Xatal » California

March 4th: Strike for Education

Paul — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:00:33 +0000

Earlier in the year, I wrote about protests at the UC campuses due to the huge increase in student costs. Since then, these protests have died down a lot, but they are still ongoing in small ways at various campuses.

However, coming up next Thursday is an event planned at all campuses: a nationwide strike for public education. I know mass protests will be ongoing at the UC and CSU campuses, but these protests are open to all levels of education across the country.

I’m not entirely sure what to expect on March 4th for California campuses, but I am hoping it will be big and will resonate. I expect students to occupy buildings, as they did earlier in the year, and that will inevitably create a lot of tension. I’m expecting some faculty to join in the protests, and many UC/CSU workers. I expect the chancellors to try hard to scale it down and make them look like victims, as usual. All in all, I expect normal university life to be completely disrupted that day.

I’ll do my best to give an overview of what happened the following day (and continues to happen, since if buildings are occupied it will surely last into the next day).

More information about March 4th can be found here.

Readers of this post also liked...

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes shifting California money from prisons to UCs and CSUs

Paul — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:00:10 +0000

Ever since the recent surge of costs for public education in California, there have been precious few signs of relief. Even the protests have died down a lot, and as the new semester/quarter begins, students are being hit with record-high student costs. Many have begun to accept that this is just the way things will have to be.

However, during the protests, one common argument that I heard a lot was that California spends more money on prisons than on higher education. Currently, California spends about 10% of its general fund on prisons and about 6% on the UCs and CSUs.

Luckily, Governor Schwarzenegger announced a proposal that could fix a lot of this: Limit the percentage going towards prisons to a maximum 7%, and set a minimum funding of 10% for the UCs and CSUs.

This shift in funding would begin in 2011-2012 and finish in 2014-2015.

Will this pass?

The first step to this becoming a reality is a legislature vote — 2/3rds of the legislature would have to approve this in order for it to show up on the ballot next fall. Once it’s on the ballot, a majority vote will make it law.

However, California’s legislature is notorious for getting absolutely nothing done. A 2/3rds vote is pretty tough to come by, and so many bills that could and should be passed are turned down. My hopes aren’t too high for the legislature to approve this, but we’ll see.

As for the general public, I believe this proposal would stand a good chance. I think most citizens would agree that more benefit to society can come from better funding to higher education than to prisons, though I’m sure many would question if and how the prison system would manage the cut in funding.

Is this the right solution?

Disregarding California’s current abysmal budget situation, I think this is definitely a step forward. It guarantees the UC/CSU systems a significant amount of money, and helps to secure higher education in the state.

My biggest problem with Schwarzenegger’s proposal is that it allows the UC President (Mark Yudof), UC Regents, and Chancellors an easy way out. Although state funding has caused a lot of the UC’s financial problems, those who run the UC are also to blame for quite a bit of this — raising student costs excessively, prioritizing construction, massive administrative salaries, and all-around forgetting the purpose of public higher education.

Of course, these administrative figures are all in support of this proposal, as it would probably get them off the hook.

What I’d be interested to know is, should this proposal become law further down the road, will the UC system’s student fees drop?

I doubt it.

Readers of this post also liked...

Why the UC protests are justified

Paul — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:45:17 +0000

Things have been a bit slow lately regarding the UC protests, which worries me.

However I did come across this interesting article from Global.org, which puts some nice graphs to the situation to show why students are so upset over the 32% increase.

To summarize, the cut from state funding accounts for only about 3% of the UC’s total budget, which is less than the salaries for the highest paid UC employees.

The article goes on to elaborate on many of the problems of the UC system currently, and why the regents are taking the actions that they have. If you have the time, give it a read — you’ll learn a lot.

Readers of this post also liked...

A resolution to the Kerr Hall occupation at UCSC

Paul — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:59:55 +0000

In light of the protests in California over the increases in higher costs, I’ve been following Occupy CA, a blog that’s had pretty accurate information from the student’s side of things over these protests.

Anywho, Saturday night Occupy CA posted that the Kerr Hall occupation at UCSC would probably end that night — administrators had hinted at police coming before midnight. I walked up to Kerr Hall to try to see, but nothing much happened during the time I was there. About 40 or 50 students were outside singing songs to pass the time (in addition to students occupying the building). Midnight came and went with no sign of police, so eventually I headed inside.

As it would turn out, the police came around 7 or 8 AM and then forced their way through. Students were ultimately allowed to leave peacefully without arrest, but not all went as well as it could:

Early Sunday morning, Chancellor Blumenthal and Provost Kliger turned the campus into an effective police state by stationing riot police at all entrances to refuse entry to everyone. In a blatant attempt to create a media blackout as they prepared for the police attack, even a Santa Cruz Sentinel photographer was refused access to the campus for some time. (They had already cut cruznet service, the campus wifi system, in the Kerr Hall area.)

