(06-10-2017 12:18 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-10-2017 12:07 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Want to know why the California system is increasingly hoovering high-tuition out of state students? Look no further than Cal's stadium renovation financial mismanagement:

"The school was going to take on a bonded debt of $445 million for the $474 million project, hoping to pay it back by selling 50-year rights to season tickets for hundreds of thousands of dollars. ... By June 2011, only 49 of the 3,000 long-term seats had been sold.

Cal tried to pivot away from the seat selling plan by 2013, but by that point, a gaping budget shortfall was staring them in the face, and that was just from paying off the debt.

The Bears now owe at least $18 million per year in interest-only payments on the stadium debt. Payments will increase to $37 million per year in 2039 ... Berkeley will owe $81 million in 2053."

http://deadspin.com/cal-is-******-becaus...1795896858

Maybe it's time to get those conditions changed and let the Raiders move in...too late...

Berkeley and the Raiders don't mix, as a decade long court case illustrated.
http://berkeleycitizensaction.org/?page_id=426

(06-10-2017 12:44 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  C2,

UC Davis problem is 100% politic. It is the self contained and insular nature of the regent system. UC is not responding to the needs of the State, and instead is focused on the internal politics. A big part of that s the pecking order where UCLA and Cal have to be the largest campuses to maintain flagship status. This is an inside the regents issue, not one the average Californian cares about. Weak leadership at UC Davis is as a result by design.

I think this is an example of where lack of oversight and control by the legislature has retarded the development of the UC system, and in particular UC Davis, in favor of regents office politics. That is just insane.

Yes, the UC's have put their own desire to be the public Ivie's over the needs of the people of California. Kids who are very good students but want a major college experience are forced to go out of state and pay out of state tuition. Those that can't afford it settle for the Fresno's and SDSU's of the state.

Such behavior is not unnoticed.

(06-10-2017 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 11:41 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Unless the Pac-12 fixes it California problem it will continue to grow increasingly irrelevant in the world of major college sports.

You mean by inviting ... Fresno State?

The PAC has no "California Problem". It has four California schools, all of them highly regarded athletically and academically, and located in Los Angeles and San Francisco. California is by almost every measure one of the most economically successful parts of the globe, and the PAC has zero competition in it.

It's one reason the PAC is always in good position, always relevant.

I'm not advocating any solution and relative to the other majors the PAC-12 has a cable carriage problem, an attendance problem and a major sports competition problem not having won a football or basketball national title in the 2000's.

Just some data points....
Fewer fans turned out for the Pac-12’s title game (2014 data) than did any of the four power-five conference championships: 14,611 fewer than the Big Ten game, 19,190 fewer than the ACC and 27,908 fewer than the SEC.

KHTK based in Sacramento but with power to extend to the Bay Area talks Niners, Raiders, Giants, A's. But you never hear a single word about the PAC-12. They have as much relevance as the SEC.

Sacramento is a big sports town maybe 90 minutes from Cal. All you see in the paper is pro and high school. College is missing. One editor came in talking about ramping up the coverage but that soon fizzled.

All this has occurred with zero competition in LA from Pro Football. That situation has now changed.

(06-10-2017 12:56 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 11:56 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  If we want the same kind of student that got into UCLA or Cal in the 1980's wouldn't the logical move be to add more UC campuses, not CSU schools?

To the system or the PAC-12. If you are talking the system I would say no. We have too much overhead already. I would let the UC continue with its exclusive model but loosen restrictions on a number of Cal States and allow them to grow significantly in size.

I meant to the Pac-12. I'm not familiar enough with the Merced experiment and how well it's going to know if adding yet more campuses to the UC system would be a good idea. I know the folks in Redding really wanted a campus, but their proposed STEM job focused campus sounds more like they want a Cal Poly clone than a full-fledged research university.

Nevertheless UC President Napolitano confirmed that no Redding plans are on the horizon.

http://www.redding.com/story/news/educat.../93714172/

As far as some of the initial statistics in the OP, I'm not sure it's fair to cite the number of resident undergraduates for UCLA and UC Berkeley. Both schools have sizable undergraduate populations living in private apartments located walking distance from campus. They may not replicate the exact residential experience of some schools, but it's close enough to not matter. So it's a lot more accurate to cite each school's 30,000 undergraduates.

