## House Science Committee Heads Who are Climate Change Deniers, and Effects of Global Warming on Their States

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is now headed by Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas.  He is a denier of man-made climate change, and has complained that the major networks have not aired views of climate skeptics.  Actually, the major networks only spent about thirty minutes on climate change all year long.  The global warming effects on Texas were covered in a previous article on the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space, headed by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Representative Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, is Chair of the Energy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. She says the jury is out on whether mankind can alter global climate. She has degrees in animal science and biology from the University of Wyoming.

In 2011, Wyoming generated more CO2 per capita than any other state, which was 113 metric tonnes. The US average is 17.3 metric tonnes per capita, and California’s was 9.2 tonnes per capita. This is because Wyoming generates all of its electrical power from coal. However, what is not usually stated, is that Wyoming mines 40% of US coal. Also, 41% of Wyoming generated electricity goes to other states, so those emissions should be charged to the recipient states. Because Wyoming has the smallest population per state, its emissions only amount to 1.2% of US emissions. The environmental restrictions or penalties on coal will continue to cut production and jobs in the state, so being realistic about emission lowering goals of the rest of the nation should be important for their state’s politicians.

By 2100, decreasing precipitation may continue, and temperature increases of 4-6 degrees F are expected for Wyoming. The increased temperature will lead to increased evaporation and soil drying. There could be less water for irrigation (Ms. Lummis is a rancher), mining, recreation, public use, and fish and wildlife. There will be more forest fires and tree deaths from insects.

David Schweikert, Republican of Arizona for Northern Phoenix, is Chair of the Environment subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.  His education at Arizona State University is in finance and real estate, where he also obtained an MBA.  He says “Understanding what part of climate is part of a natural cycle and what part has human components is the first step.”  Then “Our elected officials must be careful to react to facts and not folklore.”  That first step and the facts have already been established by climate scientists.

The Southwest temperature is projected to increase by 2.5 to 8 degree F by 2100. The Southwest will suffer more severe droughts, which it presently is in. The will be less snowpack for summer water. Groundwater pumping is already lowering the water table. Arizona and Phoenix have been the most rapid growing area in the US. Temperatures will be near 100 degrees F during the summer. There will be more wildfires. The pine bark beetle has already been decimating pinion pines.

## Robert Reich’s Talk at UC Irvine on Income Inequality

Robert Reich gave a talk at UC Irvine on Feb. 5, 2015.  This is a summary of that talk and the film that he showed.  Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997.  He is now Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.  He was formerly a Professor at Harvard and at Brandeis University.  He is a well known political commentator and contributing editor.  He has published fourteen books.

He showed the movie “Inequality for All” by Jacob Kornbluth, showing Prof. Reich in lecture along with video scenes and graphs.

There is a website for the movie called http://inequalityforall.com which includes a pdf of all the graphs from the movie, which one can download. The movie is on Netflix and iTunes.

There will be inequality because people have different talents, skills, education and goals. However, the question is “how much inequality?” It is getting to the point where the economy can’t function. The median wage has leveled out since the 1970’s.

What happened? What happened to democracy? Wealth translates into political power, which is used to get rid of campaign finance laws.

Don’t leave cynical. Get politically engaged.
Get educated on what’s gone wrong.

The top 400 wealthiest in the US have more wealth than lower half of the US population. The typical (median?) income of the top 1% is $1.1 million. The bottom of the top 1% is an income of$380,000 a year.

The 1928 crash and the 2007 recession both happened because of speculative investment bubbles. The middle class is in a debt bubble trying to keep up. Consumer spending is 70% of the economy. The economy needs the middle class.