At one point during the confrontation, students and neutral faculty observers were cornered by riot police on an outdoor balcony. As the police advanced towards the students and faculty, one faculty member fell from the balcony, injuring his back. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The student occupiers are very concerned about the well-being of the faculty member and denounce the administration’s use of force that caused his injury.

The police cleared the entry leading to Kerr Hall by pushing through the outdoor crowd, at times striking students in the chest with their clubs. Upon entering the lobby of Kerr Hall, they issued an ultimatum to students that they could leave peacefully and be arrested one-by-one outside. The students refused this outright. The police backed-off and offered to let the students leave without arrest through a rear entry to Kerr Hall; this offer was accepted immediately by the occupiers, who cleared out of the building at this moment.

Over 75 students have already volunteered to help clean the space in Kerr Hall that was occupied; there are concerns, however, that the University will refuse this offer in order to exaggerate costs associated with the occupation. Source

The Administration’s Response

And, sure enough, the university did decline that help. Instead, Chancellor Blumenthal and Provost Kliger posted pictures of all of the damage, mentioning how long cleanup efforts would inevitably take and hinting that they would cost. Nowhere, however, do they mention that those same students they’re condemning had already volunteered to clean things up.

That same letter also thanks the police for handling the situation oh-so-well, as if the police were the heroes of the day. They also thanked those students who did not participate and wish to work for other solutions through dialogue. What they didn’t mention, of course, was that those efforts have been ignored by the UC administration.

UC Berkeley

UC Berkeley has also had its share of administrators being grateful for police violence. I’m not going to go through that whole story, though you can read about it here.

Readers of this post also liked...

Protests continue at UC campuses against higher costs

Paul — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:00:32 +0000

In light of the 32% increase in UC student fees, protests have erupted on at least four of the UC campuses. While these protests have been peaceful, they haven’t been without incident, and many students have been arrested for occupying buildings.

Personally, I stand for those who protest, and I really hope all of this continues to escalate. Whether or not it will, I cannot say, but I do believe the students and faculty who protest are entirely just. Raising the costs so drastically defeats the purpose public higher education, which is meant to be cheap and accessible. For years, the UC system has been a leveling-ground of sorts, where no matter what financial background you came from, you at least had a shot of becoming something. I believe protests should not only occur on campuses, but also at Sacramento where our state legislature has failed us.

So far, four campuses have running protests on them: UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis, and UC Santa Cruz. Here’s what each campus has been doing:

UC Berkeley

Living true to their famous history, UC Berkeley has taken an active seat in the protests. Cal students took over a lecture hall on campus, and large crowds amassed outside the hall. The protesters inside demanded, amongst other things, that 38 janitors who lost their jobs due to cutbacks be brought back.

Eventually, campus police and local sheriffs entered the building and the students were arrested. Many will be charged with trespassing. Source >

UCLA

The actual meeting of the UC regents to raise fees took place at UCLA, and so massive protests occurred there as well. A ring was formed around the meeting place, and the police had to try to break through to escort the regents to safety. This YouTube video shows the scene well. Two students were tasered by police.

Later, UCLA students also occupied a building on campus. Source >

UC Davis

UC Davis protesters occupied Mrak Hall, an administration building on campus. Students in the building after the closing time of 5 PM were asked repeatedly to leave, and when they refused, riot police came in and arrested 50 of them for trespassing.

Supposedly, campus protesters already have a lawyer. Source >

UC Santa Cruz

Students at UCSC have taken over Kerr Hall, the main administrative building. There, they have held rallies where faculty and students have voiced out about the effects of the raised student fees and the budget cutbacks. Source >

Currently, there have been no arrests, but David Kliger, the head of business affairs here, has clearly hinted that they might be on the way.

There have also been several other gatherings on campus to protest against the increases.

What’s your opinion on this situation and on the protests that have been going on?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Readers of this post also liked...

UC Regents vote to raise UC costs by 32%

Paul — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:25:49 +0000

Hoh boy. I knew this was a likely possibility, but it still hits pretty hard. Today, Mark Yudof and the UC regents have decided to raise student fees by 32% for UC students.

California has been in a pretty big financial crisis due to the recession and other reasons, and the effects have been pretty rough on higher education. Massive cuts have been already made to the UC system, the Cal State (CSU) system, and community colleges statewide. Now, the UC system joins the other two in experiencing giant leaps in costs.

Right now, student fees run about $8,000 for the year — a 32% increase brings that to over $10,000. This, of course, doesn’t include costs of living on campus (or off), which will bring the cost of a year’s schooling to as much as $30,000. Financial aid is given to some, but not to all.

