What is the structure of the Cal school systems. It's fairly evident that there are several categories of schools. We've seen CSU's and others.
What are they...and what does it mean?
Two systems on the 4-year plan: UC (University of California) and CSU (California State University). The former is perceived to be a more prestigious system because they award doctorates. If one thinks of Cal and UCLA, one may agree that they are indeed more prestigious. However, this same system includes UC Davis (Ag school with attitude), UC Irvine (not sure what they're known for) and UC Santa Barabara (best known for Jim Rome and hotties on the beach).
The CSU system includes SJSU, San Diego State, Fresno and 19 other schools around the state. Obviously these are the bigger names as far as sports goes (almost forgot Fullerton's baseball team). Many of these schools have very respected programs academically as well. Many of the others however, seem to be franchise school, popping up everywhere like Starbucks.
Interesting.
Thanks SJGregg.
Noticed that one Chancellor is mentioned prominently. Is there one Chancellor per system?
Are the California tax dollars split evenly between the systems?
The California university system isn't drastically different from most other state university systems in the country. The main difference is that it's much larger, and it's somewhat hierarchical.
The top level of the hierarchy is the University of California system (the "UCs"). They are all doctoral research universities that offer PhD programs and professional schools. They include UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UC-Davis, UC-Irvine, UC-San Diego, UC-Santa Barbara, UC-Merced, UC-Riverside, UC-Santa Cruz, and UC-San Francisco.
Unlike most other state university systems, there is no designated "flagship" campus; all the UCs have an equal claim for state resources. However, some of them are definitely considered to be more prestigious than others. I would probably split them into tiers as follows:
Tier 1: Berkeley, UCLA
Tier 2: Davis, Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara
Tier 3: Riverside, Santa Cruz, Merced
This list doesn't include UCSF, since it's a special case. UCSF is stricly a medical school. It doesn't offer undergraduate degrees or any degree in any field that isn't related to human health. (In addition to MDs, it offers PhDs in biology and related fields.) It's one of the top (arguably the top) medical school in the country, but its focus is obviously very narrow.
However, as I said earlier, these tiers definitely do not reflect the state's funding priorities. Indeed, right now Davis, Irvine, San Diego, and Merced are actually receiving a disproportionate share of state funds. They have all been designated "growth campuses" in the UC system, so they are receiving a ton of state money to build new buildings and hire new faculty.
From top to bottom, all the UCs are considered to be very prestigious. Berkeley and UCLA are arguably the two best state schools in the country (Michigan is the only one that comes close), and even Davis, Irvine, San Diego, and Santa Barbara are all better than all but a small handful of state universities nationwide. And most of these schools are on an upward trajectory as well. In particular, UC-Davis wants to become a peer institution to Berkeley and UCLA. Time will tell if they succeed, but I have to say that I'm very impressed with what they've accomplished thus far. They've hired a number of very good faculty in the past few years, and their research facilities compare favorably with any school in the country.
The next tier in the UC hierarchy is the California State schools (ie "the CSUs"). They include SJSU, Fresno State, and UCSD, plus many more that are too numerous to list here. Their mission is very different from the mission of the UCs. Rather than trying to become strong research universities, their mission is primarily undergraduate teaching. They don't offer doctoral program, and they offer a very limited number of graduate and professional degrees.
And no offense to any SJSU or Fresno fans, but the CSU schools are definitely considered to be a big dropoff from the UCs. (Rightfully or wrongfully, people assume that if you attend a CSU school, it means you weren't smart enough to get into a UC. For that matter, if you attend UC-Davis or UC-Irvine, people think it was because you weren't smart enough to get into Berkeley or UCLA. There's definitely a pecking order.) None of the CSU schools has much of an academic reputation. (The only possible exception is Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo, and it's debatable whether they should even be classified as a CSU school.) Consequently, the CSU schools tend to be a much lower priority on the state budget than the UCs.
Another big difference between the UCs and the CSUs is that the UCs tend to be residential campuses whereas the CSUs tend to be commuter schools. Obviously, that's a bit of a generalization. UC-Irvine, for example, does have a large number of on-campus dorms, but a large percentage of their student body does commute from Newport Beach and other surrounding communities. Similarly, nobody commutes to CSU-Chico; Chico is simply too isolated. However, as a general rule, this tends to be the case. My observation is that if a student is attending a UC, they tend to move to where they will be attending school, whereas if they are attending a CSU school, they tend to go to whatever school is closest to home. There are three CSUs in the Bay Area (SJSU, SF State, CSU-Hayward), and I've never met anyone who lives on campus at any of these three schools.
There are also many, many community colleges in California. They are two-year schools with very limited course offerings. Typically, they offer two-year programs and degrees. The idea is that after completing one's degree, one can transfer to a UC or CSU.