To define the middle class, use the median income of around $50,000, and add and subtract 50% around that to give the range$75,000 to $25,000. As far as the defense against taxing the rich as “job creators”, what the rich are saving goes around the world, wherever the good investments are, not necessarily to the US. The customers are the real job creators. Prosperity depends on there being a middle class. Prof. Reich started out by studying the rules by which a market functions. Since the 70’s, the economy was growing and productivity was increasing. Yet wages flattened. There was a move to deregulate. The unions declined. There was an assault on unions by employers. There were many nonunion companies. Since the 1970’s, Gross Domestic Product has risen to 250% of its starting value, but wages have stayed the same. The rate of union membership declined more than 50% since the 70’s. Globalization dispersed American jobs. Technology replaced jobs by robots. Examples were Amazon, and assembling companies. As an example, whereas many think that iPhone costs go mainly to the US or China, iPhone costs go 34% to Japan, and only 3.6% to China, where parts from elsewhere are assembled. Only 6% goes to the US. Workers were subject to reduced pay, not a loss of the number of jobs. There has been rising costs of higher education, as states contributed less to funding education. Many people have no savings. Bill Clinton adopted helping the middle class by the policy of Putting People First. (Here are some extra data that were not in the 45 minutes of the movie that we watched, but are in the associated slides. The average CEO’s salary has risen to 350 times that of the average worker. Household debt has risen from the same as yearly wages to 12 times that. Political polarization has increased.) Following showing us half the movie, as much as time allowed, Prof. Reich answered questions. There has been a decrease in upward mobility. 42% of those born into poverty will not get out. In Denmark the figure is only 25%. In Denmark there has been more investment in education. They have stronger unions, and the unions have more political power. They have more infrastructure investment. The conditions of the Trans Pacific partnership or trade agreement have not been revealed. So far, it looks like the trade agreement may not be good for working people. As far as Increasing income tax for the rich, the highest marginal rate was 70%. Then under Eisenhower it became 90%. Now it is down to 35%. What can we do to raise income for the middle class? First, we need more basic research and development. This is done in Universities, the NIH, and DOE labs. Second, we need to invest in infrastructure needs. Third, we need to invest in education from K-12 to higher education. All investments need funding How much can the minimum wage be raised? Raising the minimum wage gives consumers more money to buy stuff. The current college generation can act politically to bring these advances about. Reich sees three great threats to our civilization. First is nuclear proliferation. Second is climate change. These are tied together since climate change can lead to more competition for food and arable land. Third is income inequality. Hilary Clinton needs the public behind her to bring about such changes. He concluded saying that young adults should get engaged and involved if they want to bring about changes. ## Decline in California and National Higher Education Funding Since the Recession Decline in California and National Higher Education Funding Since the Recession The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities put together data in a paper on May 1, 2014 analyzing the drop in Higher Education funding during the current recession, from Fiscal Year 2007-8 to FY 2013-14. Nationwide, the expense per student has fallen$2,026 or 23%. The worst fall was in Arizona which had a drop of 48.5%. California had a drop of 15.8% The only states with increases were Alaska of 3.5%, and North Dakota of 38.6%. The drops in some comparative states to California are:
Massachusetts: – 36.3%
Pennsylvania:    – 30.7%
Florida:               – 29.7%
Texas:                 – 22.5%
Ohio:                   – 21.7%
California:          – 15.8%
Illinois:               – 13.5%
New York:           – 11.1%

The recovery in the last year FY 13-14 had 42 states increase funding per student by an average of 7.2% or $449. California increased its funding by 11.1% for a change of plus$728 per student. However, over the recession FY 08 to FY 14, California had the fourth highest tuition increase of plus 62.4%, or $3,474. The change in state funding per student in California from FY08 – FY14 was a drop of$1,373.

Nationwide, tuition revenue as a percent of “total educational revenue” FY88 – FY13 rose from about 23% to about 47%: this is doubling the percentage tuition plays. However, the income of the median household had stayed flat over this period.

## Climate Denier Congressional Committee Chairs are Ignoring Effects of Global Warming on Their Own States

Climate Denier Congressional Committee Chairs are Ignoring Effects of Global Warming on Their Own States.  We illustrate their denial attitudes and excuses, and just scratch the surface on climate effects in their own states that will be worsened by increased global warming.

Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma, (a leading state in oil and natural gas production), is the new Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He is not only a denier in human caused climate change, but also causes the science the biggest fraud. He is a religious denier in claiming that man cannot change the climate. Oklahoma is in the middle of the “tornado belt”, and has received serious destruction recently, made more damaging with increased population. Tornadoes occur at weather fronts between hot dry air coming from the West over the Rockies, colliding with warm moist air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. Both the heat from the West and the amount of water vapor for the heating Gulf can increase from global warming. The increase in the West wind with altitude causes horizontal vortex tubes at the front. When these are pushed vertical by rising air, they are tornadoes. Oklahoma also has suffered from a costly drought since 2010, which will occur more with global warming. The drought also leads to wildfires.