Anyway, to circle back to the Pac-12, if it was up to me I might replace two or three existing members with additional UC campuses (if they somehow all magically already had football) before expanding geographically. That way the pie wouldn't be cut any more ways, the location of the schools would more accurately reflect where the pool of students and athletes actually are, and the tribal forces of nearby rivalries that largely appear absent for many Californians might be awakened.

Is someone living near Sacramento, maybe with UC Davis ties, likely to be an avid Pac-12 fan should the Aggies be added if they are currently not a Cal fan? How about an Anteater already living in the LA metro but that doesn't care about UCLA? I'm not sure how big that sleeping giant is, but it'd be neat to find out.

(06-09-2017 11:41 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  In most states the P-5 representative is part of the largest school system in the state and/or and or is often the largest university in the state. Neither of these statements is true in California.

The Cal State System has total full time undergraduate residents of 349,088 The Cal State System is the largest University system in the country and has no P5 representation

The UC System has total undergraduate residents of 175,492. Cal has 22,158 Resident students, UCLA has 23,834 Resident students. 5 Cal State Schools have larger resident undergraduate enrollments than either of the Pac-12 UC schools. ( Cal and UCLA have a relatively small percentage of CA residents enrolled:~ 75 percent)

* If Cal were in the SEC only Mississippi St and Vanderbilt appear to have smaller enrollments

* If Cal were in the Big 10 only Nebraska and Northwestern appear to have smaller enrollments

* Even in the Pac, Stanford and USC are the lowest enrollment then Cal and UCLA appear to be the lowest with Oregon State.

While you can make an argument about density in many states. A large density argument can be made in in CA. With a population of 23.67 million in 1980, CA residents could get into the Pac-12 schools. Now with a 39.2 million population level and an international admission rate that has risen from 2% to 12%, Pac-12 schools have chosen to increase their exclusivity instead of their enrollment.

On Cal

Before 1960, 15 percent of California's high school graduates were eligible to attend the school, and until 1964, the school admitted anyone who met its requirements.

By the early 80s, the school was denying nearly half of its applicants, and by the end of that decade, it was denying almost two thirds of those who applied.

In 2016 the admit rate of the University of California was 17.5% and many of those were out of state students.

This declining ability to get into the Pac-12 UC's is not unnoticed by California residents and impacts the support of the school and the Pac-12 conference by California residents. Even graduates of the UC's whose kids are forced to go elsewhere see declining interest. Unless the Pac-12 fixes it California problem it will continue to grow increasingly irrelevant in the world of major college sports.

This is a bit of an issue everywhere as the state flagship(s) get more selective and more people go to "commuter" schools. A smaller proportion of the college population will go to these schools.

(06-10-2017 01:11 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-10-2017 12:17 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  For the record, I am not advocating any CSU be in the Pac. But I do see a 50,000 student UC Davis in there at some point in the future.

That will be a big jump from the Big Sky to the PAC.

"Eventually" ... as in after the school expands to 50,000 undergrads, not the current 22,000. That would more than double the student intercollegiate athletic fee. Expanding the campus size would give Davis an Athletic budget of around $65M in today's money before considering other revenue increass; P5 level by any measure. (Note, you can't expand overnight) we are talking 12-15 years out.

Athletic power will rise to the financial level of the program.

Sactowndog,

SJSU would be one of the campuses I'd upgrade.

You want to add seats, whereas my approach s to change the nature of the seats at Fresno State, San Jose State, and a few others (San Diego State is already halfway there). SJSU has the mostly empty south campus, and is surrounded by something of a low cost slum wheer you can expand.

But mostly I am talking about building residential units. I think 35,000 students is fine, just I'd make them from all over the state and not just local, with higher standards. The funding locally is available from industry to make it a much larger version of Cal Poly. It would be the premier Engineering school, given its location and private funding. There are plenty of other campuses (Cal State East Bay, SF State) to absorb local students. If need be a community college can be converted to a CSU (e.g., Mission College or Foothill college ... the latter maybe a better choice).

