UC President Janet Napolitano says all University of California campuses will be open and offering instruction in the fall, albeit mostly in a hybrid fashion with both in-person and online instruction.

That is Cal (UC Berkeley), UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, UC Irvine, UC Davis, UC Riverside, UC Santa Cruz (D3), UC Merced (NAIA) and UC San Francisco (grad school)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/20/c...-says/amp/

Well wedge, stu, what say you?

Will this cause the CSU system and possibly the CCAA to re-assess their decisions?

Probably not. The CSUs are hard headed.

Have to do it this way. The finances pretty much require universities to have campuses open to hold onto as many of their students as possible.

(05-20-2020 07:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Probably not. The CSUs are hard headed.

To be fair, I thought the CSUs generally served a bit of a different demographic, though, such as having a lot more commuter and immediately local students. The on-campus experience isn’t nearly the same as it would be at Berkeley or UCLA.

(05-20-2020 07:38 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  UC President Janet Napolitano says all University of California campuses will be open and offering instruction in the fall, albeit mostly in a hybrid fashion with both in-person and online instruction.

That is Cal (UC Berkeley), UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, UC Irvine, UC Davis, UC Riverside, UC Santa Cruz (D3), UC Merced (NAIA) and UC San Francisco (grad school)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/20/c...-says/amp/

Well wedge, stu, what say you?

I already said the P12 schools would play this fall. It was clear when SJSU's AD announced they would play sports two days ago. This just makes it official.

It actually is all about money. Almost 20% of the student body (counting grad students) are foreign students (7,800 at UC Berkeley alone out of their 32,500 students), who pay full tuition. The schools need that to operate, as they have a $1.2B deficit projected.

It started when Newsom flinched at Elon Musk threatening to move to Texas, then the 49ers GM and others saying they were looking at training camp sites out of state and making contingency plans. The State of California depends on taxing high earners, as they have a "income nexus" setup where visiting players have to pay taxes for the game they are in California. It's all about money.

(05-20-2020 08:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Probably not. The CSUs are hard headed.

To be fair, I thought the CSUs generally served a bit of a different demographic, though, such as having a lot more commuter and immediately local students. The on-campus experience isn’t nearly the same as it would be at Berkeley or UCLA.

The on-campus experience is worthwhile at some of the Cal State campuses. Cal Poly SLO for sure, and from what I've heard, at least Cal Poly Pomona and SDSU would be on that list as well.

(05-20-2020 07:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Probably not. The CSUs are hard headed.

I can see that; especially after how they handled Humboldt football.

(05-20-2020 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Probably not. The CSUs are hard headed.

To be fair, I thought the CSUs generally served a bit of a different demographic, though, such as having a lot more commuter and immediately local students. The on-campus experience isn’t nearly the same as it would be at Berkeley or UCLA.

The on-campus experience is worthwhile at some of the Cal State campuses. Cal Poly SLO for sure, and from what I've heard, at least Cal Poly Pomona and SDSU would be on that list as well.

Cal Poly has $4K in student fees and up until COVID-19, SDSU had a rec center open 24/7, which was bada$$ when it opened 15 years ago, so the ASI fees (student government) run all that stuff for California schools. Nearly all of them have attempted to become more of a "learning/living environment" or "residential campus" since 2004. While most CSU schools have little on-campus housing, they have strived to keep students on campus longer with better student centers (unions) and especially with rec centers. SDSU, Sonoma State, Fresno, San Marcos, Bakersfield, and Sac State built them last decade and SFSU (2018) and SJSU (2019).

These schools=greed for money
Money>student, faculty and athletes' health

(05-20-2020 09:57 PM)AZcats Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Probably not. The CSUs are hard headed.

I can see that; especially after how they handled Humboldt football.

Nah, not so much about that. From the birth of the Big West in 1969 - Stu's SJSU Spartans were a charter member - to 2003, the Cal State's outnumbered the UCs. When UC Davis was admitted it marked the first time there was an equal balance.

The Cal State's were excited to get SDSU in 2012 (another former charter member) which would have tilted the scales back in their favor. But when that collapsed the Cal State's later raised a stink about UC San Diego. They couldn't let the UCs tip the scale in their favor. Hence the Bakersfield Birds were packaged with UC San Diego which maintained an equal balance. Down the road the CSUs will pay for that hardheadedness.