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, is on the Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Chair of its Subcommittee on Science and Space, that oversees NASA and its science. Texas is also a leading oil and natural gas producer, refiner, and shipper. The earth observing satellites that analyze the water and carbon cycles essential to life are launched and funded by NASA. Sen. Cruz is from Houston, home of the Johnson Space Center of NASA. His subcommittee also oversees the National Science Foundation, home to much basic research. Sen. Cruz claims there has been no warming over the years since the 1998 one year jump in temperature from an El Nino. But many years since then have been among the warmest, and the oceans have continued warming and absorb most of the warmth. Texas has been suffering from drought, as Oklahoma has.  Texas is also in the tornado belt. Austin in 2011 had the most 100 degree F days on record and the hottest summer on record, and tied for the hottest day (112 degrees F).

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, now Chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, which oversees NOAA.  NOAA is the weather predicting service which uses the same atmospheric, ocean and land physics that is the basis of climate models as well. Florida is one of the states which will most be affected by sea level rise. Miami is already flooding on super high tide days. The peak pass I encountered in driving across the Everglades was three feet above sea level. Three feet is a possible sea level rise by 2100. Where are all those alligators going to go? Florida is also subject to severe hurricanes. Hurricanes are driven in size and magnitudes by the potential energy of water vapor, which increases the hotter the Atlantic and Caribbean are. The wonderful coral reefs that bring tourists and cruise ship passengers to the region are endangered by increasing ocean temperatures and increasing ocean acidity from CO2 dissolving as carbonic acid. Florida has the Florida Keys, where 90% of the land is at 5 feet or less above sea level. Its flooding would cause a loss of $27 billion, with 56,000 residents displaced. Hurricane Wilma caused severe storm surge flooding to the Keys in 2005. NOAA has a vast number of programs in Florida, which is mostly surrounded by the Gulf and the Ocean. It runs the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Services. It calculates the global warming data, showing 2014 to be the hottest year on record worldwide. It runs the geostationary weather satellites, and polar satellites to observe the oceans. Hopefully, Sen. Rubio’s exposure to all of their scientists and facilities will teach him about their science capabilities and knowledge, and alter his uninformed opinions on the climate and on sea level rise. Sen. Rubio also could not decide whether the earth was only four thousand years old, or 4.5 billion years. Hopefully, scientists will also answer this for him. Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. He admitted that man has caused some climate change, but says the climate is changing all the time. The answer to that is that the climate has been changing rapidly, and will continue to do so, due to known cause. His committee oversees the EPA budget on toxic substances and automobile CAFE fuel economy standards. Despite admitting some man made warming, he is worried about the costs of acting to mitigate it. In South Dakota, climate change has led to cold Arctic storms being pushed South by warming highs in the Arctic, also called the Polar Vortex. This has led to earlier and more harsh winters. The Eastern part of South Dakota is also in tornado alley, which we have discussed above. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, Chairs the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Her committee oversees the Department of Energy, and many of the areas dealing with Alaska oil and mining, and its wildlife preserves. She thinks man’s contribution to climate change could be 5% to 50%, or 5% to 90%, lately. With Arctic warming increasing at a far greater rate than the rest of the world, she has to worry about Inuit communities being melted away. Melting permafrost limits the frozen roads needed for the winter Arctic drilling seasons. The retreat of summer sea ice endangers sea life. President Obama is proposing to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and endangered coastal areas, like the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Offshore drilling is also very risky and expensive, coupled with the threat of storms. Alaska spans a vast area and a vast number of ecosystems. The warming of the Arctic has been 4 degrees F, while the earth has warmed about 1.4 degrees F. So the consequences of warming in Alaska have been far greater than elsewhere. Alaska also has unique wildlife both in the sea and land, and unique ecosystems. But the oil industry has vast profits and exploitation in Alaska. Taxes on oil drilling cover 90% of state revenue, and there are not only no income taxes, but there is a payoff to the states citizens from oil taxes. A previous governor stated their policy as “drill, baby, drill.” From the Encyclopedia of Earth, we learn that South Central Alaska has the largest spruce bark beetle destruction due to longer summers and not freezing in winter, due to warming. Also, other trees have been destroyed from other insects due to warming. Alaska also has had record size fire seasons. Alaska glacier retreat has been 50% of the world’s. There also is the retreating and thinning ice sheets. Polar bears that hunt from ice sheets have been declining, as have walruses and ice seals. In the Bering Sea the water is warming and endangering fish and sea mammals. ## A Scientist’s Reaction to The New Anti-Science Leaders of Congressional Science Committees There are many national and science repercussions of putting anti-science Republicans into the Chairs of Senate and House science committees and sub-committees. There are also a lot of personal reactions of scientists and those who rely on science to these choices and to the effects on scientists and science that will result from their policies over probably at least the next four to six years or more. Scientists are not just scientists as a job. They have essentially adopted the belief in science as the way that knowledge can be gained about life, the earth, and the universe. They hold themselves and their colleagues to the highest standards of honesty and thoroughness in their work, and in their approving of and using government grants. While they tolerate expressions of anti-science under freedom of thought, speech, and perhaps religion, they know that given a fair hearing, that settled science can win the day. The fact that the science and technology committees are now run by anti-scientists and in some cases religionists who will not conduct fair hearings or policies for deciding funding is a severe disappointment and a very practical setback for science, for scientists, for their present and future students, and for the worldwide respect and competitiveness of US science and US industries and American jobs. The fact that these anti-science committee heads and majorities are politicians who are really servants to their monied backers of polluting or other industries is well known to everybody, and a great danger