<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you think Berkeley has not given California kids the preference that you’re saying when it admitted 9,345 CA students as opposed to only 4,444 OOS/Int’ls students. Those OOS/Int’ls admits may even have a significantly higher stats than the CA students’.</p>
<p>University of Pennsylvania in no way prefers students of Penn. University of Miami does not give preference to Miami residents. Stop with the name arguement, it is a weak one. Berkeley is losing public funding, and more and more students, be it from california or not will not want to attend. If you believe your taxes grants you and your kids a “right” to be there, then please, pay MORE taxes to increase the chances that they do, so that there can be more faculty and space to accept them in an even bigger application pool. Because everyone here in california pays taxes, and many of their children will never even attend college here, so what gives you ANY right to say that your child (obviously a weak applicant in the first place) “deserves” to be here? Being a tax payer doesn’t entitle you to ****, you have to pay it. It doesn’t entitle me to berate a police officer, litter in a park, or definately a spot in Cal.</p>
<p>Lonesoul, get your facts right. Hmm, what do the University of Miami and the U Penn have in common? Hmmm, they are PRIVATE universities. UC Berkeley is a PUBLIC insititution founded by and originally for the education of Californians. Enought said, and your apparent need to throw a shot at my kid with no knowledge of his stats makes it clear you’ve got some issues to deal with.</p>
<p>I find it funny that people get so worked up about such a simple issue. A few years ago, almost 90% of Berkeley students were Californians. Now it’s less than 70%, not an immaterial move statistically, and a change that’s happened over a relatively short period of time. So if California taxpayers who created this place and still fund it ask questions about this shift it is somehow an off-limits subject?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I seriously doubt it, at least for the OOS’ers. (Heck, I wonder if admissions is even enforcing the VAPA requirement for OOSers?) I saw a couple of posts this year on cc where an OOS student was accepted to Cal but WL’ed at 'SC. The world must be coming to end when Cal has to pick up 'SC’s left overs. :D</p>
<p>But from a practical matter, we’ll never really know. SAT scores are highly correlated with income. Cal has no trouble attracting high stat wealthy kids, whether instate or out. Cal’s lower quartile of students tends to be those that the Regents admit to fulfill the social mission. Thus comparing that group or the total instate average to wealthy OOS’ers is comparing apples and oranges, or like comparing the numbers of Beverly Hills High to Long Beach Poly. But I have no doubt that the spinmeisters will in fact to that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is the result of the steady defunding. California taxpayers have made their choice clear – less money for post-secondary education. Everything else follows from that. You may have preferred raising in-state fees, but the big protests against such actions in the recent past indicate that your opinion is not shared by many.</p>
<p>blue, a few years ago (in 2009 to be exact) when Berkeley had 91% In-State students, Berkeley’s stats looked something like this:</p>
<p>Official Admissions Statistics (9% OOS)
Applicants: 44,149
Admitted: 10,251
Acceptance rate: 23.2%
Yield rate: 41.2%
Verbal:580 and 710
Math: 620 and 750
Writing: 590 and 710 </p>
<p>In that same year, USC had these stats:</p>
<p>Official Admissions Statistics
Applicants: 35,900
Admitted: 7,875
Acceptance rate: 21.9%<br>
Yield rate: 35.1%
Verbal:620 and 720
Math: 650 and 750
Writing: 640 and 730</p>
<p>Noticed how USC had better stats back in 2009, which was only 3 years ago, when Berkeley only had 9% OOS/Int’ls? Look how that statistics have turned around on Berkeley’s favor now that Berkeley admitted and enrolled many more OOS.</p>
<p>**Berkeley<a href=“30%%20OOS”>/b</a>
Applicants: 52,966
Admitted: 13,789
Acceptance rate: 26% (including Spring admits)
Yield rate: 41.03%
Reading: 620-740
Math: 660-770
Writing: 650-750</p>
<p>USC
Applicants: 35,794
Admitted: 8,715
Acceptance rate: 24%<br>
Yield rate: 34%
Verbal:620 and 720
Math: 650 and 750
Writing: 640 and 740</p>
<p>Who do you think could have increased Berkeley’s stats now, the in-state students? Really? Study the numbers again. </p>
<p>About 12 years ago when Berkeley had 7% in-state students, I was turned down at Berkeley as an international student applicant (I’m Italian). In that same year, I got admitted to 3 Ivies (including Columbia and UPenn) which are known to be more selective than Berkeley for American student applicants. I was also admitted to Harvey Mudd, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Bowdoin and several top universities in the UK. I went to Cambridge instead. But had I been accepted at Berkeley, I would surely have gone there instead as it was my top 2 choice at that time, after MIT, which I was denied admissions there too. Again, that was about 12 years ago. Had I applied to Berkeley this year as an Int’l, I most likely would have gotten in. And my stats, which are above Berkeley’s median, would have also helped Berkeley’s overall stats improved. Therefore, the improvement of Berkeley’s current higher stats was the result of the school admitting more OOS/int’ls, as those students generally have higher stats than the in-state applicants. </p>
