The University of California is raising tuition again, what's quality like nowadays?

Question

When I was at UCD, I remember taking an intro psychology class which was taught by 4 TAs! Not even a professor! And I thought back then tuition was too high. Has the quality gotten worse even though you're paying more money?

Not to mention overcrowded lecture halls, classes not being offered enough quarters, some antiquated buildings, etc. etc.

Of course I had mostly professors, but I did have 1 upper div psych class taught by a grad student and it was not good. It was in the summer, but still I don't think quality is rising along with cost. Don't forget about the shady spending going on (remember the chancellor from UCSB or UCSC that killed herself?)

Answer 1

I'm with Linkin on this one. You shouldn't expect a Nobel Laureate to teach Psych 1 or Math 1 (or even Math 53 for that matter).

I was at UC Berkeley from 1998-2002 (I miraculously finished a double major in 4 years). Tuition was about $3k per semester, but it was rising.

Still, I believe my education was top notch and at an unbeatable value (tuition at USC is $25k/yr, Stanfurd is $30k/yr). I had access to fields of study scarcely available anywhere else. I majored in Southeast Asian Studies. Only three colleges in the US have that as a major. At most colleges, you'd be hard-pressed to even find an Asian Studies department that allows for the study of specific regions (because Asia is Asia, right? Edward Said would disagree). Within that major alone, there were seven different language classes being offered.

The caliber of instruction I have in my other major, molecular cell biology, was also very high. My upper division professors are leaders in their fields. A few are predicted to win Nobels in the next few years. Many had worked under luminaries like Watson and Crick.

An ambitious student at many UC schools have access to research opportunities with Nobel Laureates, Fields Medalists and other celebrities in their subjects. Do you have that at most other universities?

The truth is, UC system still charges less than many universities in the US. People on the east coast routinely pay more for college because in-state opportunities are fewer or less prestigious. College is expensive. PERIOD. Complaining about raising the UC tuition is like the rest of us b*tching about the price of gasoline. We'll do it, despite everyone else paying more for it, and we'll pay up anyway.

As for shady spending practices, yes it happens. But the UC system is a public institution and under constant scrutiny of audit. The chancellor who killed herself was at UCSC, iirc. Crowded classes? Yes that is an issue. Chem 1A was massive. But if you need extra help or attention, the profs were always generous with their time and the Student Learning Center was available as well. I never had trouble talking to my professors. As for ugly (uggh Wurster Hall!) or antiquated buildings (LeConte's gonna crumble in the next quake), I know *all* UC campuses are in a constant state of construction and retrofit. I have never been to a campus that didn't have at least one section cordoned off with heavy machinery.

Answer 2

Yep. UC Berkeley is still the top public school and equal to any private school. UCLA is now the most applied to campus in the US.

Anyone can teach Calc 1A or Chem 1A. Even in the grad courses, there are senior PhD candidates who have incredible knowledge on their fields of expertise. What really makes an excellent campus is money (which translates into resources, upgraded facilities, and research materials) and the caliber of students that are competing for the grades.

There was a questions a few months ago asking what percentage of students really cared about learning. Most people answered 50%, 20%, even 5%. At UC Berkeley it was probably 95%. These students knew exactly the opportunity they were given and were making the most of it - anyone who didn't want to put in the effort quickly failed out. What makes an excellent university is an environment with students like that - not that a Nobel Laureate taught Intro to Psych.

Answer 3

Is that how you judge quality? It's a freaking intro to Psych course.

Professors at big time colleges have their performance judged more on their research and publications than their teaching skills. Having a professor teach doesn't mean the quality of the teaching will be better. For an intro class, a TA likely has it more fresh in their memory and isn't as set in their ways in terms of teaching. They're often more approachable as well.

If the advanced courses are still taught by TA's, then you might run into trouble. Practically anyone can teach an intro course for many subjects.

Answer 4

I go to UW-Platteville, and this is my second semester, and I've never had a class tought by a TA. Most of the professors are doctors.