Talk:California Master Plan for Higher Education

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism of hierarchy. 

message: - 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Concerning the impression that the UC is superior to the CSU 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The question of fairness  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Objections Raised Above 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Comments Regarding the "Repression of the CSU System" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources/OR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title is way too long 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified