<p>"you have to declare your major from the beginning,"</p>
<p>So if one declares a impacted major such as EECS, and get bad grades in EECS prereqs, where would they go? They can't leave EECS because no one wants to take them and yet at the same time they can't major in EECS because the program won't admit him despite the fact that he is declared as EECS.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
So if one declares a impacted major such as EECS, and get bad grades in EECS prereqs, where would they go? They can't leave EECS because no one wants to take them and yet at the same time they can't major in EECS because the program won't admit him despite the fact that he is declared as EECS.
[/QUOTE]
You are admitted into the EECS program from the beginning (as a freshman). However, the problem still stays the same. If one can't handle EECS (like in your example) there's no place for him to go to.</p>
<p>Why does this thread have to veer--no, careen--off topic? It's about how you like Berkeley, not about long discussions of Berkeley's problems. There are other threads for that.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
So if one declares a impacted major such as EECS, and get bad grades in EECS prereqs, where would they go?
[/Quote]
Out the door of course.</p>
<p>At the risk of offending those Berkeley enthusiasts, let me say this: Berkeley is an elite school wannabe but is doing everything in the opposite direction.
Let's start with admission. Wholistic means backdoor AA. The huge transfer program makes a mockery out of the high standard it aspires to. Of course, the capricious adcoms just complete the icing on the cake. Why is it a surprise that the 4-year graduation rate is so low and the average student gpa is so dismal?
Second, the campus is hopelessly overcrowded. Limiting enrollment in collegs/majors/classes should only be done to protect the ignorance instead of a tool for crowd control.
Finally, the school administration is poor, from the health center to the financial aid office and everything in between. They must have extended the wholistic approach to hiring admin staff.
So for the 25% who are academically strong, mentally independent and socially mature, enjoy your stay at Berkeley, you'll have a decent future ahead of you. For the other 75%, well, you really shouldn't have been here, but since you've been suckered in, make the best out of it. You should still get your diplomas in the fullness of time, it's just they may not help you advance your career dream as much as you would like.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's about how you like Berkeley, not about long discussions of Berkeley's problems. There are other threads for that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know, I think that to discuss what you like about a school (which I did), you also have to talk about the things you don't like.</p>
<p>"Why is it a surprise that the 4-year graduation rate is so low and the average student gpa is so dismal? "</p>
<p>Why would Berkeley admit students that they know have a low chance of succeeding?</p>
<p>surely you don't recommend going to HYPSM for engineering over berkeley, do you? The only Ivy league that has a shred of reputation for engineering is Cornell, and even Cornell's program doesn't have remotely near as much prestige in engineering as does Cal. Now if you recommend Stanford or MIT, well, then we're talking about schools that are on par with each other in that respect and it would make sense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that to discuss what you like about a school (which I did), you also have to talk about the things you don't like.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or you could keep it simple and just talk about what attracted you to Berkeley.</p>
<p>Sunfish,</p>
<p>Keep in mind that Berkeley is a public school. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it unaccountable for all of its issues, but it does put certain administrative procedures, admissions policies, and so-called "overcrowding" in a better perspective.</p>
<p>Though Berkeley adherents often compare the school to elite private universities, the complexities involved with receiving government / taxpayer support put the institution at a fair-or-unfair disadvantage. Take "the Junior University across the Bay," for instance:</p>
<p>Stanford is a private university with a multi-billion dollar endowment and a 8000 acre campus. Despite this, it only accepts a fraction (in both numbers and percentage) of the students Berkeley normally accepts. Though Stanford does accept low-income students for marketability reasons, its students are traditionally privileged individuals who will be able to donate money in the future and have key roles in the business / political world of tomorrow.</p>
<p>The University of California, by contrast, is publicly funded. In theory, it is owned by the taxpayers. If, for any reason, the UC System was accused of favoring students of a certain socioeconomic standing or accepting less than it could possibly accommodate, the outrage would likely evolve into some sort of legal action, with predictable budget cuts to follow. Of course, educating tens of thousands of students on a limited budget is both financially straining and a bureaucratic nightmare. The only relief seems to come from those who spend their first two years at a cheaper community college, who are justly rewarded for their decisions when they transfer.</p>
<p>Obviously, none of this answers the question "How do you like Berkeley?" It does, however, put things in a better perspective, especially when public schools are compared to private schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
surely you don't recommend going to HYPSM for engineering over berkeley, do you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now if you recommend Stanford or MIT
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, and what exactly do the 'S' and the 'M' in HYPSM stand for?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only Ivy league that has a shred of reputation for engineering is Cornell
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't you think that's a bit of hyperbole there? I think the *worst * engineering ranking for an Ivy is a ranking somewhere in the 50's or so, maybe in the 60's. Considering the fact that there are literally hundreds of engineering programs in the country, I would say that that's pretty darn good. </p>
<p>And besides, the truth of the matter is, whether we like it or not, many of the engineering students at the top schools are not ever going to work as engineers anyway. Many a post have I written in the engineering section of CC that details just how many engineering students from MIT and Stanford (and also to some extent Berkeley) never take engineering jobs, instead preferring jobs in management consulting and investment banking. If you're not going to work as an engineer anyway, what does it matter what is the ranking of the engineering program from which you graduated?</p>
<p>I don't think this should be particularly surprising. Let's face it. Most sociology majors do not become professional sociologists. Most poli-sci majors do not become professional political scientists. Most history majors do not become historians. Hence, we should not assume that all engineering majors will actually become engineers. It's just something that they find worthy for intellectual exploration before they embark upon their 'real' career. This is particularly so when you're talking about engineering students at schools like Harvard and Yale. I think it's safe to say that many (probably most) of them will probably end up as consultants or investment bankers, or are going to professional school like law school or medical school.</p>
<p>I'm tired of hearing about the Ivy League, other elite private schools, investment banking, and management consulting.</p>
<p>I'm sure Sakky will give a full paragraph rebuttal to this statement...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm tired of hearing about the Ivy League, other elite private schools, investment banking, and management consulting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hear, hear!</p>
<p>
[quote]
quote]Though Berkeley adherents often compare the school to elite private universities, the complexities involved with receiving government / taxpayer support put the institution at a fair-or-unfair disadvantage. Take "the Junior University across the Bay," for instance:</p>
<p>Stanford is a private university with a multi-billion dollar endowment and a 8000 acre campus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But then you have to ask how did Stanford become that way. Remember, Stanford didn't start off with a multi-billion dollar endowment. Stanford did not start off as an elite school. In fact, Stanford was launched as a quite threadbare and resource-constrained school. Yes, it had the Farm, but that land was TRULY a farm, because nobody else really wanted it, as Silicon Valley hadn't been built yet, and all of the South Bay at that time was little more than ranchland and fruit/vegetable orchards. Stanford went through several financial crises during the early decades of its existence, and the Stanford leadership of those days admitted to being distraught at the notion of having to compete in the shadow of the 'public school across the Bay', which was aided not only by a 30 year head start, but also by quite lavish funding from the state. {Yep, California poured a LOT of money into UCBerkeley in the early days.} </p>
<p>In fact, for the first half of its existence, Stanford was considered to be little more than a regional backwater school of only minor consequence, compared to Berkeley, which (with apologies to Caltech) was the first school in California to achieve international prominence. It was only in the last 40-50 years or so that Stanford actually came into its own as the recognizably elite school that it is today. Just look at the situation in terms of Nobels. By the time Stanford won its first Nobel in 1952, Berkeley had already won six. </p>
<p>We have to give credit to the former Stanford administration for very shrewd and visionary leadership. Stanford was instrumental in the creation of Silicon Valley by encouraging close ties between academia and entrepreneurship; creating Stanford Industrial Park (now known as Stanford Research Park) as one of the first business incubators to provide space and deep networking access to high-tech startups; and providing connections for budding entrepreneurs - many of whom were Stanford professors and students - to venture capitalists and angel investors. HP, as one of the first tech startups that was instrumental in the formation of Silicon Valley, took full advantage of the resources at the Stanford Industrial Park. </p>
<p>That was brilliant. Why didn't the Berkeley leadership think of that? If they had, then Silicon Valley might have been built in the East Bay rather than in the South Bay, and it would be Berkeley that would have benefitted from its own investments in startups like Google, not Stanford. Stanford received 1.8 million shares of Google stock as compensation for the founders usage of Stanford proprietary technology that served as the basis of the Google search algorithm. At today's stock price, that investments would be worth over $1 billion now. (Of course, Stanford has been selling shares during all this time, including some at the time of the Google IPO, so Stanford obviously didn't receive the full $1 billion in value. But they clearly earned a quite large return.}</p>