Protests occurred at UCSC and at other campuses as well. Here, both major entrances to campuses were blocked off by students and faculty. Protesters marched up the roads chanting, “Our university!” Tensions and frustration are both pretty high right now.

While I’m not at all surprised that this passed, and while I do understand that higher tuition and/or cutbacks are necessary, I do not feel as if all other options have been exhausted, as they should have been first. To explain this better, here is part of an e-mail I received this morning about the strike and fee increases:

At this very moment the UC Regents are meeting to vote on another proposed student fee increase: now a particularly unbearable 32% over two quarters, last summer 9%. If this increase is approved, the cost of a UC education will have tripled since 2000.

We have been told that such increases are inevitable. We have been told that, like the furloughs, layoffs and cuts to services and departments, this new source of suffering has its cause in the fiscal crisis of the State of California. But one month after declaring an “extreme financial emergency,” and “saving” $170 million by furloughing employees, the University of California chose to take on $1.35 billion in new debt for 70 construction projects. Our fees have been pledged as collateral for these construction bonds. A recent report suggests that some UC administrators are willing to sacrifice affordability to avoid accountability; that they would rather raise fees than receive additional state funding with its requirements of budgetary transparency. The UC administration has made its priorities clear: construction over instruction, buildings over people.

All the while we have been paying more for less. We are paying more for fewer classes, and for classes with larger enrollments. We are paying more for fewer instructors, for closed libraries, for closed department offices, for canceled programs. We are paying more for fewer staff and for staff working longer hours for less pay. We are paying more for a degree it will take us an extra quarter to complete. We are paying more for an institution barricaded against the next generation of high school students, more for an institution which crowds out students of color, which makes those already struggling to get by shoulder the burden of the crisis. What have we received in exchange for these additional fees, if not more faculty or more resources? The answer: more management. In ten years, administrative positions have increased five times faster than the number of faculty. The estimated cost of this excessive bureaucracy is approximately $800 million, enough to pay the fees of over 100,000 students.

The three bolded sections are what hits especially hard. I understand that times are tough and I fully expect it to carry into higher education, but I’m truly disappointed to see that a lot of the same mindsets that got us into the recession are running my university.

Readers of this post also liked...

Which CSUs are the most selective?

Paul — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:00:52 +0000

If you’re debating which CSU(s) to apply to, you’re probably curious how selective each one is. As a whole, CSUs are not as selective as UCs and do not vary as much, however there are still differences that you should know when applying.

In general, most CSUs hover between admitting 60% and 80% of their students, with a few exceptions. San Diego State is technically the most selective CSU, admitting only 31% of applicants, but in reality Cal Poly is more selective — the average Cal Poly student had a higher GPA in high school than the average San Diego State student.

Here are the CSUs, ordered by the percent of applicants admitted. For the more selective schools, I added in typical high school GPAs to give some context to the stat.

San Diego State University (SDSU): 31% (53% above a 3.5 in high school)
California Polytechnic State University: San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly): 34% (57% above a 3.75 in high school)
CSU Long Beach: 42% (38% above a 3.5 in high school)
California Polytechnic State University: Ponoma 53% (56% above a 3.25 in high school)
CSU Fullerton: 60%
CSU Bakersfield: 61%
San Francisco State University (SFSU): 66%
CSU Stanislaus: 66%
San Jose State University (SJSU): 66%
CSU Sacramento: 67%
CSU Fresno: 70%
CSU Monterey Bay: 71%
CSU East Bay: 72%
CSU San Marcos: 73%
California Maritime Academy: 73%
Humboldt State University (HSU): 75%
CSU Northridge: 75%
Sonoma State University (SSU): 76%
CSU Los Angeles: 77%
CSU Chico: 87%
CSU Dominguez Hills: 90%
CSU Channel Islands:: N/A
CSU San Bernardino: N/A

Statistics are provided by CollegeBoard.com. You can view the most selective UCs here.

Readers of this post also liked...

Which UCs are the most selective?

Paul — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:00:03 +0000

If you’re planning on applying to a University of California school (a UC), it’s important to know that there is a big difference between how selective they can be. You may know that a UC is more for you than a CSU, but do you know how widely they range in being selective?