to the interests of the US public. It is the recent freedom of determined funding by such industrial billionaires and their companies to subjugate government to their robots and manipulation that have brought this about at all levels of government, and have undermined our Democracy. The politicians who deny scientific expertise or mislead the public about the overwhelming agreement of scientists, are not fooling a lot of people who accept science. They know that these politicians are just taking positions to support their donors, or key voters in their party or their party’s primaries. Some parts of the public believe in the religious, anti-science, approach to issues, not knowing that you can be both religious and scientifically oriented, as the Catholic Church has recognized. Of course scientists know that scientific knowledge will win out, despite determined efforts to defund certain areas, as in climate change, economics, politics, and the effects of guns on America. It’s just that the US may not lead the way if areas of research are defunded. Leading countries around the world are science oriented, and dedicated to educating more scientists and engineers, and are basing their industrial development on it. The United States will only look foolish with anti-science politicians running its congressional budgets. The anti-science committees may also carry out hearings which will provide nonsense about climate change, pollution, and other subjects well understood around the world. That would be very embarrassing to US scientists and the country as a whole. Anti-scientists may well self reinforce with their fellow anti-science legislators and backers, as well as Fox News, and start believing the anti-scientists that they will call up, without being aware of how silly the hearings appear. The basic fallacy of claims of not knowing or trusting scientists is that everything in our modern life was researched by scientists and designed by engineers using science. If you did not believe in science and scientists, how could you trust driving a car, flying in an airplane, even turning on a complex electronic system such as a computer or tv set. How could such congressmen fund such complex and potentially dangerous systems as the manned space program or the space station? How could they work for oil companies that carry out complex deep sea drilling projects or massive fracking arrays without trusting in their science and engineering? How could farm state congressmen rely on improved crops and livestock using genetics without believing in evolution that is mapped by the same genetic analyses? Holding embarrassing anti-science hearings is only going to embarrass and sully the reputations and billionaires of the companies that fund anti-science legislators. After years of Benghazi and IRS political bias hearings, the House committee turned up no large scale conspiracies, and those hearings are now considered as purely politically motivated. Even Fox News, which wasted a vast amount of time covering them, got nothing real out of them. It is odd that Sen. Jim Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma (oil and natural gas), and Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, claims that man-caused global warming is the biggest science fraud ever. It sounds like a lot more time in the Senate committee will now be wasted on such nonsense, embarrassing the oil companies and billionaires that back Sen. Inhofe and other Republican members of the committee. Oil and natural gas companies actually depend on a lot of geological science for exploring and new drilling engineering techniques, and chemistry and physics to design fracking and well sealing to make them leak proof. All of their scientists and engineers have to believe in science, and many undoubtedly understand the science behind global warming, and its main cause by fossil fuel emissions. The geologists also know that all of geology is based on the science of a 4.5 billion years old earth. Finally, the funders of anti-science politicians, the Koch brothers, all have chemical engineering degrees from MIT. David Koch also funds the scientific NOVA series. This has to be embarrassing to all of these company scientists to use the profits of their successful companies to fund anti-science politicians and such a viewpoint. A majority of liberal and moderate Republicans believe in global warming (66%) , but not conservative Republicans (28%). The majority of the American public, 61%, believe in warming and 51% believe it is due to human activities. A new study says that 56% of Republicans want action to reduce climate. It can’t be a long range advantage to the Republican party, or to its goal of electing a President, to take such unreasonable anti-science stances. People want high paying jobs in technical industries, and don’t want America to lose its leadership in science education or in science discovery or innovation. I hope in this essay that I have made it clear that an anti-science stand benefits neither the Republican party, nor their billionaire and industrial funders, nor the anti-science politicians that aspire to rise in political status and position. ## California Public K-12 Compared to Other States This article examines the poor grades for California K-12 Public Schools in the K-12 Education Week “Quality Counts” 2015 Report. US schools have an average grade of C with an average score of 74.3. Overall Ratings: First we present the scores of the quintiles of the distribution of the 50 states. The top ten states range from a top score of 86.2 and grade B down to 75.9 with grade C+. The next ten states range down to a score of 75.2 with grade C. The third ten range down to 71.5 with a score of C-. The bottom ten starts at 69.2 with a grade of D+ down to 64.2, with a grade of D. California ranks as the 42nd state at 69.2 with the D+ grade. With the range of states scores from 64.2 to 86.2, which covers a range of 22 points, California is just 5 points from the bottom. One way to understand this is to look at the Finance scores. (The rankings include the District of Columbia.) Finance Ratings: The US scores have an average of 75.3 and a grade of C. The high score is 89.3, and the low is 59.1. California’s score is 67.0, is ranked 40th, and is graded a D+. Of the range of scores of 30.2 from low to high, California is 7.9 from the lowest score. To see why this is, the US average expenditure per pupil is$11,735 per year.  California’s average expenditure per year is $8,308 in 2012. This is only 71% of the US average. Furthermore, only 7.9% of California’s districts spend above the US average. California’s recent increases will not show up until future surveys. Under finance, California’s Equity score is 86.4, rating a B. However, its Spending score is 47.6, getting an F! As a percent of taxable income that the state spends on education, the US average of states is 3.4%. California spends 2.7% on education. This is only 80% of the US average. The California Budget Project points out that the student to teacher ratio for California K-12 in 2012-2013 is 24.7 to 1, while the US average is 14.5 to 1. California’s ratio is 70% higher than the US average. Ed-Data reports for the Irvine Unified School District expenditures of$8,167 per pupil, compared to state averages for Unified School Districts of $8,734, or all Districts of$8,794.