<p>My point is, we should give credit where credit is due. Stanford didn't start off life with a huge endowment, nor did they start life as an elite school. They are NOW an elite school with a huge endowment because they were smart. They were well led. Stanford has bypassed, in terms of both academic standing and in terms of wealth, numerous schools that are far older than it is, including most of the Ivies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The University of California, by contrast, is publicly funded. In theory, it is owned by the taxpayers. If, for any reason, the UC System was accused of favoring students of a certain socioeconomic standing
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But they do! Let's face it. The average Berkeley student comes from a family background that is much richer than that of the average Californian. I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that the median Berkeley student is upper middle class. </p>
<p>I don't think that is surprising news. The truth of the matter is, the average US college student, including at the public colleges, tends to come from a richer background than that of the average American. It's not so much a matter of discrimination. Rather, it's that socioeconomic status and academic achievement tend to be correlated. For example, if your parents are well educated, then will probably be making above-average salaries. And if your parents are well educated, then they will probably inculcate good study habits in you. </p>
<p>Now, I think what you mean to say is that Berkeley probably admits MORE poorer students than does Stanford. That is true. But let's not kid ourselves here. Berkeley's student body is relatively rich, compared to average Californians. </p>
<p>
[quote]
or accepting less than it could possibly accommodate, the outrage would likely evolve into some sort of legal action, with predictable budget cuts to follow
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But they do accept less than they could possibly accomodate! Look at Berkeley's graduate programs. I am quite certain that many of them, especially the PhD programs, could bring in many more Californians than they currently do. For example, there are some years where certain Berkeley PhD programs won't matriculate a single new student who is a California resident. {Instead, every new student in those years was either OOS, or a foreign national.} </p>
<p>Yet, these graduate programs are all "public" programs last time I checked. After all, they are funded by state taxpayer money. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Obviously, none of this answers the question "How do you like Berkeley?" It does, however, put things in a better perspective, especially when public schools are compared to private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I continue to find mystifying is that there seems to be no daylight between Berkeley and the top private schools ... for graduate programs, especially PhD programs. I know a bunch of PhD students at Harvard and MIT who have stated that they would have strongly preferred to go to Berkeley instead, but they didn't get in. Admissions to these Berkeley programs is just as hard, if not harder, than admission to the programs at any private school. And certainly these programs provide no in-state preference. You can't just say that, just because you're a poor Californian, you deserve preference to be admitted to Berkeley's PhD chemistry program. That's not how PhD admissions works.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm tired of hearing about the Ivy League, other elite private schools, investment banking, and management consulting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hear, hear!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you guys are so tired of hearing about it, then you can simply stop reading my posts! Nobody is forcing you.</p>
<p>We certainly can. Or we can ask you to stop clogging up the threads with your endless bantering about the Berkeley administration et al (which you seem to do often). While I do like tangents within threads (they are a large part of the life of CC), I don't think that many-page debates on how crappy Berkeley can be is an interesting (or even vaguely pertinent) tangent in a discussion that simply asks, "How do you like Berkeley?" especially when there are plenty of other discussions on it. But I (and other users too, it appears) think it's unnecessary to oppose a poster on inane topics when the person was simply giving her opinion, as you did in post #6.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Though I am quite a fan of your writing and tend to agree with you on many things, I feel compelled to respond to your latest post that scrutinized some of the things I had posted earlier.</p>
<p>First of all, you contrast the extraordinary growth of Stanford's endowment and subsequent rise in prominence to Berkeley's dismal progress in both, implicating that credit should be given to Stanford where Berkeley has come up short. It's a compelling argument- perhaps USC's status as an elite school is a more timely example of this- but it doesn't necessarily refute anything I mentioned regarding the complexities of public school. In fact, Berkeley's stunted development only further supports my point regarding schools dependent on public funding. (Aside, labeling the early 20th century Stanford University as a "regional backwater school" is a little misleading in my opinion; keep in mind that Leland Stanford's railroad fortune went into the foundation of that school, which wasn't chump change even by today's standards.)</p>
