I got my BSCS from this school, and landed a great gig within a month of graduation. As a "re-entry" student on a tight budget (30 year-old working food service), I met many others who were similarly driven to build the skillsets and relationships to launch their careers as efficiently as possible.
Anecdotally, I will say these factors likely boost the effectiveness of this particular campus:
1. Smart, capable students have the "inferiority complex" of being surrounded by CalTech, USC, UCLA. They know they need to push harder to have equal footing when stepping into the industry.
2. Several of the industries represented in Los Angeles are more interested in loyal, hard-working candidates than prestigious/elite geniuses. I have talked with many representatives from companies partnering with CSULA on student projects who have expressed this.
3. Students I met were generally more interested in launching their careers than in pursuing the quintessential "college life", e.g. parties, campus societies
4. Specifically for STEM students: the Los Angeles tech scene has deep roots with the aerospace industry, as well as a lot of companies doing real tech work without the flair of typical SV/NYC companies. I had instructors who work (or have worked) at NASA JPL, AT&T, Boeing, Western Digital, and in medical research at USC/UCLA.
I got my start at Glendale Community College (number 4 on that list). From there, I went on to UCLA, NASA/JPL, and, now, Google. It has been quite the journey. I wasn’t born in the US, nor was I from a wealthy or educated family (at one point we were on foodstamps, but reached ‘middle’ class by the time I started high-school). Though, in comparison, my parent’s journey has been a much longer one, where they were born in a third world country as second class citizens—-into the life of subsistance farming in a remote village on land they did not own.
The “inferiority complex” is real until you get to your new destination, and realize the people at UCLA or JPL or Google aren’t very different from you. Furthermore, projects/institutions that you have put on a pedestal since childhood are a lot less “magical” once you have seen how the sausage is made.
I’ve met exceptional people from Cal State schools and people I wouldn’t hire from MIT. At this point, I find the school a person graduated from, for undergrad, to be a weak signal at best; and in many cases their grad school as well.
I think you hit the nail on the head with a lot of your points. In particular:
>> 1. Smart, capable students have the "inferiority complex" of being surrounded by CalTech, USC, UCLA. They know they need to push harder to have equal footing when stepping into the industry.
I just ended my graduate studies at a UC school and had some miscellaneous encounters with CSU students, both undergrad and graduate. I found that for the most part they were just as capable as many UC students, but what set many of them apart was their maturity. This may be because many of them came from unconventional backgrounds, they were either lucky to be attending college or were attending college later on in life. At the same time, a lot of them felt like UC was a more legitimate college, or that they were somehow less intelligent because they were going to a state school.
>I got my BSCS from this school, and landed a great gig within a month of graduation. As a "re-entry" student on a tight budget (30 year-old working food service), I met many others who were similarly driven to build the skillsets and relationships to launch their careers as efficiently as possible.
As someone working their way through the California public school system in a similar situation, I've hit a roadblock with the math classes. Having no background in even basic high school math has killed me, failing pre-calculus twice now. Any tips?
My sister's a Yale Ph.D who has taught in the SUNY system and other public schools and has really gotten a lot of out teaching these student populations, and finds them far more impressive than Ivy League students. Hard working, many of them first-generation college students, often working full time jobs and supporting families, all with minimal complaints. They're paying their bills and they're expecting ROI on that tuition -- and put in the corresponding amount of work on their studies.
I think more people that go to Ivies are hard workers then have so much natural ability that it doesn't require much work. Nowadays you have to be doing multiple extra curricular activities and qualifying for summer programs, etc.
This was a good article and despite the location of CSLA a good look outside of the coastal elite education bubble.
Far too often the focus is only on the elite students at the elite schools when its clear upward mobility, just in sheer quantity, is better created at less elite public institutions like the CUNY schools or the CSUs. Hell even the culture war aspects are overstated - the "campus free speech" pearl-clutching is based on the experiences of maybe 5-7 elite institutions, and the entirety of the "Asian discrimination in admissions" controversy is based entirely on the superiority of 3-5 elite schools.
