<p>Read it and weep, in-staters. :mad:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? It has only a minor impact on in-state admissions.</p>
<p>So in terms of Berkeley, 900 in-staters lost their chance of being admitted but I’m guessing the super qualified in-staters with good extra-cirrics,grades, test scores, and essays weren’t severely impacted by this right? I mean doesn’t this really affect only the more average or above average in-state applicant to Berkeley? That is sad since Berkeley is a California public university and Cal-residents should def get a boost in the admissions process, but if it subsidizes costs for the in-staters who did make it in, then maybe it’s not all that bad?</p>
<p>yep i read that.</p>
<p>I’m personally of the opinion that a University of this quality shouldn’t be so biased towards one geographical area as it is, and since I’m already here I have literally no reason to be even slightly annoyed over this.</p>
<p>Also, we knew this was going to happen like…six months ago? When they declared it? Openly?</p>
<p>^I agree with jonnosferatu halfway. Although I feel such a prestigious university should have a more global applicant pool, it is a State funded public university (even if it gets national grants for research and stuff) and all public universities should serve the tax paying constituents of their respective states. It just so happens to be the best public school that can hold it’s own against the privates that makes this topic somewhat controversial.</p>
<p>I think this is very good. The UC Berkeley student body should become more competitive instead of accepting mediocre in-state students. That’s one of the reasons that some top private school students look down upon Cal, because it’s pretty easy to get into if you’re in-state.</p>
<p>This is just anecdotal evidence, but I was very surprised that some people were accepted to Cal (especially the spring admits). These people didn’t even get accepted to UCLA, UCSD or UCSB. I think if the prestige of Cal is to increase (nationally), it would be good to make it more competitive and attract out of state students. Not to mention it helps the money situation.</p>
<p>Don’t get too excited or upset yet. Third paragraph of the article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interestingly, you CCers have basically the opposite reaction of the commenters on the LA Times website. Ohhhh so snotty. We’re in, you’re out, bitter parents of kids who got rejected.</p>
<p>Anyway, would be good to get more geographic diversity.</p>
<p>HELLLO its CLEARLY easier for californians to get in already anyway. they basically just have to meet certain requirements, while OOS students have to compete with this. believe or not the system is still heavily biased towards californians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that is what will NOT happen. What will/did happen is that instead of accepting the top xx deciles at a school like SF-Lowell (arguably top public in the state), Cal only accepted the top ~decile. Thus, high quality/stat kids from instate were replaced by those from OOS. Cal/UCLA will continue to accept the Val/Sal from podunk HS with a minimum of scores, i.e., more “mediocre” students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>900 out of 5,000 is more than “minor” in my book!</p>
<p>What irks me is why Berkeley has to eliminate open slots for freshman applicants while maintaining a ridiculous high percentage of transfers from community colleges. If the situation is not getting any better, why not limit the number of transfers and give those spots to freshman admits.</p>
<p>Right, let’s blame transfers again… there hasn’t been a transfer bashing thread for quite some time!</p>
<p>^Lol I’m pretty sure UC, A CALIFORNIA public university system (thus it’s primary goal being an upper education resource for CALIFORNIAN kids) would not have reduced instate admissions unless it truly needed to. What does a public university have to gain politically and socially from the state constituents it serves by decreasing instate admits? It must have been a financial necessity for them to take such a drastic action. </p>
<p>bluebayou: Why would they do that? Why would they replace high quality/stat kids from instate with ones from OOS instead of just replacing low/medium quality State kids with OOS? That doesn’t make sense to me. If they were going to reduce In-staters, why would they reduce high quality kids instead of low/medium quality ones?</p>
<p>By quality I don’t mean socioeconomic status, I mean quality based on merit, so nobody call me racist or poor hating or w/e term people use. I don’t want people to misread what I meant by quality.</p>
<p>So really the only way to fix this would be for your parents/State politicians/Businesspeople/Whoever else could be involved to fix the financial situation in California. Once you do that and there is no more need for OOS tuition, then Californians will get back their prestigious university again won’t they? This seems really similar to the US borrowing money from China, we wouldn’t be doing it unless we really needed it to balance our outstanding budget right?</p>
<p>PS: I’m a Idahoan and although we may have the occasional close minded racists/bigots who thinks Hinduism is the religion of Satan (which makes life hard sometimes if you’re Hindu (like me if you didn’t guess)…) and also the fact that we don’t really help out the needy here since our welfare system is almost non-existent, our budget is more balanced that most states so if any Californians like to shoot innocent animals and call it hunting and many other outdoor activities, you should move here!</p>
<p>^sorry for this three post ramble, but our potatoes are really good too!</p>
<p>(Can’t wait to go to Berkeley this fall. I"M FINALLY GETTING OUT OF HERRRREEEE!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Think about it: this is an extremely blue state. Merit counts for little. (Indeed, UC dropped its participation in the NM program.) UC continues to give big plus factors in admissions to low income, first gen to college, English language learners, etc, all of which tend to have much lower test scores. If UC did not, Cal & UCLA would be full of mostly wealthy, suburban kids. Thus, while it may be good public policy…</p>
<p>^Ahh kk, that actually makes obvious sense. Lol I feel pretty dumb for not realizing that. Colleges still want their “diversity”, and if it is true that this causes them to admit students with lower statistics then yeah I can see how highly qualified students stand at a disadvantage. Although I know many students here in Idaho who go under those categories you listed who had very high academic credentials but I see your point.</p>
<p>Honestly I think any type of “implied” affirmative action program (since actual explicit affirmative action by race quotas or “extra points in admission process” is technically illegal (Bakke v. California & U of Michigan v somebody)), should be based more on socio-economic status rather than race, since I don’t think an African American, Asian, Hispnaic, White etc whose parents are neuro-surgeons needs any kind of implied boost in the admissions process since they had the financial ability to buy prep books and other forms to score high on standardize tests if they can’t score high naturally, BUT I do think that members of any race who have major financial struggles do need some kind of boost since they lifestyles may not allow them to be as involved in academics/extra cirriculars as those of middle/upper middle class suburban Americans.</p>
<p>I’m thankfully upper middle class now but in my youth when my parents were immigrants in Michigan, I remember all of us having to do a lot of extra work to make ends meet, and if I went to high school there instead of here, I doubt I would have had the same opportunities to succeed academically as I did now OR it would have been much much harder to do so.</p>
<p>^OR, you more than likely would have still done well, but stayed home and attended the instate flagship Uni for half the price as Cal! The point being perhaps you would stay “home” if your instate Uni offered a top tier eng program?</p>