K-12 Achievement:

The average US achievement is scored 70.2, with a range from 57.1 to 83.7, and a grade of C-.  California does better here with a score of 67.8 and a rank of 33rd, but still only earns a D+.  The range of scores is 26.6, and California is 13.1 or about half way above the bottom.  Still, that is not what we expect for the best our state can do.

Chance-For-Success:

California ranks 42nd here with a C grade, while the US average is a C+.

In 2010, according to NCHHEMS, 61.7% of California’s graduating seniors went on to advanced education, comparable to the US average of 62.5%.

The California Postsecondary Education Commission, however, has lower numbers for 2008 for seniors going on to advanced education.  They have a total of 49.7% going on to advanced education, with 8.4% going to UCs, 12.1% going to CSUs, and 29.3% going to community colleges.

Irvine was previously in the 48th Congressional District, and that had in 2008: 11.8% going on to UCs, 9.0% going on to CSUs, and 33.1% going on to Community Colleges, for a total of 54.0%.

The Education Week data has us graduating 82.0% of high school students, placing us 22nd among states.  The US average is 81.0%.

Ed-Data for California has for 2012-13 the graduation rate of 80.4%, with the rate for males being 76.9%, and for females being 84.1%.  They report a dropout rate of 11.4%, which, unfortunately, is highly ethnicity dependent.

Ed-Data also says that the percentages of high school graduates completing UC/CSU required course is 39.4%.

Using 2009 data, the percent of Californians 25 and older with bachelors degrees was 29.9%, above the US average of 27.9%.  The range among states was from 17.3% to 38.2%.

In 2009, the percent with advanced degrees in California for age 25 and older was 10.9%, close to the national average of 10.3%.  The range among states was from 6.7% to 16.4%.

Types of California Schools:

Here are some data from the California Department of Education.

California has 6.24 million students in public schools for 2013-2014.  (Our population is 37 million.)

Of these, 0.51 million students are in Charter schools.  Charter schools are also public schools and accept any student.  They are supposed to be funded at the same rate as public schools but are claimed to be underfunded by 9%.

Private schools have 0.53 million students as of 2008-9, or 7.9% of students then.

California Ethnicity:

Since one factor in California education may be ethnicity related, we note the diversity of California.

Hispanic or Latino students are 53% of public school students, at 3.32 million.

White, non-Hispanic students are 25% at 1.56 million.

Asian students are 8.7% at 0.54 million.

African American students are 6.2% at 0.38 million.

California has 1.3 million students classified as English learners.  This is a high fraction, since the US has 4.4 million such students.