Incidentally, Covid-19 is highlighting a major drawback of having 10 members in one state, equally divided between two separate systems. If the UCs and Hawaii are willing to play sports and the Cal State's not, the Big West would be down to six teams and either needing a waiver from the NCAA or having to find another temporary member from outside California and Hawaii.

(05-21-2020 12:50 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  These schools=greed for money
Money>student, faculty and athletes' health

Those people aren’t at risk. Liberty University was supposed to be doomed when they let students back on campus after Spring Break... nothing happened.

(05-21-2020 12:50 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  These schools=greed for money
Money>student, faculty and athletes' health

These are market-driven decisions. Students want to avoid having their first semester and maybe even whole freshman year online. If you close down your campuses when your neighbors don't you could be in for some real financial trouble.

(05-21-2020 07:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:50 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  These schools=greed for money
Money>student, faculty and athletes' health

Those people aren’t at risk. Liberty University was supposed to be doomed when they let students back on campus after Spring Break... nothing happened.

The typical student isn't at risk. Those with underlying health conditions have some risk, as do faculty and staff over 60. Schools should protect the latter while allowing the former to go about their business, on campus, IMO.

(05-20-2020 08:38 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:38 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  UC President Janet Napolitano says all University of California campuses will be open and offering instruction in the fall, albeit mostly in a hybrid fashion with both in-person and online instruction.

That is Cal (UC Berkeley), UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, UC Irvine, UC Davis, UC Riverside, UC Santa Cruz (D3), UC Merced (NAIA) and UC San Francisco (grad school)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/20/c...-says/amp/

Well wedge, stu, what say you?

I already said the P12 schools would play this fall. It was clear when SJSU's AD announced they would play sports two days ago. This just makes it official.

It actually is all about money. Almost 20% of the student body (counting grad students) are foreign students (7,800 at UC Berkeley alone out of their 32,500 students), who pay full tuition. The schools need that to operate, as they have a $1.2B deficit projected.

It started when Newsom flinched at Elon Musk threatening to move to Texas, then the 49ers GM and others saying they were looking at training camp sites out of state and making contingency plans. The State of California depends on taxing high earners, as they have a "income nexus" setup where visiting players have to pay taxes for the game they are in California. It's all about money.

There is just too much revenue at stake to stay on lockdown through the football season. A new study indicates power five schools could lose $4 billion dollars if there is no football this fall:
https://sports.yahoo.com/new-study-cance...04713.html

The NFL gets collects over $5 billion in TV revenue annually before we even get to other forms of revenue. So, California NFL teams are going to play somewhere. It is actually a good thing if they can play football. The country needs to get back to some form of normalcy and football in the fall would help. But I don't see packed stadiums being allowed in California.

As for Elon Musk, Newsom and Musk have been friends for years. After Musk threw his temper tantrum, things settled down and they worked it out with the Alameda County Health officials. Much ado about nothing...

(05-21-2020 01:34 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  As for Elon Musk, Newsom and Musk have been friends for years. After Musk threw his temper tantrum, things settled down and they worked it out with the Alameda County Health officials. Much ado about nothing...

No, it is something, just like Newsom throwing $1B at Chinese electric car manufacturer BYD, who is a big donor to Dems in the State.

It's makes a lie of everything he says. He's a complete suck up to his donors. Musk's noncompliance --yes it was only one week, as he was going to be cleared on the 18th instead of the 11th -- undercut the authority of the State's quarantine. It also says different rules for the rich and famous and oligarchs. It is abundantly clear that despite the progressive rhetoric, the CA Democratic leadership is as in bed with big business, oligarchs and even hostile nations for the money. It's Tammany Hall in California.

(05-21-2020 02:35 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:34 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  As for Elon Musk, Newsom and Musk have been friends for years. After Musk threw his temper tantrum, things settled down and they worked it out with the Alameda County Health officials. Much ado about nothing...

No, it is something, just like Newsom throwing $1B at Chinese electric car manufacturer BYD, who is a big donor to Dems in the State.

