully towards their needed credits as if they didn’t do the study abroad, or they just feel like taking more courses and exploring more.</p>
<p>Graduation rates need to be interpreted with a grain of salt and an understanding of the variables affecting them. </p>
<p>But let’s not let facts get in the way of conjecture and let’s continue to make sweeping generalizations whether founded or not.</p>
<p>a billion dollar cut is not conjecture</p>
<p>34% of Cal kids take 5 years or longer to graduate is not conjecture</p>
<p>35%+ of UCLA kids take 5 years or longer to graduate is not conjecture</p>
<p>the top talent in all departments are leaving for better offers at private universities as reported by Yudof is not conjecture</p>
<p>SAT scores for incoming freshman are lower at Cal and UCLA as compared to the other two large California Universities is not conjecture.</p>
<p>so the OP who’s from out of state should know the real story and that the UC’s are good schools but not excellent schools like the comparable privates. Also, the OP should know that the situation at the UC’s is going to get worse, a lot worse in the next few years.</p>
<p>this is not conjecture: situation at the UC’s is going to get worse, a lot worse in the next few years.</p>
<p>I wonder at what points many Cal and UCLA parents will be come aware of the lower education quality, 59% graduate in 4 years? SAT score lower by 10%, 20%? No new facility construction in years after the current bond construction ends? 40 to 1 teacher student ratio?</p>
<p>wake up</p>
<p>The 4 and 6-year graduation rates at Cal are very similar to the graduation rates at USC. (these are two schools you compared here and opined that USC is better than Cal)</p>
<p>Graduation rates:</p>
<p>USC:
four years: 72%
six years: 88%</p>
<p>Berkeley:
four years: 66%
six years: 90%</p>
<p>SAT scores for incoming freshmen at USC and Berkeley are similar (two schools you compared in this thread and saying USC is more selective)…</p>
<p>Mid SAT (CR/M combined) ranges for entering class:</p>
<p>USC: 1270-1450
Berkeley: 1250-1480</p>
<p>Acceptance rate:</p>
<p>USC: 24%
Berkeley: 22%</p>
<p>You commented on contrasting classes sizes and here is a statistic that puts both schools on par when it come to percentage of classes with fewer than 20 students…</p>
<p>Percentage of classes with fewer than 20 students:</p>
<p>USC: 62.6%
Berkeley: 60.3%</p>
<p>“Pacheight, you are predicting that the four year graduation rate will decrease in the coming years at Berkeley and other UCs”</p>
<p>No, I’m guaranteeing it! You’re delusional about the financial realities facing the UC’s if you think class availability and graduation rates will not get a lot worse in the next year and yeas after. Yudof, all of the regents and ALL of the profs all agree on this, things are desperate and going to get much worse. You’re witnessing the demise of the UC system and most likely, if the legislation allows it, the privatizing of probably Cal and UCLA in a few years. And as Yudof points out it may privatize by default as tuition rises to rival the privates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you take 66% as the four year graduation rate, that does not necessarily mean that 34% took five years or longer. A student in the 34% may have taken just one (not two or more) extra semester, or just a summer session, beyond four years. Also important to note is that these measures are calendar years – a student who took a semester off at a co-op job or internship may appear to be “graduating late” by this measure, even though s/he only spent eight semesters in school.</p>
<p>Budget cuts are a serious potential problem (though the biggest effects appear to be in cost of attendance related areas – financial aid or lack thereof, in-state vs. out-of-state admissions, etc. – effective privatization), but you do your credibility and arguments no favors by claiming wild exaggerations or misinterpreted statistics.</p>
<p>Pacheight,
The fact is that the budget cuts are a serious issue. But you cannot guarantee that the SAT scores of incoming freshmen will go down, that the class sizes will go up, or that the graduation rates will decrease. Budget cuts can have different effects. As usbalumnus wrote, the budget cuts may be felt greatest in terms of tuition rates and decreases in financial aid for example. The other statistics remain to be seen and are not factual. </p>
<p>Also, you have made statements, pacheight, about grad rates for engineering and science students at Cal (which have been refuted) and SAT scores being lower than at the privates (you gave USC as an example) CURRENTLY and these facts are not correct.</p>
<p>Yudof and the Regents have already announced staff cuts across all departments. they are conducting significant layoffs of profs in all departments. And they’re not back filling the brain drain that’s already going on as the best profs leave for better offers at privates. They’re also whacking benefits from profs which will force more to leave.</p>
<p>fewer profs = more crowded classes and fewer classes = more time to graduation</p>
<p>why is there such defense for a broken, state run, university system? what part of “things are really bad” as quoted by Yudof and the UCLA regent don’t you get? the “really” part or the “bad” part?</p>
<p>apples too apples. And UCLA to USC is a fairly large spread difference on the SAT scores as well, UCLA being significantly lower than USC’s scores</p>
<p>Cal
CR/M/W
700-800 34%/56%/45%
600-699 42%/28%/35%
500-599 18%/13%/16%</p>
<p>Stanford
CR/M/W
700-800 62%/73.3%/69.2
600-699 32.3%/23.9%/26.3%
500-599 5.4%/2.8%/3.9%</p>
<p>I have not been following this thread closely, but the few times I’ve checked in on it, it appears you’re repeatedly beating on California public universities, pacheight. I think most of the readers and posters on CC are probably aware of California’s financial woes. It seems to me you’re impervious to the fact that many people feel private schools are out of their reach financially. What <em>helpful</em> suggestions do you have for California residents that would take that into account?</p>
