<p>
</p>
<p>So then, as Liquidus pointed out, wouldn’t it be logical to believe that if Berkeley were to privatize, its ranking would improve? After all, like you said, private status seems to be correlated with a high ranking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. I know 2 state residents who grew up in poor circumstances, and had always dreamed of going to Berkeley (or one of the other UC’s), and they were indeed admitted. On the other hand they were also convinced by their teachers to apply to and were admitted to Harvard, who also turned out to be cheaper once financial aid packages were factored in. I will always remember one of them mordantly joking that he had always wanted to go to Berkeley, but couldn’t afford it, so he had ‘no choice’ but to go to Harvard.</p>
<p>That begs the question - who’s really providing an affordable education? As Robert Birgeneau himself conceded, Berkeley is the less affordable choice for top students of modest means. </p>
<p>*So for now at least, a student whose family earns $90,000 would have to pay as little as $4,500 to go to Harvard but would get little to no financial aid to help cover Berkeley’s annual cost of $25,000. A no-loan program “is not a sustainable solution for us,” says Berkeley chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who is heading a task force charged with examining how to keep college affordable for all families in the state. **“We’d likely not be able to help the poorest students as well down the line.” **
*</p>