Talk:California Master Plan for Higher Education

Criticism of hierarchy.
I would like to add a section discussing some criticisms of the three tier hierarchy but would like some feedback and supporting facts before I add to the article. Does anybody have any thoughts:
 * As an encyclopedic entry this probably is not the article in which to criticize/debate a hierarchy established 40+ years ago-- perhaps in an article about the findings of the 2002 studies that led to recommendations for change. —RandallJones 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the impression that the UC is superior to the CSU
- The minimum GPA at more competitive CSU's is higher then the minimum GPA at some UC's. In some instances a CSU (Cal Poly, Long Beach, San Francisco, San Diego, Chico are more competitive then many UC schools.  (Merced, Riverside, Santa Cruz, Davis) This would indicate in practice the 1/3 and 1/8 goal is not actually happening at all the respective institutions.
 * Each location has an unequal budget that constrains enrollments. A well-funded UC site with a huge campus could easily cast a wider net (taking lower GPAs) than a tightly-budgeted CSU campus with space issues, regardless of the MP's goals. —RandallJones 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

- Through articulation agreements many courses taught at CSU UC are considered equal. This is true particularly for lower division courses. If courses are considered equivalent how can one system be deemed to be superior.
 * The courses at CCC, CSU, and UC are articulated to allow more students to do equivalent work at the beginning of their college careers, at the wide base of the pyramid. Some CCC starters will do well and progress, and some UC starters will bail out.  The differences between the segments are at the top ends of the segments (Associate, Master, and Doctorate) and the equivalence of lower work allows a student to transfer into a segment where they can realize their top-end goals despite where they may have been forced to start because of their GPA.  CCC/CSU/UC "English 1A" is the same, but you have to be in the "superior" segment to go all the way to a PhD in English (or whatever). —RandallJones 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

- While true that a few of the top CSUs are more competitive than the lower ranked UCs, this is an exception more than a rule. Top UCs like Berk, LA, and SD are all much more selective than any CSU. Likewise the majority of CSUs are far less selective than any UC. It might be useful to mention that schools like Calpoly actually are more selective than say a UC Merced, but as we are discussing the system as a whole, it should be obvious that the UC system is deemed 'superior' to the CSU system in terms of many common indicators of college status, including research viablility, selectivity, financial endownment, faculty status, campus resources, subjective prestige, etc. One can make the argument that it is impossible to rank colleges to begin with, which is a fair argument in one for the college ranking article. However such an argument is not too useful in this article and unless one wants to claim that South Dekota State College is equal to Harvard, there wouldn't be a point in pushing that point. By most standards, and by the original intention of the framers, the UC system is 'deemed superior' to the CSU system.
 * The competition and selectivity I think you're pondering is likely driven more by funding and space constraints than by some subjective superiority. Did I miss your point? —RandallJones 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He clearly wants to discuss higher education pre-1964 in South DAkota. The irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.4.11 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The question of fairness
Why should the UC system be the exclusive California higher education system to grant doctorate degrees? Why must there be a joint doctorate program when the majority of a student’s education is done at CSU and not the UC.
 * Because that's the way the system was designed. UC is the only segment established in California's constitution and they consider themselves first and best.  The community colleges were founded as spinoffs from the state's high schools so they're considered lowly. —RandallJones 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The 2002 Master Plan for Education recommendations, Recommendation #36, recommends allowing CSU's to increase the amount of research they do. Why should CSU's be a "stepchild" to the UC?
 * Because that's the way the system was designed. After 40 years of functioning under the 1960 Master Plan, I don't think it's surprising that some changes were recommended.  There's no reason that PhD-holding CSU faculty couldn't do some research and use and educate Masters candidates as part of that effort, but as-is, research dollars tend to go only to UC. —RandallJones 02:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

--SAUNDERS 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are questions of fairness. The community college system, CSU system, and UC system all work together as per the master plan. The CSU's goals are to educate the majority/brunt of the educated workforce and to spend their dollars on that endeavour. The UC system is there to engage in high end research and educate the academic elites. Letting CSUs replicate more and more functions that the UC system has always taken would cause the CSU to lose their focus. Is it fair that a CSU student or professor has very limited access to the research that their UC equivalents have? Yes, because the professor and student chose to attend / teach at a CSU rather than an UC. And the obvious comeback is that their profiles did not qualify them at a UC (or other top tier institution), but that's just how things are.

Fact is, the people that go to CSUs are just as great and all but their academic profiles are, typically, less impressive than their UC equivalents. The CSU system serves their purpose well, which is NOT to compete with the UC system, but to educate the majority of California's work force. Students go to CSUs to learn practical skills, and typically do not go to engage in research or have aspirations of a doctorate down the line. Actually doing some research into graduate class makeup at the top 15 engineering/CS schools, I've found that very few graduate students were from CSU, actually I can't rememeber any.

Now of course issuing doctorates for some degrees (such as teaching, which the CSU system is huge) is all and good, but there is a slippery slope when you start allowing the CSU to deviate from it's original intentions, which was to be a first class educational system as opposed to a top tier research institution. There will be a natural tendency to try to move up the academic food chain, since the CSU system is no doubt populated with ambitious and good people, so it's important that any changes to the way the system is examined closely to see how it will impact the overall education of the many many CSU students.

To sum it up, with education dollars in SUCH short supply, it could be wasteful to start allowing CSU schools to implement research programs, because if that money comes from the CSU school itself, then that's money not being spent on its core (and really, its only one) purpose of educating the students, and if it comes from the dwindling supply of state funds, that's research money that could be better spent conducting research at a UC (who alraedy has the research infrastructure, faculty who are well accustomed to doing cutting edge research, and students who have more of an interest in it). The master plan works because limited resources are funneled to their best uses, and it is a fair one too given the resource limitations we have.

Re: Objections Raised Above
Perhaps some of these points might be more relevant to the respective articles on the UC and CSU systems. The Master Plan is a part of ongoing State policy regarding higher education. The points about fairness or prestige are related to a particular university's position, so maybe they should go in the university's specific article. glasperlenspiel 19:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Rating as Start-Class
Gentgeen, your Start-Class rating infers "it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element". Is there anything specific that would be a good step toward improvement, or was that just a subjective impression? –RandallJones 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the assessment page linked to in the template will be found the criteria for putting an article into the various quality levels. Start class articles should include at least one of the following:
 * a particularly useful picture or graphic
 * multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
 * a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
 * multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 * There is no picture. There are multiple links to other topics that help explain the subject, such as University of California and California State University. There are only two subheadings for actual content, neither of which fully treat their element of the topic. So, I would consider the secont criteria to be met, and the other three to be lacking. To move up to "B" class, a majority of those criteria must be met, which clearly hasn't happened yet. Gentgeen 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We'll see what we can do.  –RandallJones 09:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3.5 years later, and I would concur that much still remains to be done with this article. I will add a copyedit tag to it. moreno oso (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Comments Regarding the "Repression of the CSU System"
Who keeps on adding comments about the CSU system being repressed? It's inflammatory and completely unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.18.71 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources/OR
No citation, but there are a lot of claims which are probably not consensus. But I am not informed about this topic. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Title is way too long
The word "California" should not be in the title under Wikipedia's "common name" article title guidelines. It's also unnecessary for disambiguation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the alternative, the title should track the actual title of the Master Plan. It's "the Master Plan for Higher Education in California." --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Master Plan for Higher Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wJUI60xL?url=http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/sp/flagship.htm to http://cio.chance.berkeley.edu/chancellor/sp/flagship.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)