Far more needs to be done to extend upward mobility to everyone in this country and that isn't going to happen by focusing energies entirely on the HYPSM.
There's a reason why California has the CC/CSU/UC system split up. Each system and tackle different missions within public education.
The CC system works for adults with many weekend/night offerings and a huge emphasis on usable skills and trades. The CSU system is the budget/value offering to young adults with a good blend of trades/liberal arts with a focus on practical applications. Both of these systems are excellent for high volume upward mobility when they're functioning.
Then there's the UC system which serves as the halo product that's supposed to draw in or retain the best and brightest. This mostly serves to keep the middle class from leaving California, or when that fails, draw in upper-middle class from elsewhere.
Are California's "elite public institutions" doing less for upward mobility than the CC/CSU system? Probably, but that's not it's main mission. It's trying to preserve the existing middle class, which is arguably just as important as raising the lower class.
building on this. much of the gender discrimination argument happens at the same level. it’s usually white women from elite universities and privileged backgrounds at places like Google.
CSU LA has had one of the most notable campus free speech problems. California's public universities try to discriminate by race but are hindered by Prop 209.
I have to agree. The first generation of immigrants are generally poor, but eager for their children to move up the ladder, and do everything they can to make that happen. It's often the main reason they came.
One thing I don't understand - if these universities are:
1. Running at a profit (growing endowments)
2. A path to the middle class
Why doesn't the government just roll the profits from the current pool of public uni's to new public uni's until prices start falling and demand is satisfied? Seems like it could only be good for society?
Public universities are not profitable. Quite the opposite: tuition and fees cover only part of their operating costs; the rest comes from the government. In California, AFAIK, public universities don’t have endowments. Government funding of universities is seen as an investment in the state’s economy and in greater opportunity for all Californians. That’s the story at least.
Theoretically they should be self-sustaining on the large scale: education -> greater economic output -> higher tax revenue -> funding for education. Unfortunately that hasn’t really proven to be sustainable in California for a variety of reasons.
That sounds like it would destroy the incentive to do a good job in the first place (and the incentive to donate/make endowments to your alma matter, why bother when that money will just be taken away?). Instead, why don't these univiersities roll their own money into expansion?
> One of the really striking findings of the study was, that you would in some sense really rather know where somebody went to college rather than how much money their parents make, if you wanted to guess how much money they were going to make in the future
At the bottom of the study you see education is the most important factor in career success for your first job. About 7x more accurate than parent's income.
I had a privedged international education and taught at Berkeley and Chicago, but the hardest working student I ever knew was an undocumented refugee who started at CSLA and transferred to Northridge for his junior and senior years. To save bus fare, he slept in the bushes at Northridge. Last year he got his BS and found a good job. He supported himself through school as a sexworker. I'm in awe of his grit and endurance. We need schools that can accommodate hard-working students who succeed despite unconventional lives. And We need such people of remarkable courage and character to become leaders in corporate life. I'm proud to support the Cal State system with my taxes.
3. it divides Asians against other people of color. So white students can be admitted at lower GPAs and SAT scores than Asian students without upsetting them.
[+] [-] frank_nitti|8 years ago|reply
Anecdotally, I will say these factors likely boost the effectiveness of this particular campus:
1. Smart, capable students have the "inferiority complex" of being surrounded by CalTech, USC, UCLA. They know they need to push harder to have equal footing when stepping into the industry.
2. Several of the industries represented in Los Angeles are more interested in loyal, hard-working candidates than prestigious/elite geniuses. I have talked with many representatives from companies partnering with CSULA on student projects who have expressed this.
3. Students I met were generally more interested in launching their careers than in pursuing the quintessential "college life", e.g. parties, campus societies
4. Specifically for STEM students: the Los Angeles tech scene has deep roots with the aerospace industry, as well as a lot of companies doing real tech work without the flair of typical SV/NYC companies. I had instructors who work (or have worked) at NASA JPL, AT&T, Boeing, Western Digital, and in medical research at USC/UCLA.