<p>Secondly, you point out that the median Berkeley student is rich compared to the average Californian. This may be true, especially at Berkeley, but it doesn't change its status as a school intended for the taxpaying public. The fact of the matter is, Berkeley accommodates more low-income students than Stanford, in both numbers and percentages. (As another side note, it's important to recognize that while college students might not always reflect the population at large, there's no question that public schools do an immensely better job of this than their private counterparts. There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of college students choose to go public.)</p>
<p>Your third and fourth points regard graduate education. You may have an argument here; unfortunately, I know too little about Berkeley's grad programs to contest any complaints you may have against them. I'm inclined to believe that nonresidents pay higher tuition and fees. Also, it's important to keep in mind that many grad students are taxpayers themselves, eligible for residency after a few years. But don't take my word for that one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We certainly can. Or we can ask you to stop clogging up the threads with your endless bantering about the Berkeley administration et al
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I am completely free to ignore any such requests. </p>
<p>After all, this is a matter of freedom of speech. You don't own this discussion board. What gives you the right to tell others what they can and cannot post? I don't tell you what you can post. We have the right to write about whatever we want to write about. You have the right to not read it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But I (and other users too, it appears) think it's unnecessary to oppose a poster on inane topics when the person was simply giving her opinion, as you did in post #6.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there it is again. How did I "oppose" her? Like I said, she has the right to her opinion. I never said her opinion was wrong. In fact, purely by definition, opinions can never be wrong.</p>
<p>But I also have the right to my opinion, and I have the right to express it. Where my opinions differ from hers, I have to right to point out those differences, and marshal facts in support of my case. That doesn't mean that she's wrong and I'm right. I am simply offering another opinion and highlighting how it is different from hers. I have every right to do so, and others have the right to do the same to my opinions. </p>
<p>If you guys insist on maintaining your position, then I think it is fair for you to explain why people should not be allowed to express opinions that differ. Just because somebody expresses one opinion, nobody is allowed to disagree? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Aside, labeling the early 20th century Stanford University as a "regional backwater school" is a little misleading in my opinion; keep in mind that Leland Stanford's railroad fortune went into the foundation of that school, which wasn't chump change even by today's standards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Ask yourself why exactly did Stanford suffer from so many funding problems during its early years, when Berkeley never did during those same years? Part of it was because a large (I think the largest) portion of the Stanford gift was in the form of the Farm itself, which was not exactly a liquid asset as, like I said, it's not like a lot of people were champing at the bit to buy land in the South Bay during those years. Maybe part of the reason was that the very early Stanford administration was unusually spendthrift relative to the early Berkeley administration. I don't think that's the case, but I suppose it's possible. Maybe it has something to do with the 30 year head start that Berkeley had. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the point is that Stanford was at that time not even close to being the elite and wealthy school that it is today. Berkeley established itself as a powerhouse decades before Stanford did. Berkeley was winning Nobels left and right before anybody had even heard of the term 'Silicon Valley'. </p>
<p>But my ultimate point regarding Stanford is simply that Stanford has been unusually well led. Stanford has managed to exceed not just public schools like Berkeley, but almost all private schools too. Maybe Stanford has an edge in beating Berkeley because Stanford is private. But that doesn't explain how Stanford was able to surpass most of the Ivies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This may be true, especially at Berkeley, but it doesn't change its status as a school intended for the taxpaying public
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As Sowell might say, intentions and outcomes are 2 different things. See below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact of the matter is, Berkeley accommodates more low-income students than Stanford, in both numbers and percentages. (As another side note, it's important to recognize that while college students might not always reflect the population at large, there's no question that public schools do an immensely better job of this than their private counterparts. There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of college students choose to go public.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, the comparison of all public schools vs. all private schools is rather unfair. I agree with you that many private schools are very unaccomodating to the poor.</p>
<p>But, frankly, so is Berkeley. What I mean by that is that, like I said, that the average Berkeley student comes from a wealthier background than the average Californian. Berkeley only admits 25% of its applicants. Hence, most people who apply, including many poor people, will get rejected from Berkeley. Furthermore many poor taxpayers who would like go to to Berkeley don't even apply because they know they can't get in (i.e. they aren't even UC-eligible). </p>
