Which state do you think has the best public university system?

The issue at hand was AA at California public universities. Whether you meant to or not, you implied that alternative options (in your case UT scholarship or getting paid to go to UH) was just as good as the first option.

You mentioned hardworking white or asian students aren't going to get denied college education, except the issue at hand wasn't discussing whether or not they can get college education at any XYZ college. I'm pretty sure a community college in Alaska is considered "getting into college" as well. It was about whether skin color should be a determining factor in admissions to a public institution.

You attempted to strengthen your argument in a couple ways.

1) Anecdotal "evidence" that you had other options, implied as equal or similar, (atleast in your eyes). Since this was in response to:

Intuitively, if significant material differences exist, those are justifiable grounds for people directly affected by this (whether it be the asian/white kids themselves or their parents) to be upset. Since I know that wasn't the purpose of your example, I will assume you were implying the alternatives were equal or similar, or atleast "similar enough".

2) The diversity argument. The benefits of diversity and "cultural" learning on campus

First, even if true, neither addresses nor validates the original issue at hand using skin color as a determinant of admissions. They are in fact, irrelevant to the core issue and empty distractions. Not to mention, they're aspects which values are extremely subjective to each individual, by the way.

In any case, the reason it was brought up here was to address your first claim. I'll play by your rules and let's assume "equal or similar" alternatives are logical justifications for accepting AA. The point of the matter is, even in your case, UC Berkeley admissions ≈ Tuition scholarship at UT ≈ Paid to attend UH, is extremely misguided and subjective (probably not true for most CA residents anyway).

A full tuition at UT is a great deal, but a California resident moving to Texas would no longer have the option to live at home (if costs were a concern), which negates your financial incentive as the trade off for going to a "lesser school". As you can see, in-state tuition at Cal is only around 12k, an amount that doesn't even scratch the surface of living expenses.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=8783487&postcount=103

 

California might have highly-ranked universities, but as far as the teaching aspect goes, they're still lacking. I can't comment on them relative to other states though.

 

Can you expand on this? Because saying they lack in a teaching aspect is pretty vague.

 

After California I'd say Virginia. Only state other than CA to have three ranked in the Top 25 public schools. And serves a population about 20% the size of California.

 

Yeah, I did, because I went to a Texas school. ;-)-

 

then you're not really a coog. It's the trademark chant- get on board.

 

Except if you read my quote from below you will also note that I said I probably had many other opportunities to go to other private colleges too. I am a Cal grad and love my alma mater but at the same time I would also put the education I could've gotten at Stanford or Rice up there. I didn't apply to those but chances are as an out of state student getting into Cal I probably could've gotten in to those too.

The argument that keeps on coming up is that Asians are somehow being denied going to college when they are not. As I said before people don't always get their first choice of college for a variety of reasons. The question though in for a diverse society is it good that continued inequality of upbringing and opportunity stack the deck against those who don't have that opportunity?

I am not going to lie. I had a privileged upbringing. I grew up in an upper middle class with parents who both emphasized academics but also had the money to pay for tutors. I also went to a school that was relatively well off resource wise (at the time unfortunately it has been sliding ever since). While yes I worked my butt off because of where I lived and the income of my family I had opportunities that someone who grew up in the Salinas, CA probably doesn't. As it happened I beat the odds as an Asian getting into CAL in the late 80's from out of state. That said if I didn't I still would've had lots of opportunity to get a good education. Someone who grew up poor in the Salinas likely wouldn't. I know that because I went to school with some people like that.

Those criticizing AA like to claim it isn't fair but then again how fair is it for a student whose parents can't afford tutors and are stuck going to underfunded schools?

For me I had several opportunities to get into very good schools. For my friend from Salinas going to CAL because AA or the 10% rule or whatever might be his only shot.

It is more than that. A public school is meant to serve the public. For an institution like UC it is supposed to serve all of California and not just the elite. This is a deeper problem that education is only one part of and that is whether state institutions should either address economic and social disparities or should they exacerbate them. Endemic poverty whether in the Salinas Valley, Rio Grande Valley, Iron Range or etc. is not a god thing for a state. It ends up being a drag on the resources of the state. Education is one of the best ways of lifting people out of poverty but in a system where local schools are funded by property taxes local education is always going to be unequal. The state university is one way of addressing that. I agree it is a blunt way of addressing it but still provides a way for the state to address that.

And again you glossed over the part where I said I could've also gotten into a very good private school too but if you are talking about cost and we are talking about CA residents your argument is actually more of an argument for CA AA. The median income of Cupertino is more than $160,000, the median income of Salinas is just slighting over $45,000. If we are talking about cost and the duty of CAL to serve the whole of California then it is far more fairer to make opportunities available for poor Hispanics in Salinas than to well off Asians in Cupertino.

 

What about the Asians in Salinas? What about the Asian kid who can't afford to go to UT even with the tuition scholarship? Assuming equal qualifications, why should the wealthy black kid from Cupertino get in just because of race? I still haven't heard one sound argument why skin color should be a determinant of admissions?

 

Let's move back on topic shall we? There's another thread in the D&D to post about Affirmative Action....


Public or not, California is the best uni system in the world behind the Ivy Leagues.

Probably a big reason to move to California to avoid the insane oos tuition cost.

I went to one of the mediocre-tier UC, Riverside, and I felt like I got as much as I put in. Riverside is slowly rising the national ranks too.

I can't guarantee the same if I went to a different mid-tier uni from a different state.

If you go by flagships alone, there's a lot of state colleges high up there such as Chicago or UT. I was limited by my options in state to reduce tuition costs. If I couldn't make UT for whatever reasons, I guess UTD would be fine but Brownsville or UTEP?

 

I don't think schools like Berkeley, UVA or William & Mary are held to the same enrollment quotas or curriculum constraints as other public schools in their states or flagship schools; I suspect they have the same autonomy and exclusivity as private schools and should be "ranked" accordingly. I would sooner look at places like UNC, Michigan or Ohio State that enroll in large enough numbers to "educate the masses" but can still maintain above-average academic standards and have a full array of accredited PhD and top grad schools. I think their are some midwestern states like Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ohio that have good flagships and a large number of local, accredited commuter schools in proportion to the state population.

 

If you look in or near large cities in Texas you'll see public schools that have AASCB and ABET accredited business and engineering schools as well as medical and law schools. They don't have the national profile or out of state immigration of UT, but their location and resulting size and alumni network make them reasonable options and pipelines for nearby professional employment.

 

^If you include statewide rather than the systems, the Cal State colleges provide good networking and instruction too.

 

Not disputing Cali's or SUNY's primacy, just rebutting the depiction of Texas's system as simply UT Austin and then a bunch of UT Brownsvilles.

 

I vote California, but Texas is up there among the best systems.

 

I actually agree with you which is I am for something like the 10% solution rather than race based AA. Criticism though of AA frequently criticize both race based and things like the 10% solution (regional based AA).

I'm going to add one other thought. The whole concept of state universities is actually regional based AA to begin with. Why should UC give preference to Californians instead of just accepting the best students no matter where they come from? UC was founded to serve the state of California because the state understood there was an interest to provide for the education of all California and not just rely upon private institutions and/or institutions out side of the state.

 

Texas is probably middle of the pack. There's a pretty big discrepancy from being near the top and middle of the pack though.

 

It's worth noting that a lot of states don't invest in multiple state university systems, let alone one full one. If they're agrarian and/or tax averse, you might see only one or two law or medical schools in the whole state, concentrated in the capital or largest city.

 

...and totally unoriginal, like most stuff at UH...