<p>Sources:
<a href="http://college./college-1404-University-of-California,-Berkeley_admissions-statistics.html%5B/url%5D">http://college./college-1404-University-of-California,-Berkeley_admissions-statistics.html</a>
<a href="http://college./college-1552-University-of-Southern-California_admissions-statistics.html%5B/url%5D">http://college./college-1552-University-of-Southern-California_admissions-statistics.html</a>
<a href=“http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp[/url]”>http://students.berkeley.edu/admissions/freshmen.asp</a>
<a href=“http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1011/FreshmanProfile2010.pdf[/url]”>http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1011/FreshmanProfile2010.pdf</a></p>
<p>
I agree with you, and in theory that is how things are supposed to go. Unfortunately - at least in the humanities - that is not how things are always going. Fortunately, California makes it fairly easy to establish residency, so the rates only apply for a year. Still, it’s a pretty odd policy. Thankfully I had an outside fellowship that made up the difference.</p>
<p>It’s actually something that’s been going on for a while; it’s just gotten a bit worse lately.
</p>
<p>I dont have an issue. I got in. Your argument is just because it contains the name of the area, it should admit the residents of that area. It is the University of California, not the University of Californians, or University of California residents. Also, realize that much of the school’s public funding also comes from federal support. So in essence, everyone has a right to be here (especially the Chinese and their 14 trillion dollar loan). </p>
<p>And no, I don’t have to look at your kid’s stats to know he was subpar, not enough to beat out 14k admits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To add to this, I ask bluebayou and boquist1: what would your policy about giving the option to parents to pay 50K for a Berkeley education actually involve? Currently, OOS are judged in a different way from in-state students. Would we then judge in-state students willing to pay 50K vs. not differently? Or would Berkeley make the decision for them and require wealthy California students to pay 50K?</p>
<p>Keep in mind that if you implement the very last of those, you’re going to strip away some of the talented Berkeley students. I understand most of the talented Berkeley students probably didn’t make it to the MIT or Harvard that the wished to go to. But they may very well have chosen Berkeley over schools like UPenn, Columbia, Cornell, … if their prospective major were really strong at Berkeley (which is a good bet - Berkeley is good at a lot of things academically), AND they had to pay barely anything in comparison. I know examples of this happening very clearly. As to you CC-ers, well of course CC isn’t fully representative, but the threads are almost always things like Berkeley v. Michigan or Berkeley v. Cornell or something like that. Not many Berkeley v. MIT threads : ) … I suspect those are made by people who’re from day 1 concerned with the top research going on at both, which is far ahead of the game and in the extreme minority.</p>
<p>Sad reality is sakky’s right on one thing - a lot of Berkeley’s talent comes from people who don’t want to pay for a world class education. It’s easy to say well that’s their problem - but Berkeley is hardly in the position of power to talk like that. Not for undergrad. </p>
<p>Yes, boquist1, I agree with you in principle that no CA student who is very strong and has a family willing to pay 50K should have to give up a spot at Berkeley to some OOS student who isn’t significantly more qualified. Although, I would hardly make the same claim for an OOS student (or international) who IS strongly more qualified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you quite sure about the ‘out’ ? I feel like a lot of the high stat kids could just as well have gone somewhere else. Berkeley is crowded and it’s hard to get your classes, and it’s very competitive once you’re in there…depending on major.</p>
<p>I think an out of state student not interested in our star Chem-E, math, EECS, etc, etc research or something they really couldn’t find at most other schools would be * out of his or her mind* to come here if paying that much…especially if they can go to their own instate school. Maybe if their instate school is terrible and they get flat rejected by private schools, they would consider it.</p>
<p>As for in-staters…What about Johns Hopkins? Northwestern? UChicago? UPenn? GATech? CMU? … Many high stat CA students would choose the first 4 in a heartbeat, due to low elitism associated with instate admission to Cal. People’s egos play a big role. Engineering students may still pick Cal due to MIT and Stanford rejection, however. </p>
<p>But if they were not in-state, not likely if their instate school is good at engineering, I think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure if this is true (it could be!), but LOL that in-state students are fat!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree - admissions does admit subpar students over very terrific ones. Perhaps you are right that boquist1 has a subpar student son, but your logic doesn’t work.</p>