That's probably way more information than you wanted... If you're still reading this, you deserve a cookie. :)
The UC system (10 schools) was established by the state as its research institution with a classical, theoretical bent. The CSU schools (23 of them) came along to provide more practical job training and functional degrees (initially mostly teachers). Obviously both systems started at a rather primitive level and have continued to evolve.
The UC system is governed by a Board of Regents with the Governor and Lieutenant Governor as ex-Officio members. It is a politically charged group with Regents appointed by the Governor but it has much autonomy from the state legislature except that it cannot violate laws. It is administered by a President and each campus has its own Chancellor. Currently the most prestigious schools, academically, are UCLA, UC Berkeley (you can switch that order at will) and UC Davis. Irvine and Santa Barbara would probably follow and then the rest (except UC San Francisco which is exclusively a medical school).
The CSU campuses are prohibed from offering Doctoral degrees and cannot, therefore, become research 1 institutions.. SDSU gets around this through affiliations with other research one universities (mostly UC schools) and offers 18 doctoral programs (for which it tends to get credit and is, therefore, rated higher academically than the other CSU's) on its site. Several other CSU schools also offer some doctoral programs on their sites through affiliations. The system is run by a Board of Governors and has a Chancellor overseeing its entirety. It is more closely controlled by the state legislature. Under the Chancellor each campus has its own president.
Probably more than you wanted to know. Oh well.
One big exception to CSU vs UC system is Cal Poly. They are the flagship of the CSU's academically and they are harder to get into than most of the UC's. If you're into bachelors or masters in engineering, Comp Sci, Architecture, Ag engineering, etc, and want the most beautiful location for a campus in Cali (IMO), then Cal Poly is mecca.
StanfordAggie Wrote:The California university system isn't drastically different from most other state university systems in the country. The main difference is that it's much larger, and it's somewhat hierarchical.
The top level of the hierarchy is the University of California system (the "UCs"). They are all doctoral research universities that offer PhD programs and professional schools. They include UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UC-Davis, UC-Irvine, UC-San Diego, UC-Santa Barbara, UC-Merced, UC-Riverside, UC-Santa Cruz, and UC-San Francisco.
Unlike most other state university systems, there is no designated "flagship" campus; all the UCs have an equal claim for state resources. However, some of them are definitely considered to be more prestigious than others. I would probably split them into tiers as follows:
Tier 1: Berkeley, UCLA
Tier 2: Davis, Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara
Tier 3: Riverside, Santa Cruz, Merced
This list doesn't include UCSF, since it's a special case. UCSF is stricly a medical school. It doesn't offer undergraduate degrees or any degree in any field that isn't related to human health. (In addition to MDs, it offers PhDs in biology and related fields.) It's one of the top (arguably the top) medical school in the country, but its focus is obviously very narrow.
However, as I said earlier, these tiers definitely do not reflect the state's funding priorities. Indeed, right now Davis, Irvine, San Diego, and Merced are actually receiving a disproportionate share of state funds. They have all been designated "growth campuses" in the UC system, so they are receiving a ton of state money to build new buildings and hire new faculty.
From top to bottom, all the UCs are considered to be very prestigious. Berkeley and UCLA are arguably the two best state schools in the country (Michigan is the only one that comes close), and even Davis, Irvine, San Diego, and Santa Barbara are all better than all but a small handful of state universities nationwide. And most of these schools are on an upward trajectory as well. In particular, UC-Davis wants to become a peer institution to Berkeley and UCLA. Time will tell if they succeed, but I have to say that I'm very impressed with what they've accomplished thus far. They've hired a number of very good faculty in the past few years, and their research facilities compare favorably with any school in the country.
The next tier in the UC hierarchy is the California State schools (ie "the CSUs"). They include SJSU, Fresno State, and UCSD, plus many more that are too numerous to list here. Their mission is very different from the mission of the UCs. Rather than trying to become strong research universities, their mission is primarily undergraduate teaching. They don't offer doctoral program, and they offer a very limited number of graduate and professional degrees.
And no offense to any SJSU or Fresno fans, but the CSU schools are definitely considered to be a big dropoff from the UCs. (Rightfully or wrongfully, people assume that if you attend a CSU school, it means you weren't smart enough to get into a UC. For that matter, if you attend UC-Davis or UC-Irvine, people think it was because you weren't smart enough to get into Berkeley or UCLA. There's definitely a pecking order.) None of the CSU schools has much of an academic reputation. (The only possible exception is Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo, and it's debatable whether they should even be classified as a CSU school.) Consequently, the CSU schools tend to be a much lower priority on the state budget than the UCs.