It's makes a lie of everything he says. He's a complete suck up to his donors. Musk's noncompliance --yes it was only one week, as he was going to be cleared on the 18th instead of the 11th -- undercut the authority of the State's quarantine. It also says different rules for the rich and famous and oligarchs. It is abundantly clear that despite the progressive rhetoric, the CA Democratic leadership is as in bed with big business, oligarchs and even hostile nations for the money. It's Tammany Hall in California.

Stu, there is nothing wrong with being progressive and pro-business. While I like the Tammany Hall reference, I just don’t see it in California. I am not sure which oligarchs and hostile nations you are referring to, but there are times when you must do business with people and countries that are less than desirable business partners. It is tough trying to balance stay-at-home orders with a slow and cautious opening of the state. People are getting impatient and Newsom is undermined by an incompetent and inconsistent federal government. He has no choice but to let some things go.

(05-20-2020 11:15 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 08:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 07:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Probably not. The CSUs are hard headed.

To be fair, I thought the CSUs generally served a bit of a different demographic, though, such as having a lot more commuter and immediately local students. The on-campus experience isn’t nearly the same as it would be at Berkeley or UCLA.

The on-campus experience is worthwhile at some of the Cal State campuses. Cal Poly SLO for sure, and from what I've heard, at least Cal Poly Pomona and SDSU would be on that list as well.

Cal Poly has $4K in student fees and up until COVID-19, SDSU had a rec center open 24/7, which was bada$$ when it opened 15 years ago, so the ASI fees (student government) run all that stuff for California schools. Nearly all of them have attempted to become more of a "learning/living environment" or "residential campus" since 2004. While most CSU schools have little on-campus housing, they have strived to keep students on campus longer with better student centers (unions) and especially with rec centers. SDSU, Sonoma State, Fresno, San Marcos, Bakersfield, and Sac State built them last decade and SFSU (2018) and SJSU (2019).

Yup. Sac State recently completed another Union expansion and have a large student housing project going up now. We've been steadily adding parking structures and residential project since the mid-2000's.

I'm glad the UC's are going to have some classes and some ADs in both UC's and CSU's are saying they are having sports. I think that means CSU will have to go back on their "virtual only" stance and there is a very strong chance sports are played this fall. There is too much money at stake to not have both of those things in some capacity.

(05-22-2020 12:21 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  I'm glad the UC's are going to have some classes and some ADs in both UC's and CSU's are saying they are having sports. I think that means CSU will have to go back on their "virtual only" stance and there is a very strong chance sports are played this fall. There is too much money at stake to not have both of those things in some capacity.

I don't think it does. The CSU structure is different than the UC's. Most students commute, a very large percentage still living with their parents or family. The CSU schools are not dependent upon foreign students to pay for the high overhead, unlike the UC schools.

possible exception: Cal Poly SLO

Two very systems are different animals. Both the student body with it's expectations and living situation, and the parking lot nature of class attendance (I know I went to San Jose State). Even many of those who live near campus it's more a choice to move out of the house while studying, but mom and dad are just 10 to 30 minutes away -- in this environment I think few will move out of the house until the situation is different.

While bike racks dominate UC campuses, tower parking lots dominate the CSU schools. With almost 8,000 parking spaces (plus a few thousand who park on the streets around campus and hike in, or who arrive by public transit, San Jose State resembles grand central station. At least 75% of the 35,000 or so students commute in, funneling into the Business or Math or Science or Engineering towers, literally thousands elbow to elbow going to classes in every room filled to the brim from 8am to 7:30pm, then filter back out through the narrow halls into the parking lot and home after 2 or 3 classes back to back, and the next wave come in and uses the same parking spots or if the lot is full (and they fill fast) on the street as close as you can get. This coming into campus in large crowds, then leaving back to home, many with older parents, is asking for a mass breakout. (I'm thinking SJSU, but it's far worse for say SF State)

But if you look at the UC schools and Cal Poly (Chico and SDSU are kind of residential, so maybe exceptions possible), pretty much all the students live on campus or very close, and the campuses are larger and easier to close to non-students, and restrict coming an going. You do not have the large commuter pool of the Cal States. It's bicycle racks more than parking lots. Students are not going back to mom and dad's house after class. There are a lot of reasons the UC schools are better setup for some on campus instruction than the CSU schools.

Just think about the physical layouts and the commuting patterns.