<p>Ok, that sounds better haha. I can actually agree with you now! However, I guess the real problem would be determining who can pay how much, you know? Just because someone makes $180k, that doesn’t automatically mean they can pay, say, $40k for college (again, arbitrary numbers). There are a lot of factors that would have to go in to determining how this would work. I mean, out of two families with the a $180k income, one may be able to pay, but another may not. I guess some privates have figured it out though - like if I got into some of the privates I applied to, I would have had to pay a little under 3/4 of what I’m paying now. However, the application was also a lot longer (FAFSA, the collegeboard thing, and the university’s own thing), and privates have a lot more money to shovel out. But then again, you did say this was just a framework.</p>
<p>@lemoncat oh maannn!!! Don’t even get me started on that! I don’t understand why everyone was so against it! (including all my fb friends)…I mean, what they were doing made perfect sense to me at least haha. If they were so mad about the price discrimination in something as insignificant as at bake sale (ok, fine, I guess symbolically it means more and whatever), shouldn’t they feel the same way about a similar thing happening to admissions? Why on earth was that such a big deal/offend so many people? <em>end mini-rant</em>…believe me…I could go on for days about this.</p>
<p>The reason the bake sale was stupid, was because it mis-represented what the actual bill they were protesting was about. </p>
<p>They took a textbook right-wing protest to Affirmative Action directly meant to **** people off. I don’t support Affirmative Action, but what they did was dishonest. The bill wasn’t for Affirmative Action, it was simply that if a student felt the need to include gender in race as aspects of their story. Pretending racism and gender inequality do not exist does not make it so. There is a substantial difference between children who grew up in Richmond as opposed to Palo Alto, and you have to be blind to not see the ethnic role and de facto segregation that still exists. </p>
<p>I do not think Affirmative Action cures those problems, but gender and race are huge factors in what makes up a person and how they become the person that they are and largely determines the kinds of challenges they will face. Students should be allowed to talk about it in their applications if they feel it is significant, and admissions should be allowed to CONSIDER it. </p>
<p>That is not Affirmative Action, and what the Berkeley Republicans did was misrepresented a bill to make it something it was not, at the cost of reviving old scars of California’s racist history and the effects of it we are still living with today. Just for attention for their group and to perpetuate the myth of a “liberal status quo” rather than raising awareness in a positive way to address the admissions process and possible reforms.</p>
<p>Ahhh…if that’s what the problem was about, that makes more sense. I completely agree with what you say about taking all that into consideration (to an extent), and about affirmative action not being the only solution. What I heard about the bill was that it would essentially overturn prop 209 (which bans affirmative action in public schools) - meaning affirmative action could be officially put into place in the UC system…but isn’t race/ethnicity already considered (unofficially) in the admissions process? Regarding what you said about the difference between Palo Alto and Richmond, don’t they already take things like that into consideration as well? (I’m also thinking ELC allows for this to some extent in other UCs…or used to at least) Students can choose to write about their ethnicity, etc, and how it shaped them in their application as well (isn’t that the point of family/background essay prompt?), and it will be taken into consideration if it reveals something of value. </p>
<p>The group did, however, claim that what they did was supposed to be satirical, so it wasn’t really meant to completely represent the bill - though if they were just being dishonest, as you say, that changes things…I’m not too clear on the details of the bill, so I wouldn’t know</p>
<p>Sorry, but I personally still don’t view it as being as bad as people said/felt it was, even though I see what you are saying, especially your last paragraph - I guess I might just be being ignorant.</p>
<p>Affirmative action should never ever ever take race into consideration. I am a firm believer in race blind and religion blind admissions.</p>
<p>Sure, people who come from backgrounds of little wealth or education should be held to a lower standard with hopes of increasing their family’s socioeconomic status in future generations, but race should never play a role.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, a crap ton of dumb, rich, black people end up at ivies over, say, capable Asian students from poor backgrounds solely because of racially dependent admissions. That’s just absurd.</p>
