Cutthroat, laidback school list

drax12
Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:08:49 +0000

USC also does a great service to the city of Los Angeles by taking in a large chunk of community college transfer students every year despite having no obligation to do so.



I have no comprehension of this statement. There are two ideas behind taking cc students: 1) as at UC to integrate teh state’s master plan wrt higher education - the melding of the the three (or two) branches of colleges in CA: cc, csu, UCs, which UCLA follows; 2), to bypass reporting of the increased frosh class by directing some to cc first.

You tell me which USC is following, especially when it takes students only a year removed from high school from some other four year, or cc.

UCLA as we know takes mature students who are ready to step into their majors by their doing GE at cc or some other 4-year.



USC is similar to public universities in many aspects such as with the size of its undergraduate population. This size is attributable to much of the competition at public universities.



No it’s not. There are a handful of large privates with ug > 15,000, BYU, USC, NYU.

None of these u’s are especially noted for compeition.



<<<you just=“” don’t=“” know=“” about=“” the=“” private=“” public=“” school=“” dynamic=“” wrt=“” flunking=“” weeding=“” out.=“” schools=“” aren’t=“” into=“” business=“” of=“” out=“” students,=“” creating=“” ungodly=“” competition=“” as=“” in=“” schools.=“”>></you>

This was true 20 years ago, and it is true, now. The UCs are designed, with its harsh grading and oversubscribed lower division classes, to flunk out a good 20-25% of its students. With an ever-increasing strong group, academically, the flunk-out rate is no doubt less, but that doesn’t mean that there’s not an attempt to eliminate some students, if eating on Telegraph doesn’t accomplish the task first.

And, yes, private schools do what they can to retain their students. Absolutely.



The flunk-out rate is no doubt less now. But the quality of students to Cal and UCLA is undoubtedly higher, despite the terrible leap-frogging taht occurs in the admissions process to both.

The dropout rate for “at risk” students at UCLA and Cal is undoubtedly as high as ever, and too high, probably at 50% or greater, despite the administrations providing of academic services to tutor these students to wade through the curricula.

By the way, at-risk is someone from an underperforming high school (a really bad one), where the student would be top-10%, probably top 4%, but not manifest w grades (or even uw grades) because top-level courses are lacking at his/her hss, and he/she wouldn’t manifest high scores, say, ~ 1600 on a 2400 pt scale.

Holistics guarantees if not mandates that there will be some that are admitted with such stats, as well as UC’s quest for diversity. As publics, UCLA and Cal have duties to accept a portion of these students with large leap-frogging of other much, much more q’ed stats’ students, which I agree to, but the level and quantity, may be a bit much for my taste. This is where community college should come to into play. Especially with colleges having to monitor costs, and it takes more $$ to keep an at-risk student in school.