<p>What that means is that Berkeley cannot really be said to accomodate the taxpayers, especially low-income taxpayers. Berkeley accomodates only a tiny fraction of taxpayers, and that tiny fraction is disproportionately well-off. In fact, the only school system in California that can truly be said to accomodate all of the taxpayers are the community colleges, and that's only because they are open admissions. Anybody taxpayer can use them. But I obviously can't just show up to Berkeley and demand to get into a degree program there just because I'm a taxpayer. I have to get admitted first, and most taxpayers won't get admitted. </p>
<p>But putting that issue aside, I am not talking about ALL public schools vs. ALL private schools. I was talking specifically about Berkeley (which is a highly unusual public school) vs. the elite private schools (which are highly unusual private schools).</p>
<p>So let's compare Berkeley vs. Stanford. You might say that, even though Berkeley clearly does not accommodate as many poor people as do the community colleges, Berkeley still accommodates more poor people than does Stanford. True. But how much of that is due to the fact that economic status and academic achievement are correlated? Let's face it. For state residents, Berkeley is easier to get into than Stanford. While not that many poor people are able to amass the academic record necessary to get into Berkeley, even fewer are able to do so with regards to Stanford. </p>
<p>In other words, Stanford doesn't accommodate just any old poor student. It accommodates the very best of the poor students. Berkeley accommodates more poor students, but many of those poor students were simply not good enough to get into Stanford. Hence, it's a rather unfair comparison.</p>
<p>What we should really be looking at are those poor students who are good enough to get into both Berkeley and Stanford. For these students, which school offers the better deal? I would actually argue that it is Stanford that probably offers the better deal. After all, if nothing else, at least Stanford guarantees in writing that any families who make less than 45k will not have to make any tuition contribution. Can Berkeley say the same? In other words, poor people who are good enough to get into both may find that Stanford is actually cheaper than Berkeley is. </p>
<p>Families</a> earning less than $45,000 need not make tuition contribution </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm inclined to believe that [graduate student] nonresidents pay higher tuition and fees.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They do. But so do non-resident undergrads. I fail to see the difference. </p>
<p>Besides, if you're a nonresident PhD student, it doesn't matter anyway. Yeah, you pay the nonresident fee, but then your department pays you back as part of your support package. So net cost to you is zero. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, it's important to keep in mind that many grad students are taxpayers themselves, eligible for residency after a few years. But don't take my word for that one
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I fail to see the relevance. Yes, many grad students are taxpayers themselves. But so are many undergrads. After all, I would say that most Berkeley undergrads hold jobs at some time during the school year (i.e. especially during the summer). Hence, presumably they're paying taxes too. </p>
<p>But I don't see the logic of this argument anyway. Consider this. A California state resident who attends, say, the Berkeley Haas MBA program, pays instate tuition for one of the smallest and most intimate MBA experiences in the country. Of the top 10 fulltime MBA programs in the country, Haas is the 2nd smallest, being only slightly larger than Dartmouth Tuck. </p>
<p>So, again, this begs the question of why the Haas MBA program is able to be so small and intimate. After all, it is funded by taxpayers. I am sure that the program could cram in many many more students than it does now. {After all, behemoth MBA programs like the one at Harvard Business School have nearly 4 times the number of students.}</p>
<p>So why doesn't Berkeley just force Haas to greatly expand? After all, you said before that the whole point of a public school was to accommodate large numbers of state residents. Haas is not doing that. Instead, Haas has been able to maintain its status as a small and tight-knit program. Why is the Haas able to get away with that, but the general Berkeley undergrad program not able to get away with it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you guys insist on maintaining your position, then I think it is fair for you to explain why people should not be allowed to express opinions that differ. Just because somebody expresses one opinion, nobody is allowed to disagree?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's fine to have a different opinion -- I never said you couldn't, so I don't know why you just spent paragraphs on that -- but you consistently derail threads (I've seen it ever since I started here on CC) with the same drivel comparing Berkeley to top privates. And can you point out where I said you couldn't post? No, you can't, because I never said it. I'm simply asking that you stay on-topic -- or if you do go on a tangent, let it be vaguely pertinent to the discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What that means is that Berkeley cannot really be said to accomodate the taxpayers, especially low-income taxpayers. Berkeley accomodates only a tiny fraction of taxpayers, and that tiny fraction is disproportionately well-off. In fact, the only school system in California that can truly be said to accomodate all of the taxpayers are the community colleges, and that's only because they are open admissions. Anybody taxpayer can use them. But I obviously can't just show up to Berkeley and demand to get into a degree program there just because I'm a taxpayer. I have to get admitted first, and most taxpayers won't get admitted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>sakky,</p>