<p>^Exactly. Diversity isn’t a rich white guy, a rich black guy, a rich Asian guy, and a rich Latino. Their stories and experiences will be much more similar than, say, a white guy from Manhattan and a white guy from Appalachia, or a black guy from Bel Air and one from West Philadelphia (pun intended).</p>
<p>Admissions should be allowed to consider regional and socioeconomic differences, and there will often be racial correlations there. Allowing admissions to choose one applicant over another based solely on race is blatantly wrong. Any meaningful challenges a minority applicant might have had should be reflected in other areas of the application. If a minority applicant faced racial discrimination, mention it in the personal statement. I feel comfortable with admissions using that as a contributing factor in the decision to admit someone.</p>
<p>Government promotes affirmative action because it brings them the latino/black vote. If affirmative action happens, it is the asians that get booted off while the white quota remains the same (look up the stats - white remains same, asians went up when it became race blind and their scores and activities were the sole determining factors. Black and Latino lost their seats because some of them wouldn’t and shouldn’t have gotten in without the race card)</p>
<p>It is a great way for the politicians to garner those latino/black votes
that’s the only reason the rich white guys push affirmative action - because it doesn’t hurt them. </p>
<p>It’s easy to tell someone to give up their pie and donate it to the poor. It’s so much harder to do if it’s your own.</p>
<p>I think Nick is right. Most people look at tuition as a proxy for quality; and as long as money is being re-channeled into financial aid, I think it’s acceptable for tuition to increase.</p>
<p>The “education should be free” people are truly insane. They don’t understand basic economics. UC COULD freeze tuition or reduce it, and in a few years every prominent member of the faculty would disappear, research dollars and equipment would evaporate, and the school would turn into a festering cesspool that noboby would remember. It’s similar to what happened with the City College of New York (it used to be good before Ivies removed the Jewish quota, and before they “opened” admissions wide open and studet quality plummeted).</p>
<p>The Occupy protest has no real place at Berkeley, or any other UC campus. The administration is about as left-wing nutty as it can get, but it’s still not able to set tuition. It’s the taxpayers of California that the movement or protest has to address. The state is divesting in higher ed. That’s the fact. If UC and Berkeley were smart, they’d try to raise more money immediately from alumni and corporates who have a vested interest in sourcing world-class graduates. But Birgeneau sucks. Instead of heading to Silicon Valley, he’s busy promoting political causes that benefit tiny minorities on campus (e.g beneficiaries of the Dream Act).</p>
<p>Mahatma Gandhi always said that every act of civil disobedience must be accompanied by carefully articulated demands. It shouldn’t be just about venting or ranting. And that’s exactly what the Occupy movement has become - there’s no clear purpose or demands. </p>
<p>And the bottom line is, the protest reflects REALLY poorly on Cal. Why would any top recruiter or grad school want to come to Berkeley? I fear for the future, and am truly appalled by the leadership at Cal. It’s not balanced at all, it’s not forward thinking, and it has absolutely no ability to attract the new type of private funding that will permit the Berkeley dream to endure for coming generations.</p>
<p>Has become? haha were there ever any actual/plausible demands? This is exactly why I don’t really support the movement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I said before, what about the people who aren’t getting any financial aid anyway, but can hardly pay for tuition that falls within their EFC? Do you mean the quality of the institution? If yes, I want to point out that more people are beginning to question the fact that higher tuition means higher quality - and honestly, if most people think that way, I really worry about them. Privates just have higher tuition rates in general. Going to St. Mary’s or something costs just as much as an ivy - but is it better that UCB? I’ll let you decide. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhhhh…and the taxpayers of California don’t know what’s going on at Cal? I would like to point out that the GA last Tuesday was the largest the occupy movement has seen so far. It was bigger than the one at the port of Oakland, or any of the ones at occupy wall street. While I am not participating in the movement, I think the level of solidarity that has been achieved so far makes me feel that much more proud (for lack of a better word) to go to Cal. Just think about the Free Speech Movement and Third World Liberation Front. They got a lot of heat for both of those back in the day, but they are now somewhat iconic of Cal. The TWLF is the reason why the ethnic studies department was founded! Well…I’m going to leave now before I get booed off, but honestly, occupy cal is making a difference (though small at this point in time).</p>