<p>“grad rates for engineering and science students at Cal (which have been refuted) and SAT scores being lower than at the privates (you gave USC as an example)” </p>
<p>you forgot Econ majors at Cal as well.</p>
<p>sooz this is why I question your college counseling service, if you’re sending kids from Vermont out to California (to spend 50k+ a year) and telling them everything is fine at UCLA and Cal that’s, well, pretty bad of you. I really hope you’re not using College Confidential and one UCLA_dad’s comments about his kid graduating in 4 years as evidence for the state and health of UCLA and Cal</p>
<p>get on the phone and talk to some admin and profs. And talk to current science, engineering and econ students so you know what’s really going on. </p>
<p>SAT scores from 2010 for the two big LA universities.</p>
<p>USC
Test Scores – 25th / 75th Percentile
SAT Critical Reading: 620 / 720
SAT Math: 650 / 750
SAT Writing: 640 / 740</p>
<p>UCLA
Test Scores – 25th / 75th Percentile
SAT Critical Reading: 560 / 680
SAT Math: 590 / 720
SAT Writing: 580 / 700</p>
<p>deborah: people outside of California don’t know what’s going on. can you tell me what the financial health of the pubic schools in Michigan, Virginia or Vermont are??</p>
<p>although very Californian of you to think everyone is interested in us:)</p>
<p>Sorry Pack 8 - Calif schools and the budget in Ca. have been front page news since at least 2008, and I doubt anyone needs to hear it from you. I don’t live in Ca., and I’ve been aware.</p>
<p>actually deborah you surface a really important point, how ethical is it for the Cal and UCLA admissions to now be openly and aggressively recruiting full-pay out of state kids. It was announced last month that Cal and UCLA will increase the number of full-pay out of state kids in order to increase their revenue.</p>
<p>Am I the only one who thinks that’s wrong? </p>
<p>pick your article from hundreds online if you want to read about it, here’s one: </p>
<p>The University of California is looking for out-of-state solutions to its money problems.</p>
<p>Faced with sharp cuts in state funding, the 10-campus system is ramping up its campaign to recruit high-paying students from other states and countries, even as record numbers of California students seek a UC education.</p>
<p>[University</a> of California Seeking Out-Of-State Students](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>
<p>What <em>helpful</em> suggestions do you have for California residents that would take that into account?</p>
<p>sorry, I don’t have any affordable full-pay suggestions for someone from California who wants a high quality four year university education. </p>
<p>my only advice is to know what you’re buying. Most Cal families are figuring 5 years at 30k, in truth it’ll be somewhere around 35k for 5 years. So 175k!</p>
<p>And I agree with where I think you’re coming from, what happened to affordable “public” higher learning in California. at 175k it’s already gone private we just don’t call it that yet.</p>
<p>Rice University snags 3 faculty memebers from UCSD:</p>
<p><a href=“rice university faculty from ucsd[/url] - AOL Search Results”>rice university faculty from ucsd - AOL Search Results;
<p>As a UC alum and a public school teacher, I am incredibly upset about what is happening to public education in California. I am also surprised and shocked to see how many people are choosing to hide their heads in the sand about this issue. Everything is NOT ok at the UCs.</p>
<p>I believe every major public university in the country is actively recruiting full-pay out-of-state students because fiscally they are all more or less in the same boat. And practically every institution in the country, public and private, is chasing international student tuition. Is it ethical? It’s business, big business, billions of dollars… It’s actually very good business for this country to bring in the international dollars; luckily our higher education system is viewed overseas as prestigious and accessible. This is a asset, a bonus for our economy, a wonderful resource that we have that should be exploited. Internationalizing the higher education system is fantastic- it’s good for all parties, bringing much-needed dollars to our country.
As far as USC vs UCB or UCLA, in terms of affordability, USC goes up every year just like the UCs do. Proportionally, a 5% increase at USC is equal to a 15%-20% increase at a UC. My D is at UCLA and it is not costing me anywhere near these numbers people are quoting. Last year was about $20,000, including housing and tuition. Yes, you are right, she will not graduate in 4 years- actually if she weren’t doing study abroad, she could graduate in 3, because she went in with AP credit and has been able to take all her GEs and major classes with room to spare. She went in as a sophomore because of her APs.
I am confident the total figure for her undergraduate education will be under $100,000. She was also accepted at USC, and that would have run us well over $220,000.
In another few years, maybe this will change, but I guarantee you, those privates will be hovering at $70,000 a year by then too. I’m glad she’ll be done by then. I pity my sister whose son is 11. How much will his education cost?</p>
<p>^^good points</p>
<p>although full pay at UCLA is 28k and that’s no frills.</p>
<p>University Fees $ 11,616 $
Room & Board $ 10,236 $
Books & Supplies $ 1,509
Transportation $ 1,401
Personal $ 1,629
Health Insurance $ 1,225
Loan Fees $ 90
Total $ 27,706 </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fao.ucla.edu/publications/2011-2012/UG_&_G_Budgets.pdf[/url]”>http://www.fao.ucla.edu/publications/2011-2012/UG_&_G_Budgets.pdf</a></p>