Another big difference between the UCs and the CSUs is that the UCs tend to be residential campuses whereas the CSUs tend to be commuter schools. Obviously, that's a bit of a generalization. UC-Irvine, for example, does have a large number of on-campus dorms, but a large percentage of their student body does commute from Newport Beach and other surrounding communities. Similarly, nobody commutes to CSU-Chico; Chico is simply too isolated. However, as a general rule, this tends to be the case. My observation is that if a student is attending a UC, they tend to move to where they will be attending school, whereas if they are attending a CSU school, they tend to go to whatever school is closest to home. There are three CSUs in the Bay Area (SJSU, SF State, CSU-Hayward), and I've never met anyone who lives on campus at any of these three schools.
There are also many, many community colleges in California. They are two-year schools with very limited course offerings. Typically, they offer two-year programs and degrees. The idea is that after completing one's degree, one can transfer to a UC or CSU.
That's probably way more information than you wanted... If you're still reading this, you deserve a cookie. :)
jediwarrior Wrote:Interesting.
Thanks SJGregg.
Noticed that one Chancellor is mentioned prominently. Is there one Chancellor per system?
Are the California tax dollars split evenly between the systems?
Among the UC schools, my understanding that the title "chancellor" at any given UC is equivalent to the title of "president" at most other universities. He/she is the top dog at the UC school in question. The "president" of the University of California is the head of the board of regents of the entire UC system. At least this is my understanding. I could be mistaken. And I have no idea how it works at CSU schools.
I'm not sure exactly how much state money is given to the UC system versus the CSU system. However, I do know that any given UC school generally receives a lot more state dollars than a given CSU school. (However, it's possible that the CSU schools receive more money overall, since there are many more CSU schools.)
State money given to the two systems is not even close. The UC system (10 campuses) probably receives as much (or more) total dollars as the 23 campus CSU system. UC profs, administrators, coaches, etc. get much higher salaries. The CSU system probably has over 3X as many students so you can get an idea of the disparity. The greater funding for the UC's is justified by their need to do extensive research. UC Berkeley may have added more to the general body of knowledge in the world than any other school (Stanford and Harvard included).
On a related subject, other than Berkeley, I believe that only Michigan and North Carolina (Chapel Hill) can compete for top spot academically among the big Publics.
SJGregg Wrote:However, this same system includes UC Davis (Ag school with attitude)
Carefull not to be condescending towards ag schools, ie Utah St (All though it is nowhere near being the ag school that Washington St, Texas A&M and Colorado St are. In fact, Utah St's pride and joy programs, more than ag, are in engineering, especially aerospace, and education.) and NMSU.
If it weren't for Ag schools and agriculture, modern medicine wouldn't be where it is today, among other things. There is also a lot of money to be made in agriculture if you know what you're doing.
SpartaRick Wrote:On a related subject, other than Berkeley, I believe that only Michigan and North Carolina (Chapel Hill) can compete for top spot academically among the big Publics.
Well, this isn't at all sports-related, but since we're on the subject, I decided to look into the question of the "best" public research universities. Below is one such ranking compiled by Brian Leiter at the University of Texas in Austin. He ranked various research universities by the number of graduate programs each school had ranked in the top 5, 10, 15, and 25 nationally. Obviously, such a ranking is highly arbitrary, but it's no more arbitrary than any other such scheme. Here are the top public schools in his list, together with their point totals:
Berkeley 59
Michigan 49
UCLA 37
Wisconsin 34
Texas 26
Illinois 24
Minnesota 19
North Carolina 17
UC-San Diego 16
Washington 16
Maryland 10
Rutgers 9
Virginia 9
Ohio State 8
Indiana 6
Penn State 6
Purdue 5
UC-Santa Barbara 5
UC-Davis 4
UC-Irvine 3
Iowa 2
Quote:UC Berkeley may have added more to the general body of knowledge in the world than any other school (Stanford and Harvard included).
I definitely agree that Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, and Cambridge would probably be the four schools competing for that title. My gut reaction is that Cambridge would probably win, simply because they have been in existence for hundreds of years longer than any of the other schools. Right now, I would probably put Harvard, Stanford, and Cambridge above Berkeley, but not by very much.
(Moreover, I think if you combine UCSF's contribution to human knowledge together with Berkeley's, I think they win this title hands down. I've never entirely understood why the UC Regents decided to make UCSF into a separate university rather than simply calling it the UC-Berkeley medical school. Berkeley is one of the top 3 or 4 universities in the world even without a medical school... Combine it with what's possibly the best medical school in the world, and that's one amazing university.)
SpartaRick Wrote:State money given to the two systems is not even close. The UC system (10 campuses) probably receives as much (or more) total dollars as the 23 campus CSU system. UC profs, administrators, coaches, etc. get much higher salaries. The CSU system probably has over 3X as many students so you can get an idea of the disparity. The greater funding for the UC's is justified by their need to do extensive research. UC Berkeley may have added more to the general body of knowledge in the world than any other school (Stanford and Harvard included).