Here’s a quick rundown of about how selective each school was, in terms of how many applicants were accepted and about how well the average applicant did in high school. Schools are sorted by how selective they are. All stats are from CollegeBoard.com:

UC Berkeley (Cal): Admitted 22% of applicants, 98% of which were in the top 1/10th of their high school class, and 91% of which had a high school GPA of 3.75 or higher.
UC Los Angeles (UCLA): Admitted 23% of applicants. 97% were in the top 1/10th of their high school class, and 92% had greater than a 3.75 GPA in high school.
UC San Diego (UCSD): Admitted 42% of applicants. 100% were in the top 1/10th of their high school class, but 80% had a GPA of greater than 3.75.
UC Santa Barbara (UCSB): Admits 49% of applicants. Statistics are not provided on class ranking, but 87% had a high school GPA above 3.5.
UC Irvine (UCI): Also admits 49% of students. 96% are in the top 1/10th in high school, and 96% also had a GPA of above 3.5 in high school (65% above 3.75).
UC Davis (UCD): Admitted 53% of applicants. 96% were in the top 1/10th of their graduating class, and 82% had a high school GPA above 3.5.
UC Santa Cruz (UCSC): Admitted 73% of applicants. 96% were in the top 1/10th, and 77% had a high school GPA above 3.25. 48% were above 3.5.
UC Riverside (UCR): 79% of applicants were admitted. 94% were in the top 10% in high school, and 70% had a GPA above 3.25 (42% above a 3.5).
UC Merced (UCM): 91% of applicants were admitted. No stats about class rank are available, but 92% had a GPA above a 3.0 in high school, and 67% were above a 3.25

Don’t forget to check out the most selective CSUs!

http://xatal.com/california/whats-the-difference-between-a-uc-and-a-csu/

Readers of this post also liked...

Yet another UC fee increase? It could happen.

Paul — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:34:04 +0000

The president of the UC system, Mark Yudof, is proposing an additional increase in the cost of attending a UC — as much as 30% more by next year, in fact.

Fees to attend a UC have already gone up in the last year due to the budget situation in California, and it looks like we could be due for another one.

The UC system has long been known for being affordable, but lately costs of skyrocketed, to the point where it now costs around $27,000 each year.

This is ridiculous, and it just makes college less affordable and possible. Education is crucial, yet if costs keep rising, it becomes less and less feasible. Plus, on top of all this, I constantly hear word that the UC administrators are paid exorbitant salaries, yet they continue to suggest cutting spending and increasing fees.

What do you think?

Readers of this post also liked...

Does UC Santa Cruz give grades?

Paul — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:00:43 +0000

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: After I began to tell family and other adults that I decided to attend UC Santa Cruz, I was suddenly constantly bombarded by the same question, “Does UCSC give grades?” For a while, UC Santa Cruz did not actually give grades. The school earned a reputation in California for this at the time, and now many adults will often wonder if the school has changed it’s grading system.

And yes, the university has.

However, after talking to one of my professors last quarter, I learned a good bit more about the old system, and I definitely think that’s worth learning about as well.

First, let’s talk about how the system is now.

The grading system today

UC Santa Cruz uses a standard A-F and 4.0-based system to receive grades, like most other universities. After the quarter ends, you’ll receive a standard letter grade: B+, C-, A, etc. This is factored into your GPA.

When signing up for classes, you have the option to take a class pass/no-pass. Taking a class pass/no-pass means you have only two outcomes: You pass the class (by earning what would be a D or better) or you fail. Classes taken pass/no-pass don’t count for or against your GPA, making them great for fulfilling general education requirements. However, you shouldn’t take classes for your major pass/no-pass (many majors won’t even allow it). By the time you graduate, no more than 25% of your classes may have been taken pass/no-pass.

After taking a class, you’ll sometimes receive a short evaluation from your professor detailing how you did in the class. These are optional, and how in-depth they are can vary greatly.

The old grading system

From UCSC’s founding in the 1960s until the late 1990s, all classes were taken on a pass/no-pass basis. In addition to simply passing/failing a class, a detailed evaluation was provided for every class, explaining how the student did and his/her strengths and weaknesses in the class.

For example, if you took a math class and passed, your evaluation might explain how well you did on the midterms and the final. If you worked on a project for the class, your project would be briefly explained and evaluated. Every class would come with an evaluation, and the complete evaluations would be shown on your college transcripts.

During this time, UC Santa Cruz sent more students to top graduate schools than any other UC, including UC Berkeley and UCLA. Think about it: for the top students, your college transcript turned into a 30 page letter of recommendation from every professor explaining how awesome you were in each class.

However, on the other side of the coin, UCSC sent fewer students to all other graduate schools than any other UC. Because students didn’t have a GPA to provide with graduate school applications, many graduate schools disregarded the applications and turned the students down.

The written evaluation system encouraged students to try new things. A biology major could take an art class for fun. A literature major could take a physics class. Students could dabble into new areas without worrying about possibly ruining their GPA.

Although I do enjoy having a standard GPA, I think the old system makes a surprising amount of sense in that it provides a more accurate overview of what a student is really like. What do you think?