<p>My d danced. We spent a lot of money on dance lessons, costumes, recital tickets, etc. Did we think she’d dance at ABT or even in videos? No. But she learned discipline, respect, responsibility, was an assistant teacher. That’s all we wanted for her. And as I told people who asked how we could spend so much money and time on dance, “It’s cheaper than rehab.”</p>
<p>She did get a small dance scholarship to one of the schools she turned down. But we sure as heck didn’t bank on it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is that different from a CSU? Sounds exactly like my son’s CSU, except that it sounds like Central Michigan & Michigan State are somewhat more selective & have a better faculty/student ratio than my son’s college. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that’s easy for a middle class family to come up with the $18K, just that the options are about the same. </p>
<p>Also - my son’s experience was that the cost of textbooks was significantly less at the CSU then at a more elite college. Profs tended to be much more cost-conscious in assigning reading. So whether it is factored in or not, the kids at the more elite schools probably do pay more for books.</p>
<p>I commented simply because I have come across this issue again and again on CC: it seems that most states have a set of 2nd-tier 4-year colleges that are less selective and usually less costly than their flagships, but people seem to be unaware of their existence. So a comment gets made comparing the flagship U of Michigan (a highly selective that attracts students from all around the country) with the options available to Californian’s with their community colleges and CSU’s. But the reality is that Michigan has a bunch of CSU-equivalents – as do just about every other state I’ve looked at. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that it is easy for all families to send their kids to CSU’s – but the big expense there really is the cost of LIVING (housing + food), not so much the cost of tuition. Yes, tuition is a big chunk for people to pay over & above that cost of living – but if you have a college with $18K COA, and $12K is room & board, $6K is tuition – obviously the tuition is not the biggest barrier. That’s probably why CSU’s are largely commuter schools. (I don’t know about the colleges in various other states… that would require me to consult a map).</p>
<p>I did not say that Central Michigan State is different from a CSU. You asked, I looked up.
It is indeed the same. My bringing up Michigan had two purposes: 1. to counter the idea that other states have as wide a range of post-high school options as CA; 2. to counter the idea that if residents of other states don’t like their state’s spending priorities, they can either make themselves heard at election time or move. If one lives in Michigan, with its 13.4% unemployment rate, a housing market in crisis and an economy in the toilet, it’s not as easy as that.
CA is justifiably proud of its higher education system; it should not be used as a benchmark for what families across the country can do or have. That was all there was to my point.</p>
<p>Marite, I don’t think you have a clue as to what California state budget issues have done to our state system over the years. The CSU’s and community colleges have been especially hard hit. </p>
<p>(In other words… I get the sense that you are comparing Michigan 2009 with California ~1980)</p>
<p>For those not from the Midwest: The name “State,” as in the Ohio State University, or Michigan State, or Penn State, does not mean that these universities are the equivalent of the schools in the California State University system. They are all Carnegie Class I, AAU institutions. </p>
<p>Back when Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law used to adjust the GPA’s attained at various universities, here are the scores they assigned (higher is better):</p>
<p>University of Michigan 81.5
University of California, Berkeley 78.5
University of Illinois 78.0
UCLA 75.5
Michigan State 75.0
Penn State 74.0
Iowa 73.5
Purdue 73.5
Ohio State 73.0
Minnesota 73.0
UC, Irvine 73.0
Indiana 72.5
Cal State Universities 58.5-69.5, depending on the campus</p>
<p>The score took the extent of grade inflation into account, but it does correlate to some extent with the overall competitiveness of the pre-law student body. HYP were all scored higher, Williams had a very high score (89.0, presumably due to limited grade inflation), and Michigan outscored Stanford.</p>
<p>Central Michigan University is not on Berkeley’s list on the web, which I originally found through CC:
<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm[/url]”>http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm</a></p>
<p>(Berkeley dropped the GPA adjustments about 12 years ago.)</p>
<p>You don’t have a clue as to what I know about different states. I know that CA is in a state of crisis. In fact, I know someone who left CA because Reagan was cutting back on the higher education budget!
All I am trying to say is that CA has a wealth of colleges that most other states do not have. Even if CA higher education, like the rest of CA is in a state of crisis, it still has a large higher education system. I don’t have to look very far: my own state is very ill-equipped with public higher education.
I really don’t see the point of all this argumentation. It started out as a discussion of USC vs. CSLB. Any number of posters suggested that this was not the only choice available to the OP as a CA resident. Am I to understand that the CA higher education system has melted away since the thread began?</p>
<p>QuantMech:</p>
<p>thanks for posting this info. I was thinking of UMich as being in the same category as Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD and some of the other UCs. I don’t know how Central Michigan State or UMich-Dearborn (COA around $18k) would compare to a Cal State.