On a related subject, other than Berkeley, I believe that only Michigan and North Carolina (Chapel Hill) can compete for top spot academically among the big Publics.
University of Virginia is actually higher ranked than UCLA, Michigan, or NC in the latest Us News ranking btw.
Univ of Washington and Georgia tech are also closing the gap
but all are excellent schools if you like huge schools
billings Wrote:SpartaRick Wrote:State money given to the two systems is not even close. The UC system (10 campuses) probably receives as much (or more) total dollars as the 23 campus CSU system. UC profs, administrators, coaches, etc. get much higher salaries. The CSU system probably has over 3X as many students so you can get an idea of the disparity. The greater funding for the UC's is justified by their need to do extensive research. UC Berkeley may have added more to the general body of knowledge in the world than any other school (Stanford and Harvard included).
On a related subject, other than Berkeley, I believe that only Michigan and North Carolina (Chapel Hill) can compete for top spot academically among the big Publics.
University of Virginia is actually higher ranked than UCLA, Michigan, or NC in the latest Us News ranking btw.
Univ of Washington and Georgia tech are also closing the gap
but all are excellent schools if you like huge schools
The U.S. News "public university" rankings are a highly subjective (and highly convoluted) system for ranking undergraduate institutions. They are flawed in a number of ways. (In particular, selectivity is one of the criteria that they use to determine which school is "best," which is totally absurd. State schools are usually required to admit a certain number of in-state students, which lowers their selectivity ranking and kills their overall ranking. Thus, even though Berkeley and Michigan are probably two of the top five universities in the country, they barely crack the top 25 of the U.S. News rankings.)
The rankings that Leiter compiled above aren't intended to measure the quality of undergraduate education; they are supposed to identify the best research schools. Schools like Virginia and Georgia Tech are solid undergraduate schools, but not nearly as strong in the research department. And they are based solely on the reputation of the various schools; irrelevant factors like selectivity aren't considered.
StanfordAggie explained it all very well. I would just add that UCSD is pretty much on tier 1 with Berkeley and LA, followed by Davis, SB, and Irvine in no particular order. And it's hard to beat SC for campus beauty.
And the president of the UC is the head of the Office of the President, separate from the Regents. It runs all the campuses, hospitals, labs, etc. It's quite the bureaucracy
ucdtim17 Wrote:StanfordAggie explained it all very well. I would just add that UCSD is pretty much on tier 1 with Berkeley and LA, followed by Davis, SB, and Irvine in no particular order. And it's hard to beat SC for campus beauty.
Well, I wouldn't put San Diego on the same tier as Berkeley and UCLA, although I almost threw in a caveat that San Diego is arguably on a tier by itself between Berkeley/UCLA and Santa Barbara/Irvine/Davis. In the interest of not complicating things worse than I had already, I decided not to mention it.
Roughrider, Let me make myself clear, I LOVED the students from Chico and Cal Poly. I was in a field that required high energy, sales and interaction with customers and you can't beat those two schools for producing that. Cal on the other hand, was a HUGE waste of time for me. They may be among the smartest in the world but in general (really hate to generalize) they do not excel in that environment. The few exceptions were the athletes I hired (captain of men's gymnastics, captain of women's volleyball, WR who tried out for the Raiders.
So I'm not knocking Cal Poly just suggesting that many schools have areas of expertise, including my beloved Spartans.
SJGregg Wrote:Roughrider, Let me make myself clear, I LOVED the students from Chico and Cal Poly. I was in a field that required high energy, sales and interaction with customers and you can't beat those two schools for producing that. Cal on the other hand, was a HUGE waste of time for me. They may be among the smartest in the world but in general (really hate to generalize) they do not excel in that environment. The few exceptions were the athletes I hired (captain of men's gymnastics, captain of women's volleyball, WR who tried out for the Raiders.
So I'm not knocking Cal Poly just suggesting that many schools have areas of expertise, including my beloved Spartans.
No problem Gregg, I'm ok. And I agree on the sales personna. That's not a typical Poly student trait but I didn't spend much time with the business school so it's a generalization based on that for me.
SpartaRick Wrote:The greater funding for the UC's is justified by their need to do extensive research. UC Berkeley may have added more to the general body of knowledge in the world than any other school (Stanford and Harvard included).
Let's hear it for BSD Unix!
There's also the Lawrence-Livermore Labs, which UC administers under contract with DOE, as well as Lawrence-Berkeley Labs, so I agree with your assessment of Cal's contribution to knowledge.
However, avante garde/counterculture/Left Bank/bohemian Berkeley is, it's also a great place to do research.
I too have recruited several Poly grads as a corporate recruiter for the high tech firm I work for and have had very different results. But I've recruited major duds from Cal, MIT, etc too. It's not the school's fault and I'm not dissing SJSU at all.