The schools with the foundation and support, besides Cal Poly and SDSU are Fresno State, San Jose State, Long Beach and Chico. Those are the schools I'd push into R2, higher admission standard and residential students.

UCSD is planning to grow enrollment to 40,000 by 2020. Recognize that Torrey Pines and La Jolla are fighting some of the growth, but it will be significant.

There's not a single UC school not already in the conference that is close to being a Pac school. Maybe Davis at some point and maybe UCSD if they ever got serious about athletics but otherwise it's not gonna happen. Maybe if a fire is lit under them, Irvine could get in but that's about it.

I think the problem is with California's and the Cal. State system schools can't get along with each other. They are the only systems that the Universities and the States have never been in the same conference at the same time. Look at Washington, Oregon, Arizona and Colorado? They all had Washington/Washington State, Oregon/Oregon State, Arizona/Arizona State and Colorado/Colorado State all have been in the same conference at one point. Even Idaho and Idaho State and Montana and Montana State. San Diego State is up there in academics that could be almost equals to some of the PAC 12 schools.

(06-09-2017 11:41 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  This declining ability to get into the Pac-12 UC's is not unnoticed by California residents and impacts the support of the school and the Pac-12 conference by California residents. Even graduates of the UC's whose kids are forced to go elsewhere see declining interest. Unless the Pac-12 fixes it California problem it will continue to grow increasingly irrelevant in the world of major college sports.

This would be news to the PAC-12 schools in California. They would counter with the following:

Most NCAA D1 Championships:
1) UCLA 113 (one was taken away due to an infraction)
2) Stanford 113
3) USC 104
4)Oklahoma State 51

UCLA had the most applicants of any four year university in the country last year. Stanford was rated #1 in the country in Forbes Best Colleges List. In 2016, a Cal QB was the first pick taken in the NFL draft and a basketball player was the 3rd pick in the 2016 NBA draft.

UC schools are highly competitive, but that those not mean that local support for the California PAC-12 schools is falling. I think kids in Southern California grow up being either a UCLA or USC fan and I don't see that changing in the future. I don't see any effect on California PAC-12 schools.

It would seem that the solution to California's university problem is that rather than creating new UC's they need to simply adds residence halls and raise the academic profile of a half dozen Cal St campuses.

could UC San Diego and San Diego St merge into one UC school with two campuses?

San Jose St and Fresno St would be good targets as well.

I'd also recommend Cal Poly and another school in the greater Los Angeles area.

It seems terribly unfair for California tax payers to be funding elite institutions at are out of reach for all but the brightest instate graduates while most residents have to settle for a Cal St system that is third rate or seeking other options out of state.

Why on God's green earth would UC-San Diego merge with SDSU or vice versa? You might as well ask if Texas State should merge with UT-Austin or UTSA, or Houston with Rice. Same city but two different types of schools and both with their own identity.

As was suggested, just loosen the restrictions for a few of the CSU campuses and raise their enrollment.

(06-10-2017 12:03 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2017 12:56 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 11:56 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  If we want the same kind of student that got into UCLA or Cal in the 1980's wouldn't the logical move be to add more UC campuses, not CSU schools?

To the system or the PAC-12. If you are talking the system I would say no. We have too much overhead already. I would let the UC continue with its exclusive model but loosen restrictions on a number of Cal States and allow them to grow significantly in size.

I meant to the Pac-12. I'm not familiar enough with the Merced experiment and how well it's going to know if adding yet more campuses to the UC system would be a good idea. I know the folks in Redding really wanted a campus, but their proposed STEM job focused campus sounds more like they want a Cal Poly clone than a full-fledged research university.

Nevertheless UC President Napolitano confirmed that no Redding plans are on the horizon.

http://www.redding.com/story/news/educat.../93714172/

As far as some of the initial statistics in the OP, I'm not sure it's fair to cite the number of resident undergraduates for UCLA and UC Berkeley. Both schools have sizable undergraduate populations living in private apartments located walking distance from campus. They may not replicate the exact residential experience of some schools, but it's close enough to not matter. So it's a lot more accurate to cite each school's 30,000 undergraduates.