<p>Edit: Ok, but I will admit all the telegraph bums around sproul are getting to me. And some of the jobless occupy Oakland people haha.</p>
<p>meep, the Occupy movement never had a clear set of demands. It’s always been about “we’re upset, hear us, but we have no idea what to ask for”.</p>
<p>Fair point about tuition. I still think that higher tuition sends a signal that students are expected to share a bigger part of the cost of their education than in the past. And that’s not a bad thing. I don’t advocate tuition going to as high as Harvard’s or Stanford’s; I worry about the competitive dynamics that would come into play there. But I do think out of state tuition is far too high compared to in-state. I think in-state tuition could stand to go up some. There is a LOT of room before it starts to hit private levels.</p>
<p>The TWLF is kind of a joke, meep. So is the Ethnic Studies department. No one outside of Berkeley gives it any credibility whatsoever; it’s just a breeding ground for protesters who rarely do anything constructive in life. Look at BAMN. It’s a group that has never stood for anything positive, and has certainly cost the University a lot of money. It’s an embarrassment at a time that the school needs more fundraising than ever.</p>
<p>You shouldn’t feel like you’re going to get shunned here. This board should be about open dialogue. It just needs to maintain respectful. God knows there isn’t enough of that at Cal as it is.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I agree that people associate higher tuition with higher quality. However, if higher tuition leads to a larger endowment, that will produce higher USNWR rankings, which are sadly the standard college ranking.</p>
<p>Um, yeah…that’s what I meant…and that was why I said I don’t really support the movement. That was supposed to be a rhetorical question haha. I remember trying to google the occupy wall street motives for 2 HOURS!..and what did I come up with? Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. It was pretty sad actually.</p>
<p>And true, there is quite a bit of room before it reaches like $50-60k…but with $22k tuitions coming up around the corner (probably another occupy exaggeration, but you get my point), I’m not sure how long that gap will last for. Sorry to pull up my life story again, but if tuition goes up too much more, I won’t be able to keep going to cal (I’m already trying to transfer to a private if I can since their finaid is so much better in my case). My EFC was close to $40k, but there is NO way I can afford to shovel out any more than I am right now. I’m commuting too haha. </p>
<p>That’s a pretty strong claim there (though I have seen it quite a bit while lurking around the forums)…I have to say that to a lot of people, the TWLF was anything but a joke - I admit I thought so too before this semester, but after taking AAS 20A and going to a book panel field trip, I’ve gotten a really different view on all of these issues and actually respect what people have done so far. I guess there is a clear bias because of that though - especially because Harvey Dong teaches the class XD. And rather than groups like BAMN, check out things like APASD/APIICON instead. Would I ever become an ethnic studies major/minor or take more classes in it? Heck no. Do I respect people who choose to? Definitely. Any major is only as good as how far you take it, you know? I have recently met quite a few authors, lawyers and public policy graduates (don’t remember what exactly they were doing :/) who were ethnic studies majors/minors, and felt the program really helped them(again, this is from AAS 20A, so somewhat biased). </p>
<p>Glad to know you feel that way I’m pretty surprised by all the negativity I see on these boards haha</p>
<p>Regarding the lack of a coherent message/set of demands from the Occupy folks, Berkeley Professor and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich had the following to say during the rally on Tuesday night:</p>
<p>See, Robert Reich - I actually respect. His talk I concur with. I actually went to that on Tuesday - and after talking to many people around me, it seems that they were there to listen to Robert Reich, and not all that occupy crap. Many people were thoroughly annoyed, including myself, that those leftist nutjobs took the stage and refused to budge. I went there right at 8pm, when the Robert Reich lecture was supposed to be. Those occupy people were up there for 80 minutes - they were thoroughly taking advantage of the situation. It’s like signing up to attend a performance by Berlin Philharmonic, but then have the theater owner’s kids do elementary school orchestra thing for 80 minutes - and then cut the actual Berlin Phil short.
They were using Robert Reich’s popularity and name to draw in the crowd, and thoroughly abuse every single second of it. I felt my 80 minutes were stolen from me, which I could have spent productively otherwise.
