SLO vs PO

[skate]

This is something that is driving me nut. What exactly is the difference?
I know or think the education is the same. I know that it was once one institute and broke off to become two i.e. Pomona.

What I don't understand is why is it harder to get into SLO vs PO?
Why does it mention that the courses are more intense, harder, or competative compared to PO.

I have read all this information from thier website, to Newsweek school reviews, and various other places.

So what really separates that school academically from Pomona. I don't get it everything seems to be pretty much the same to me even it says so elsewhere.


Just curious

[jayandbutton]

first some history. the state legislature planned for three polytechnics, beginning in the center of the state at SLO which launched in 1901. the southern branch began 37 years later at san dimas before moving to pomona in 1949. the third campus never got off the ground in the north due to budgetary constraints.

with an almost four decade head start the first campus obviously was mature before the second had even admitted women, yet amazingly by the 1980s the pomona campus, with strong leadership, had almost caught up with SLO academically--if you believe those ratings scales.

more recently, SLO has surged far ahead, fueled in part by huge streams of private funds while pomona has been in a decade-long tailspin that has dropped pomona from a princeton review best in the west nod and taken it from a top ten USNWR ranking in the late 1980s to a tie for 32d among non-doctoral western universities this year.

the pomona campus claims it will launch a capital campaign, but it is so woefully behind SLO in almost every area and likely never again will be similar other than in name. yes, the types of programs are similar but for the most part that's as far as it goes. that said, engineering and architecture still offer solid degrees at pomona though not as highly ranked as at SLO.

the typical SLO student could have gained admit letters at top tier UCs while that kind of student is a rare exception at pomona. the admission standards are not even close.

[lakdod]

Originally Posted by jayandbutton

more recently, SLO has surged far ahead, fueled in part by huge streams of private funds while pomona has been in a decade-long tailspin that has dropped pomona from a princeton review best in the west nod and taken it from a top ten USNWR ranking in the late 1980s to a tie for 32d among non-doctoral western universities this year.

the pomona campus claims it will launch a capital campaign, but it is so woefully behind SLO in almost every area and likely never again will be similar other than in name. yes, the types of programs are similar but for the most part that's as far as it goes. that said, engineering and architecture still offer solid degrees at pomona though not as highly ranked as at SLO.

All I got to say the school need to raise more money to make the education at Pomona better. There is so many changes that needs to be made around the Pomona campus. The school says they are making steps , but they are doing it at a slow pace. You would think living in LA it might be easier to raise money from business and wealthy donors of the school.

[jayandbutton]

but you can't raise money if you have so much personnel turnover, lakdod. the university just had the provost resign and just before that the admin sr. VP left. then there is the revolving door called the VP for student affairs, not to mention all of the missing (and acting) deans.

when you throw that into the record number of departures of faculty and staff, some two thousand years of experience just in the business college in the past two years and you can see why the university is going backward rather than forward.

[sawagner]

Just a hypothetical here: What would you all think if Cal Poly and Cal Poly Pomona re-merged into one school? We could share our endowment, campuses, resources, and just be one "Cal Poly" again. I think it would help our name recognition.

[jayandbutton]

wagner,
how about an analogy.

you're the chancellor at berkeley and you're asked if you don't mind merging your campus into your sister school at riverside.

what would you say?
jb

[sawagner]

jayandbutton,

First, to compare Cal Poly and Cal Poly Pomona with UC Berkeley and UC Riverside isn't really a fair analogy.

Second, assuming your hypothetical, I would say that's fine. School is school. When I was at Cal Poly, I knew many people who very much so wanted a Cal Poly education but couldn't get one because of the stringent admissions standards. Same for when I was at Harvard. All in all, blocking access to universities based upon some sort of brand or concept of prestige is harmful to our population. The CSU system should be especially concerned with this fact.

[jayandbutton]

what are you smoking, wagner?

let's just let everyone in everywhere because "school is school."

so when harvard invests almost 400 years to build its brand that's equal to some guy who opens a storefront university tomorrow?

brand equity takes decades, even centuries, to build and from that process comes valuation. it's very humanistic of you to suggest that colleges should let in all comers but not very realistic.

even within the CSU, and UC, there are elites and also rans--not one unit as you suggest. part of what makes a university great is the quality of its student body, and good students typically don't want to go to bad universities. how is the population "harmed" by this? because if i screwed up in high school i should be redeemed by a free pass to princeton?

[sawagner]

I don't smoke, but thanks for asking.

And yes, school is school. Do you honestly believe that you received an inferior education than me because you went to Cal Poly Pomona and I went to Cal Poly & Harvard? I doubt it.

I think it's important to frame what we are disagreeing on here. I think we agree that the education at any accredited school is largely the same, but we don't share a common ground as to educational branding. Yes? Institutional brand may be important to high school seniors, but in the real world I believe that it means very little. Why do you believe that it is a student body that makes an institution great? I think it's the curriculum, the faculty, the scholarships, etc.

The population is harmed by elitist admissions standards because they result in a denial of education--period. And yes, maybe you should go to Princeton: if you believe that you can learn something there that can benefit society, go for it.

[xiaoxue]

i don't agree with either one of you. the quality of education is absolutely NOT the same at every accredited school. how can it be?

at places like harvard you are taught by nobel laureates and are surrounded by students who are off the charts intellectually. an average person would have to work long and hard just to survive. at some cal states friends tell me it's easier than high school. can you say that about harvard?

i can even see a distinct difference between the mess i faced at pomona and what is offered at fullerton where i am starting graduate classes. both facilities and faculty are vastly different.

but you say every school is the same quality as anywhere else? maybe you don't smoke dude but you must be trippin' on something bad.....

[jayandbutton]

first of all, congratulations on your acceptance to cal state fullerton, xiaoxue.
they have a brand new college of business building that is huge and cost $80,000,000 that will deliver facilties we will never see here at pomona.

secondly, i never admitted to agreeing with wagner on anything. you are absolutely right that the quality of education varies greatly from school to school and even from class to class within the same school.

if wagner expects us to believe that the education at harvard is the same as you got at pomona, well, maybe it's not the bong but the bottle.