## PayScale Rankings for UC Irvine in Various Majors

Here we present a table for UC Irvine PayScale rankings in several majors for 2014-2015, and UCIs ranking among California Colleges.  We also include the Early Career salaries for 0 to 5 years past the undergraduate degree, and the Mid-Career salaries for 10 or more years past their degree.

UC Irvine ranked in the top 10 nationwide in most of the majors in which they were listed on PayScale.  UCI also ranked 9th among California schools for all students.

Of course, rankings are not a good linear scale to display what can be rather minor differences between Mid-Career salaries, which is why we include the salaries themselves for a better comparison.  There also is a vast range of career years covered in the one number of Mid-Career of 10 or more years.  Nevertheless, people quote rankings, so we include them also.

 Major Rank Early Career Salary Mid-Career Salary Art 7 35,000 78,000 Business 6 48,100 121,000 Computer Science 6 67,600 126,600 Engineering 123 62,100 102,300 Humanities 5 39,900 92,000 Physical and Life Sciences 10 42,900 92,800 Among California Schools, All Majors 9 49,300 99,100

Among California schools in advanced degrees, PayScale ranked UC Irvine 25th for its master’s degrees, with Early Career salaries of $72,200, and Mid-Career salaries of$122,300.

## UC Irvine is 10th in PayScale College Salary Report for Physical and Life Sciences

PayScale 2014-2015 College Salary Report for Physical and Life Sciences

UC Irvine places tenth nationwide in Mid-Career Salary of ten or more years after the bachelor’s degree.

Here we give the Early Career Salary of 0-5 years, and the Mid-Career Salary for the top 10 institutions, and then add other California campuses.

 Rank School Early Career Mid-Career 1 CalPoly Pomona 51,400 110,000 2 UC Berkeley 51,700 104,300 3 UC Davis 49,700 99,500 4 Indiana U Bloomington 45,300 99,100 5 University at Buffalo 42,000 98,800 6 Stony Brook U 51,000 96,600 7 UC San Diego 43,700 95,600 8 U of Delaware 48,200 93,800 9 San Jose State U 48,300 92,900 10 UC Irvine 42,900 92,800 20 UCLA 45,800 88,800 23 Cal State U Long Beach 53,500 88,100 26 San Diego State U 55,900 87,000 35 CalPoly San Luis Obispo 46,600 80,000 42 Cal State U Northridge 47,000 73,900

## UC Irvine Information on PayScale

Here is the link to the PayScale information site on UC Irvine.

Some interesting data on UC Irvine is that it ranks in the top 7% of State Universities for return of investment (ROI).

89% of UCI alumni are employed in the wonderful state of California.

Leading employers of UCI alumni are:

## UC Irvine Ranks 9th in PayScale College Salary Report for California Campuses

We look at the results of the new 2014-2015 PayScale College Salary Report by narrowing it down to UC campuses.  We first report on the top 16 California 4 year undergraduate campuses, which include 6 UC campuses, and then add the ranking for UC Riverside and UC Santa Cruz.

For each campus we report their Early Career Salary of 0-5 years out, and then their Mid-Career Salary of 10 or more years out.  We also add the percent of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) degrees since they can often give higher salaries.

The rankings are by the Mid-Career Salaries, and are in dollars.

The stated accuracy is about plus or minus 5%.  To that extent, the schools ranked from 6 to 16 fall within the same error bars around the \$100,000 mid-career salary.

Of course, we point out that UC Irvine ranks number 9 among California schools.

 Rank School Early Career Mid-Career % Stem Degrees 1 Harvey Mudd College 75,600 133,800 86% 2 Stanford U. 62,900 126,400 28% 3 Caltech 74,800 126,200 93% 4 UC Berkeley 59,500 114,200 31% 5 Santa Clara U. 56,600 111,700 15% 6 UC San Diego 50,600 102,100 38% 7 Occidental College 45,600 101,900 18% 8 CalPoly San Luis Obispo 56,200 100,100 31% 9 UC Irvine 49,300 99,100 30% 10 College of the Pacific 51,500 98,300 31% 11 USC 51,700 98,000 13% 11 Westmont College 40,300 98,000 16% 13 UC Davis 50,800 97,900 34% 14 UC Santa Barbara 47,000 96,900 16% 15 Claremont McKenna 50,100 96,000 12% 16 UC Los Angeles 50,300 95,900 21% 23 UC Riverside 45,600 89,600 22% 32 UC Santa Cruz 46,200 83,000 20%