I think the numbers that they are throwing out for the protest/meeting on Tuesday is injustice to those people who don’t support the Occupy movement, but were there for the Robert Reich talk, and really shouldn’t use those numbers as a meter for the movement</p>
<p>Meep, I actually live in Berkeley - own a home and a business here and send my kid to its public schools – and my tax dollars help pay for your education and the police presence, etc. And when I attended Cal in the early 70’s, I too saw the nitwits and non-students take over many of the protests out of a desire for self-aggrandizement and I actually couldn’t attend classes because of some of the protests. So, I sympathize… a little. But I also implore you as someone attending the Greatest University in the World to take advantage of your intellect and education and take a bit broader view of the importance of student protest throughout history and throughout the world, and particularly at Cal. You can always look at the trees – i.e., the smell and the nonsense from some of the fried old timers and conclude that there’s nothing valuable going on in a smarmy Fox News sort of way – but you’ll miss the forest. </p>
<p>And, geez, if you can’t figure out what OWS is about after two hours of Google research, you really do have your head in the sand. You sound determined NOT to get it. Just go to Robert Reich’s web site and he’ll make it plenty clear for you.</p>
<p>Ursa, I said I agree with what the protests are attempting to do…but I don’t support the movement enough to join it because I couldn’t see a clear set of demands * yet *…here…I shall quote myself haha (just read the bold if it’s too long). </p>
<p>Yes, I did figure out what OWS was about and why they were protesting (that took a few minutes). What I couldn’t find was what they actually wanted out of all this, as in when they would be satisfied, you know? They basically want to change the way the world works. Like on the Occupy Oakland page, they said the movement would go on “forever.” All the reports I’ve seen have just confused me even more because each protester has a different opinion of what must be changed. This is probably because it’s so big and wants to change so much, but I’ll just be keeping an eye on it until I see some actual demands.</p>
<p>“Uhhhh…and the taxpayers of California don’t know what’s going on at Cal? I would like to point out that the GA last Tuesday was the largest the occupy movement has seen so far. It was bigger than the one at the port of Oakland, or any of the ones at occupy wall street. ** While I am not participating in the movement, I think the level of solidarity that has been achieved so far makes me feel that much more proud (for lack of a better word) to go to Cal. ** Just think about the Free Speech Movement and Third World Liberation Front. They got a lot of heat for both of those back in the day, but they are now somewhat iconic of Cal. The TWLF is the reason why the ethnic studies department was founded! Well…I’m going to leave now before I get booed off, but honestly, occupy cal is making a difference (though small at this point in time).”</p>
<p>Going back to what I think was the original point of this thread: if you disagree with the Occupy Cal movement and feel the need to protest, you should have every right to do so. I support the movement, <em>despite</em> its flaws, namely, the lack of concrete goals, because I agree with the broader sentiments underlying the movement. Because the movement has its flaws though, I completely understand why people would and should debate the merits of OWS.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, at Cal, people are often intolerant of opinions that do not directly coincide with those of the left-leaning majority on campus, and thus, people with dissenting viewpoints don’t want to express their views for fear of being politically incorrect. I know this firsthand from the whole Berkeley Campus Republicans affirmative action cupcake sale debacle. I thought the way the Berkeley Repubs went around expressing their discontent with the state bill to be stupid, not because I was offended by it personally, but I knew others were, and the Campus Republicans should have realized that too before they set their plan in motion. However, I don’t think their opposition to the CA bill was inherently racist, and thought they actually addressed a few key issues with affirmative action, problems which I agree with. I would consider myself a pretty strong liberal, but I opposed the bill because I disagree with the current affirmative action system (I think it should be centered around socioeconomic as opposed to racial lines) and felt that that bill would essentially legitmize affirmative action for the UC system in CA. Yet due to all the anger generated by the bake sale, I felt like I couldn’t express my opposition to the state bill because I thought I would have a hundred students breathing down my back and calling me a racist for stating my opinion. I don’t think others should have to feel this way at Cal. Free speech is for everybody, whether you’re on the left, the right, or every shade in between. So protest away, anti-OWS people!</p>
<p>I don’t think that majority of campus is even left-leaning. They just happen to be the loudest, and politically correct. If they are loud, it’s a crusade. If the moderates speak up, then they are branded as racist/elitist/all sorts of -ist and then socially crucified.</p>
<p>Let me get this out of the way: I’m definitely part of the liberal/left-leaning student body on campus, am involved with some pretty “liberal” groups, and probably spend more time being politically correct than I should. But even I think that most liberals on campus are way too quick to criticize those with differing opinions; even if those opinions are not hateful, they are often construed to be so by these students. I agree with you though that most people on campus aren’t exactly really strong left-leaning; they are just apathetic or moderate politically, and the liberals are a vocal minority.</p>
I’m pretty surprised by all the negativity I see on these boards haha</p>