[+] [-] throwaway26340|8 years ago|reply
The “inferiority complex” is real until you get to your new destination, and realize the people at UCLA or JPL or Google aren’t very different from you. Furthermore, projects/institutions that you have put on a pedestal since childhood are a lot less “magical” once you have seen how the sausage is made.
I’ve met exceptional people from Cal State schools and people I wouldn’t hire from MIT. At this point, I find the school a person graduated from, for undergrad, to be a weak signal at best; and in many cases their grad school as well.
[+] [-] prestonh|8 years ago|reply
>> 1. Smart, capable students have the "inferiority complex" of being surrounded by CalTech, USC, UCLA. They know they need to push harder to have equal footing when stepping into the industry.
I just ended my graduate studies at a UC school and had some miscellaneous encounters with CSU students, both undergrad and graduate. I found that for the most part they were just as capable as many UC students, but what set many of them apart was their maturity. This may be because many of them came from unconventional backgrounds, they were either lucky to be attending college or were attending college later on in life. At the same time, a lot of them felt like UC was a more legitimate college, or that they were somehow less intelligent because they were going to a state school.
[+] [-] aphextron|8 years ago|reply
As someone working their way through the California public school system in a similar situation, I've hit a roadblock with the math classes. Having no background in even basic high school math has killed me, failing pre-calculus twice now. Any tips?
[+] [-] rconti|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelukelugames|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jostmey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harrisjt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heedlessly2|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] akhilcacharya|8 years ago|reply
Far too often the focus is only on the elite students at the elite schools when its clear upward mobility, just in sheer quantity, is better created at less elite public institutions like the CUNY schools or the CSUs. Hell even the culture war aspects are overstated - the "campus free speech" pearl-clutching is based on the experiences of maybe 5-7 elite institutions, and the entirety of the "Asian discrimination in admissions" controversy is based entirely on the superiority of 3-5 elite schools.
Far more needs to be done to extend upward mobility to everyone in this country and that isn't going to happen by focusing energies entirely on the HYPSM.
Relevant - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/
[+] [-] kenhwang|8 years ago|reply
The CC system works for adults with many weekend/night offerings and a huge emphasis on usable skills and trades. The CSU system is the budget/value offering to young adults with a good blend of trades/liberal arts with a focus on practical applications. Both of these systems are excellent for high volume upward mobility when they're functioning.
Then there's the UC system which serves as the halo product that's supposed to draw in or retain the best and brightest. This mostly serves to keep the middle class from leaving California, or when that fails, draw in upper-middle class from elsewhere.
Are California's "elite public institutions" doing less for upward mobility than the CC/CSU system? Probably, but that's not it's main mission. It's trying to preserve the existing middle class, which is arguably just as important as raising the lower class.
[+] [-] oculusthrift|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SamReidHughes|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SamReidHughes|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tabtab|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woodandsteel|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] obblekk|8 years ago|reply
Why doesn't the government just roll the profits from the current pool of public uni's to new public uni's until prices start falling and demand is satisfied? Seems like it could only be good for society?
[+] [-] jdale27|8 years ago|reply
Theoretically they should be self-sustaining on the large scale: education -> greater economic output -> higher tax revenue -> funding for education. Unfortunately that hasn’t really proven to be sustainable in California for a variety of reasons.
[+] [-] whatshisface|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fidels|8 years ago|reply
> One of the really striking findings of the study was, that you would in some sense really rather know where somebody went to college rather than how much money their parents make, if you wanted to guess how much money they were going to make in the future
[+] [-] CryoLogic|8 years ago|reply
At the bottom of the study you see education is the most important factor in career success for your first job. About 7x more accurate than parent's income.
[+] [-] base3|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ausjke|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kelukelugames|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aerodog|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] krapp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danans|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BackPropagate|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]