Anyway, to circle back to the Pac-12, if it was up to me I might replace two or three existing members with additional UC campuses (if they somehow all magically already had football) before expanding geographically. That way the pie wouldn't be cut any more ways, the location of the schools would more accurately reflect where the pool of students and athletes actually are, and the tribal forces of nearby rivalries that largely appear absent for many Californians might be awakened.

Is someone living near Sacramento, maybe with UC Davis ties, likely to be an avid Pac-12 fan should the Aggies be added if they are currently not a Cal fan? How about an, Anteater already living in the LA metro but that doesn't care about UCLA? I'm not sure how big that sleeping giant is, but it'd be neat to find out.

The resident distinction is CA residents not living off Campus. The PAC-12 UC's have a high percentage of out of state/international students. Only 73% of Cal's enrolled undergraduates are CA residents. 12% are foreign students with a large percentage of those Chinese. Not exactly football fan material.

If you added the Aggies would football interest rise exponentially is Sac? Sure. But are you going to take a D1a school.

I think the Valley in general is very midwestern sports centric. My hometown is a little bit of Texas where the entire town comes out for the football game. The coach has a coaches club where people pay good money to have dinner with the coach and hear his pregame analysis. But the PAC-12 is irrelevant to them because it's away in the city, tied to the liberal elite, and definitely middle class where more kids went to the military (academies and others) than PAC-12 schools. The PAC-12 captures very little of their interest. What is captured is brief when a local kid like Browning plays for a team.

(06-10-2017 01:12 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Sactowndog,

SJSU would be one of the campuses I'd upgrade.

You want to add seats, whereas my approach s to change the nature of the seats at Fresno State, San Jose State, and a few others (San Diego State is already halfway there). SJSU has the mostly empty south campus, and is surrounded by something of a low cost slum wheer you can expand.

But mostly I am talking about building residential units. I think 35,000 students is fine, just I'd make them from all over the state and not just local, with higher standards. The funding locally is available from industry to make it a much larger version of Cal Poly. It would be the premier Engineering school, given its location and private funding. There are plenty of other campuses (Cal State East Bay, SF State) to absorb local students. If need be a community college can be converted to a CSU (e.g., Mission College or Foothill college ... the latter maybe a better choice).

The schools with the foundation and support, besides Cal Poly and SDSU are Fresno State, San Jose State, Long Beach and Chico. Those are the schools I'd push into R2, higher admission standard and residential students.

Yeah I hear you. My concern outside of football is how to you spread the wealth and population centered in the coastal cities to other parts of the state. Chico and Fresno help in that regard. Long Beach, SDSU and SJSU less so. But I agree they are more ready. I would also like to see major college sports accessible to a reasonable portion of CA students. It's just not today. Long Beach, Chico State and probably Poly have too far to go in that regard.

(06-10-2017 10:04 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  I'm not advocating any solution and relative to the other majors the PAC-12 has a cable carriage problem, an attendance problem and a major sports competition problem not having won a football or basketball national title in the 2000's.

Just some data points....
Fewer fans turned out for the Pac-12’s title game (2014 data) than did any of the four power-five conference championships: 14,611 fewer than the Big Ten game, 19,190 fewer than the ACC and 27,908 fewer than the SEC.

KHTK based in Sacramento but with power to extend to the Bay Area talks Niners, Raiders, Giants, A's. But you never hear a single word about the PAC-12. They have as much relevance as the SEC.

Sacramento is a big sports town maybe 90 minutes from Cal. All you see in the paper is pro and high school. College is missing. One editor came in talking about ramping up the coverage but that soon fizzled.

All this has occurred with zero competition in LA from Pro Football. That situation has now changed.

Yup. In the sports world Sac is a Bay Area suburb. Add on Kings and Golden State (now that they are winning) and there is little coverage of college sports on the airwaves. When Sac gets an MLS team, they will probably work their way into the sports talk rotation as well.

(06-10-2017 02:54 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 11:41 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  This declining ability to get into the Pac-12 UC's is not unnoticed by California residents and impacts the support of the school and the Pac-12 conference by California residents. Even graduates of the UC's whose kids are forced to go elsewhere see declining interest. Unless the Pac-12 fixes it California problem it will continue to grow increasingly irrelevant in the world of major college sports.

This would be news to the PAC-12 schools in California. They would counter with the following:

Most NCAA D1 Championships:
1) UCLA 113 (one was taken away due to an infraction)
2) Stanford 113
3) USC 104
4)Oklahoma State 51

UCLA had the most applicants of any four year university in the country last year. Stanford was rated #1 in the country in Forbes Best Colleges List. In 2016, a Cal QB was the first pick taken in the NFL draft and a basketball player was the 3rd pick in the 2016 NBA draft.

UC schools are highly competitive, but that those not mean that local support for the California PAC-12 schools is falling. I think kids in Southern California grow up being either a UCLA or USC fan and I don't see that changing in the future. I don't see any effect on California PAC-12 schools.

How many of those championships are for sports like Water Polo or Men's Volleyball which the PAC wins every year? The PAC doesn't have one football or basketball championship in the 2000's. USC vacated their one win.

USC and UCLA have been the Pro team in LA for years. That fact is changing. Look how many top recruits in CA go to Cal.
CA 4 and 5 star recruits
USC 9
Oregon 8
UCLA 7
Washington 5
Nebraska 3
Washington State 2
Utah 2
Marshall 2
Cal, Arizona, Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, Notre Dame, Miami all with 1 each.

18 recruits in State CA PAC-12
27 recruits to out of state schools.

Show me another state where in state P5 schools get less than 40% of in state top recruits.

Come on, you can't change history. It's not like USC used a bunch of guys off the street or a bunch of players with bad grades or expired eligibility. They won that national title. The Pac is not racking up titles in major sports but they've fallen just short multiple times in football to speak nothing of the vacated title. Oregon and USC have turned heads since 2000 and UCLA went to 3 straight Final Fours. Arizona nearly won it all in 2001.

This not to mention sports few people care about. The Pac is doing just fine in the world of college sports.

I am no sure where the OP is getting their "student numbers" from, but they seem suspect

also it really does not matter if a student is from in state or out of state if they support sports and same with if they ever live on campus or not

many schools that have a large sports fan following have a large out of state enrollment and large out of state student populations and many schools of them do not necessarily have a ton of their students living on campus while they are there

you are not a "commuter school" if a large % of your population moves 100 miles or more away from home and never lives on campus or only lives on campus 1 year of their 4 or 5 years in school while they still live in easy walking or driving distance to school

you are a commuter school if a very large % of your population goes back every night to the same bed they were sleeping in for high school or if they drive 45 minutes to an hour away from school after classes every day and do not even think of showing up on campus when they are not there for classes or some major project

and you are not going to tear down housing for the "poor" and "working class" in San Jose so that "the privileged" can have more slots at another new "elitist" university so while SJSU should probably get better funding and an expanded mission just like Fresno, SDSU and probably Long Beach State and Cal Poly that will not be happening

also when you talk about expanding the enrollment of a university you cannot just ignore graduate enrollments especially at universities that have a large graduate enrollment and that are designed for graduate education like the UC schools

graduate students and their lab needs are going to be much greater than undergrads and their classroom needs can be greater as well in some cases so you cannot just pretend there is tons of new room to expand a university because of their undergrad enrollment and even more so in places like California where they are loath to knock down garbage or move a pretty painted dumpster or build over a dirt lot filled with junkies for more higher ed space

UC Riverside has room for growth, but at this point I doubt some of the last citrus groves in the area that the university owns will ever be torn out and built over and I don't think the people in Davis are looking forward to anyone thinking that it would be a good idea to have 50,000 students at UC Davis (It wouldn't that would hurt the reputation and the quality of the university severely)

and the same in SLO no one there is interested in the massive expansion of the university even if there was some room

the only places that would accept any growth in California are in the central valley and there is UC Merced there now

it probably would be smarter to bump up schools like Fresno where they wanted to be bumped up instead of having Merced built and if it was not California to bump up Long Beach State, SJSU, Cal Ploy and SDSU as well

but with only 1 of those 5 schools in a place that would accept large expansion and more students it will never be politically possible for Fresno to get bumped up while the other 4 CSU schools do not and it will never be politically possible to bump up a majority of those schools because of growth issues so none of them will be bumped up

also it is not as easy to elevate the stature of a school from a masters level school to a doctoral level high research university especially with entrenched tenure and faculty unions in place