<p>you seem to suggest that the administration of Berkeley is flawed because they do not accommodate the tax-paying public-- because they are selective in their admissions and thus inadvertently screen out a portion of tax-payers. You might be right, but I don't see this as a mistake on the part of the UC administration. After all, UCB IS meant to be a selective institution that provides the tools and education necessary for those students showing the most potential to succeed.</p>
<p>The rest of the UC system is in place for other students of varying caliber, and the state does a damn good job with the UC system in providing top notch education for the public. For example, UC Riverside is very accessible, admitting 75%+ of applicants just last year. And that is only one school in the UC network. Then there is the CSU system (which is even more inexpensive), and a great, streamlined transfer system in place between the UC/CSUs and community colleges.</p>
<p>I don't contest your logical deduction that there may be an over representation of medium-high income students at UC Berkeley (I don't have data either way), but given that its true, I don't think its fair to criticize Berkeley for the phenomenon. Berkeley, as a public institution, can only rely on merit when determining their admissions, and socioeconomic issues are too far beyond the scope of what is relevant in these admissions.</p>
<p>Plus, your statements about Stanford's exclusivity seem to contradict your argument that Berkeley is unaccommodating to the poor. I mean, you just said Berkeley is far more accessible to poor people, just not as accessible as you feel it should be. Perhaps Berkeley could offer the same financial services to excellent students from poor families if it were to admit less students, become more exclusive, and intensify admission criteria? Then it'd be very much less a public institution.</p>
<p>And what about for the rest of us in the middle class? What about the vast majority of the state population that is poor-but-not-quite? A family making an income of $60,000 in the bay area could very easily find UC tuition costs beyond their capabilities, let alone a private school!</p>
<p>Sakky!</p>
<p>You're killing me with this rhetoric! Again, it's very intelligent, compelling writing. But it constructs arguments where none exist, or are of peripheral significance. </p>
<p>For the sake of reminding our readers (and ourselves), let us observe the three issues at hand: The complexities of running a public school, the accommodation of low-income students at Berkeley and other elite schools (in this case specifically, the rival university Stanford), and graduate education at Berkeley. </p>
<p>Let's start with the third topic. Your last post examines- and dedicates a few paragraphs, I might add- to a few statements I made that were admittedly speculative in nature. The truth of the matter is, I'm not a grad student and claim no knowledge of graduate school admissions. Besides, does it really serve our purposes to consider graduate education independently of the university at large? (Which serves mostly undergraduate students- by far a larger source of revenue for the university- and thus really a restatement of our second topic.) In my book, this nonexistent case is closed.</p>
<p>Of course, if taken in the context of accommodating ALL students, then your argument is alive and well within our aforementioned second topic: the accommodation of low-income, taxpaying Californians at Berkeley, with comparisons made to Stanford. I have admitted that Berkeley students tend to be richer than the norm, and you have admitted that "many private schools are very unaccommodating to the poor." I further admit that elite schools like Stanford are easily more accommodating to low-income students than other private schools with smaller endowments, but that doesn't convince me that poorer students are applying to Stanford in droves. You can blame the higher admissions standards of Stanford University or some apparent correlation between income levels and intelligence for this, but from my point of view, the difference between a tuition of $8,400 and $35,800 is a BIG, FAT REASON. Even without the help of financial aid and other need-based scholarships, the UC System effectually grants a $27,400 reward- via taxes- to every admitted Californian. Of course, one could argue that this ultimately benefits the rich taxpayers as they are allegedly favored at Berkeley; I say compare the income levels of Berkeley students with those of any other elite school, and let the numbers speak for themselves. (Honestly, what better way to resolve this issue once and for all?)</p>
<p>Finally, we have made it to our, hehe, first topic: The complexities of administering a college dependent on public funding. This discussion seems to get further and further off-topic with every additional posting; it has now transformed into a debate over whether or not Stanford was a "regional backwater school" in the early 20th century. I still have my reasons for disagreeing with you here, but it's beside the point. Even if Stanford was initially financed with trinkets and seashells, it always had the fiscal liberty to succeed; Berkeley, by contrast, has always depended upon public money, which brings exceptional levels of scrutiny whenever it is spent or invested, particularly in risky (but potentially lucrative) ventures. In this case, comparing Stanford to Berkeley is like comparing apples to oranges.</p>