Anyway, what is more important is how much of a public higher education network exists in different states.</p>
<p>
Statistically, Central Michigan comes off as somewhat better than the CSU my son attended (more selective, students have a higher average high school GPA). </p>
<p>To QuantMech: I wasn’t making any assumptions about the naming conventions. I was referring to actual colleges. I’m just saying that most states seem to have different tiers of 4 year colleges. So for example, while there is indeed an “Ohio State University” but no “University of Ohio” – an Ohio resident might also consider the University of Akron or Central State University. It seems that there are a lot of public colleges that simply are off the CC radar. It takes 1 minute of Googling to find these schools – all you have to do is enter “[statename] public university” and you’ll come up with a list.</p>
<p>Great topic!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, and true that the mere volume or percentage of public institutions to privates (and to population) varies widely by state – regardless of the quality, even.</p>
<p>I would not say “melted away” (in CA). I would use the same word the State uses: “impacted.” Not a new word: they’ve been saying it for several years, esp. with regard to particular departments/majors on particular campuses. But this year (fall) that impact will reach a new level, as (correct me if I’m wrong, calmom) some CSU’s will not be increasing capacity to accommodate qualified students; I believe that’s a First. So you could theoretically be qualified yet rejected, for a CSU. I have not heard how this is affecting community colleges (which you well note is a transfer avenue to UC).</p>
<p>For several admissions cycles certain popular majors (such as bioengineering) have been impacted at certain sites. You may have a 3.7UW but be rejected because it’s “impacted.”</p>
<p>With the coming new (ill-advised i.m.o; calmom & I disagree over this, I think) UC-wide admission standards, it will become much tougher to predict one’s chances of admission to a UC campus. Because of echo boom population alone (aside from budget), admissions at the mid-level UC’s have been brutal for the last 2 admission cycles (this year’s plus last year’s).</p>
<p>Combinations of population, economic factors putting more pressure on publics as opposed to privates, changes in admission, and repeated CA budget crises – these do all have an affect on how much a typical CA high schooler can take for granted as a college option.
:)</p>
<p>It has become increasingly more difficult to get into the more desirable Cal State schools. Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, San Diego State and Long Beach State each had close to 66,000 applicants this year. So though a student may technically qualify for entry based on the combined numbers of ACT or SAT scores and GPA, the reality is that getting into the Cal States for an average (low B high C) student, which used to be fairly easy, has become nearly impossible. It is because the Cal States and UC’s are so affordable that these schools have become so desirable. So yes, there is large state university system, but it is becoming, more and more, and elite group that can gain entry to the top state schools - much to the frustration of the average California high school student. Where is an average student supposed to go to college? I realize that on College Confidential this is not a big concern, but for students like my son it is a huge problem - community college becomes the only alternative for many, especially if they don’t want to pay for a private or out-of-state education.</p>
<p>elizabethh, this may be a possible solution for CA. I would very much welcome this as an educator. Perhaps you would, too:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/708006-universities-getting-heartburn-community-colleges-begin-bachelors-program.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/708006-universities-getting-heartburn-community-colleges-begin-bachelors-program.html</a></p>
<p>In fact, a 3-part system would work: 2-year vocational, 2-year academic with transfer possibility, 4-year B.A.</p>
<p>If this is the case and I were an in-state California parent I would certainly be speaking with my assemblyperson about the % of out of country/out of state students attending in-state institutions.</p>
<p>roby:</p>
<p>No luck going that route. Public universities are eyeing OOS students to make up their budgetary short-fall. That, in fact, is what UMich is doing, and also, I believe, the UCs. Berkeley, for an OOS student, is nearly as expensive as HYPS.</p>
<p>Now, for a sense of the unreal:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Students</a> downsize college dreams - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/05/04/students_downsize_college_dreams/]Students”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/05/04/students_downsize_college_dreams/)</p>
<p>Now what is wrong with UMd? What are her parents thinking of, going into debt to the tune of $160k before interest and tuition increases when their financial situation is precarious at best?</p>
<p>
Her parents are thinking “our precious daughter deserves the absolute best even though we can’t afford it and even though it will put her in debt for years and years to come.”</p>
<p>I think it is a crime that some of those parents are so uneducated about finance. There are kids at my daughter’s school who will graduate with over 200+ loans. I think sometimes parents like to brag to their friends about where their kids go to school, not necessary for the benefit of their kids.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>How is this in the best interests of the child?</p>
<p>I think it is a crime that the banks ALLOW these kids to go into this type of debt. The truth is that the banks take no risk in these loans, charge outrageous interest rates and undisclosed fees, and basically create a system of indentured servitude. Lending is a business and the lenders know full well that these kids are taking on a type of debt that will imprison them for years, but they have no downside, since it is not possible to get out of paying these loans, since no bankruptcy forgiveness even exists…It is shortsighted on the part of the banks, as well, as they are essentially eliminating the future consumer class from our culture. It is unethical on the part of the colleges, as well, whose mission is to educate. Educate. Explain the loans, explain the implications of the loans. Say, “I’m sorry, but you actually can’t afford our school.” Be honest.</p>
<p>The other crime is that politicians, bought and paid for, voted for the 2005 Bankruptcy Act which extended the inability to shed private loans in BK, and made BK filings more difficult. Its not shortsighted on the part of the banks – they know they kids will have 40 years to pay. It is outrageous on the part of colleges to allow any private loan companies access to campus, students, emails, etc.</p>
<p>Well, yes, allowing any of these institutions access to student information is absolutely outrageous. But, the banks are being short-sighted, in the same way strip-mining is short-sighted and clear-cutting is short-sighted, and anything that pillages a resource for an immediate profit but does not steward that resource well, eventually destroys the resource. Putting children in life-long debt really does decrease thier long-term ability to contribute the the GDP. I mean, forget the actual ethics of this, it just doesn’t make long-term business sense.</p>