there are way to many worthless old tenured **** bags sitting around set in their ways and incapable of and or unwilling to change and you can't get rid of them

it is not possible with faculty unions to have a two tiered pay scale for new research intensive faculty Vs those that are tenured and are not going to conduct research if ask and without that added pay it would be hard to attract new research intensive faculty in areas of demand to a dusty central valley school or to high cost of living areas even with "quality of life"

the rate of change would be glacial and even then it might have some "contraction" like glacier before it pushes slowly forward

that is because the only real weapon you have against all of those old tenured pieces of lazy **** is to have them teach larger classes with fewer TAs to help while the newer research focused professors with more difficult tenure requirements teach smaller classes and conduct research

you are not simply going to get a faculty body that is doing say $10,000 per year on average in research per faculty member to crank that up to $50,000 per faculty member in short order especially when dead wood is tenured and has no need to

and with faculty unions especially you will have difficulty picking and choosing departments and schools and colleges (like engineering and life sciences) where you focus on research and bump up all faculty pay in the department and just deal with the fact that some dead wood will not play along

all of the other departments and schools and colleges are going to riot over that and threaten to leave or not teach or sue and yet if you start to pay them more you are simply paying a lot more money to faculty that are not going to produce research so your cost go up for the students or tax payers or both

and if you try the method of larger classes for those that do not conduct research that still makes the students suffer and it will hurt you in some rankings metrics especially the most popular and read/published ones

and if you try and use adjuncts and lecturers you still get faculty push back and the level of education can suffer if not done properly and it is defeatist to bring in non tenure track and non research faculty when you are trying to bump up research dollars and profile.....even more so because you are trying to work against the entrenched unwillingness to start conducting research after being tenured as a mostly teaching faculty member often for decades or more

you do not simply walk in one day and let everyone know that you are starting 6 PhD programs n several different departments and that you expect all the faculty at the university to start writing grants and conducting research even IF (and a big IF) you were to provide them lab space and TAs and graduate student funding or post doc help

it is a sad fact that many faculty will simply nod their heads and ignore the request and there is little that can be done and others might even be vocally opposed and will work against that request

many university faculty are not hard working examples of virtue and dedication to their field(s) of study for every one that is and that tried to be the best they can in teaching and research until the day they die there are 3 or more that are lazy, selfish, entitled, ignorant useless piles of **** and if they get outside of the area they have been regurgitating on for the last few decades or if they try and jump up and get with the new times on that area they are totally incapable and lost even if they are willing

at some of the CSU schools there are many faculty that wold jump at the chance to elevate their university, but I would bet the ratio of those that would be actively against it would be even higher than most places much less those that would not participate and be quiet about it

(06-10-2017 08:52 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I am no sure where the OP is getting their "student numbers" from, but they seem suspect

also it really does not matter if a student is from in state or out of state if they support sports and same with if they ever live on campus or not

many schools that have a large sports fan following have a large out of state enrollment and large out of state student populations and many schools of them do not necessarily have a ton of their students living on campus while they are there

you are not a "commuter school" if a large % of your population moves 100 miles or more away from home and never lives on campus or only lives on campus 1 year of their 4 or 5 years in school while they still live in easy walking or driving distance to school

you are a commuter school if a very large % of your population goes back every night to the same bed they were sleeping in for high school or if they drive 45 minutes to an hour away from school after classes every day and do not even think of showing up on campus when they are not there for classes or some major project

and you are not going to tear down housing for the "poor" and "working class" in San Jose so that "the privileged" can have more slots at another new "elitist" university so while SJSU should probably get better funding and an expanded mission just like Fresno, SDSU and probably Long Beach State and Cal Poly that will not be happening

also when you talk about expanding the enrollment of a university you cannot just ignore graduate enrollments especially at universities that have a large graduate enrollment and that are designed for graduate education like the UC schools

graduate students and their lab needs are going to be much greater than undergrads and their classroom needs can be greater as well in some cases so you cannot just pretend there is tons of new room to expand a university because of their undergrad enrollment and even more so in places like California where they are loath to knock down garbage or move a pretty painted dumpster or build over a dirt lot filled with junkies for more higher ed space

UC Riverside has room for growth, but at this point I doubt some of the last citrus groves in the area that the university owns will ever be torn out and built over and I don't think the people in Davis are looking forward to anyone thinking that it would be a good idea to have 50,000 students at UC Davis (It wouldn't that would hurt the reputation and the quality of the university severely)

and the same in SLO no one there is interested in the massive expansion of the university even if there was some room

the only places that would accept any growth in California are in the central valley and there is UC Merced there now

it probably would be smarter to bump up schools like Fresno where they wanted to be bumped up instead of having Merced built and if it was not California to bump up Long Beach State, SJSU, Cal Ploy and SDSU as well

but with only 1 of those 5 schools in a place that would accept large expansion and more students it will never be politically possible for Fresno to get bumped up while the other 4 CSU schools do not and it will never be politically possible to bump up a majority of those schools because of growth issues so none of them will be bumped up

also it is not as easy to elevate the stature of a school from a masters level school to a doctoral level high research university especially with entrenched tenure and faculty unions in place

there are way to many worthless old tenured **** bags sitting around set in their ways and incapable of and or unwilling to change and you can't get rid of them

it is not possible with faculty unions to have a two tiered pay scale for new research intensive faculty Vs those that are tenured and are not going to conduct research if ask and without that added pay it would be hard to attract new research intensive faculty in areas of demand to a dusty central valley school or to high cost of living areas even with "quality of life"

the rate of change would be glacial and even then it might have some "contraction" like glacier before it pushes slowly forward

that is because the only real weapon you have against all of those old tenured pieces of lazy **** is to have them teach larger classes with fewer TAs to help while the newer research focused professors with more difficult tenure requirements teach smaller classes and conduct research

you are not simply going to get a faculty body that is doing say $10,000 per year on average in research per faculty member to crank that up to $50,000 per faculty member in short order especially when dead wood is tenured and has no need to

and with faculty unions especially you will have difficulty picking and choosing departments and schools and colleges (like engineering and life sciences) where you focus on research and bump up all faculty pay in the department and just deal with the fact that some dead wood will not play along

all of the other departments and schools and colleges are going to riot over that and threaten to leave or not teach or sue and yet if you start to pay them more you are simply paying a lot more money to faculty that are not going to produce research so your cost go up for the students or tax payers or both

and if you try the method of larger classes for those that do not conduct research that still makes the students suffer and it will hurt you in some rankings metrics especially the most popular and read/published ones

and if you try and use adjuncts and lecturers you still get faculty push back and the level of education can suffer if not done properly and it is defeatist to bring in non tenure track and non research faculty when you are trying to bump up research dollars and profile.....even more so because you are trying to work against the entrenched unwillingness to start conducting research after being tenured as a mostly teaching faculty member often for decades or more

you do not simply walk in one day and let everyone know that you are starting 6 PhD programs n several different departments and that you expect all the faculty at the university to start writing grants and conducting research even IF (and a big IF) you were to provide them lab space and TAs and graduate student funding or post doc help

it is a sad fact that many faculty will simply nod their heads and ignore the request and there is little that can be done and others might even be vocally opposed and will work against that request

many university faculty are not hard working examples of virtue and dedication to their field(s) of study for every one that is and that tried to be the best they can in teaching and research until the day they die there are 3 or more that are lazy, selfish, entitled, ignorant useless piles of **** and if they get outside of the area they have been regurgitating on for the last few decades or if they try and jump up and get with the new times on that area they are totally incapable and lost even if they are willing

at some of the CSU schools there are many faculty that wold jump at the chance to elevate their university, but I would bet the ratio of those that would be actively against it would be even higher than most places much less those that would not participate and be quiet about it

You're free to check the data yourself. My numbers put are resident (CA resident) undergrads. Those to me seem the most relevant to determining support in the state. Largely because from a sports standpoint people associate with their undergraduate school. They say I'm a UCLA alum more than a Bolt law student or more likely Hastings.

I think the Cal States would add Doctoral programs in the applied areas of study rather than pure science. So you would see a doctorate of viticulture instead of a Doctorate of Physics program. Fresno would do well with a Veterinary program focused on preparing Vets for jobs versus the heavy research emphasis seen at Davis.