<p>4.2 and 2170, lots of EC’s and varsity sports leadership. If you consider that sub-par, so be it. Also the comment about 14k admits is completely irrelevant and as an OOS admit you are probably ignorant of that fact. In state students are evaluated only against others in their same high school. So the relevant comparison is 55 students that applied, and 11 that were admitted, but 5 or 6 of those were tagged atheletes with sub-average stats. So he was right at the edge of the in and out at his high school. Hence my broader thesis that 4-5 years ago he’d probably have been admitted, or at a minimum his odds would have been materially better. At the margin, high achieving CA students that used to get in are not today because of the shift in policy. That is not theory, it is mathematical fact. Would my kid have been one of those? Who knows, and perhaps not. But the fact is that 20% of the class that used to be from CA no longer is.</p>
<p>Actually it was 55 applied, 15 in, and 5-6 tagged, but same point. He had similar profile to 4-5 of those in the 15 pool</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is precisely the issue at hand. You admitted yourself that current California taxpayers are not really funding Berkeley. As I explained, the bulk of the taxpayer funding that built Berkeley into the world-class university that it is today was allocated generations ago. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I agree that current California taxpayers who (slightly) fund Berkeley should be allowed to ask questions. But at the same time, OOS students who are currently funding a large share of Berkeley’s revenue should also be allowed to ask questions.</p>
<p>can i just say that when i went to CalSO about 90% of the kids were wealthy, and i mean WEALTHY. and an OOS kid who came from a rural lower middle class area, i have never felt so poor in my entire life. so please do not generalize that all of the OOS kids are wealthy or just have higher stats because their parents paid for lots of tutors or whatever. i was to busy working so i could pay for my gas money to go to school. and no i did not include that in my personal statement so the admissions committee would take pity on me and accept me to have more “diversity”. i got here based on my stats and what i have achieved, not because i am poor.</p>
<p>@boquist1: Hi, I’m an OOS admit to Berkeley who has been following this thread for some time. While I do agree with your point that admitting more OOS students is unfair to tax-paying residents who may/may not have gained acceptance to the university, I think you fail to propose an effective alternative. Yes, you can solve financial problems by significantly increasing tuition for in-state residents, but you would inevitably lose top students who were also accepted to prestigious private schools.</p>
<p>As someone who has lived in CA, I know that there is a tendency to attend schools outside of CA (especially on the east coast) just to escape the bubble of living here. Your proposal to increase in-state tuition would not only fail to solve Berkeley’s financial problems as effectively as increasing OOS %, it would also discourage top students from attending Berkeley, damaging Cal’s reputation and quality of education. Increasing the in state tuition by a few thousand caused massive protests, how do you think jacking up the by 20k+ would change people’s outlook on Berkeley (even with increases to financial aid).</p>
<p>Regarding people choosing Berkeley OOS: Just something from my experience, As an applicant I had a 2220 SAT, 800,790,780 SAT IIs, 4.33 UC GPA, community service, science research (intel semi-finalist), varsity sports, but I would daresay that I would have been right on the fence especially for my major if I had applied a few years ago. </p>
<p>First, I can tell you that a majority people in my school apply to even the top state university here as the safety of their safety schools (no offense) so petitioning our legislators to increase the quality of our state schools is not an option at least in the short term, and second while I was accepted to many schools that are comparable to Berkeley (Cornell, Northwestern) I chose to come to Berkeley, paying full OOS tuition, because of my major (currently Bioengineering but interested in switching to EECS). To give you some credit, I do feel really bad if I had to take someone’s spot at Berkeley next year, and I can’t say whether or not I had better stats/talents than the person that was behind me, but I can say that I am really grateful to be accepted, and as someone else has previously mentioned, the reason I chose to come here was because Berkeley has such a good reputation in engineering and overall. </p>
<p>What I am trying to say is that:
I don’t think the “increasing OOS % increases Berkeley’s stats” is really the issue here. boquist1 is right in saying that if Berkeley REALLY wanted to find all of its students here it could (make Berkeley free and I guarantee you that a majority of the people who went to MIT would come here in an instant). </p>
<p>BUT on the OTHER hand, increasing tuition is NOT an alternative to accepting out of state students because, discouraging CA students from going to Cal over other private schools would send the UCs into a downward spiral amongst the ranks of other state universities. </p>
<p>Let’s face it, the only reason Berkeley is the #1 public university in the world is because it has always been able to maintain a balance between talent and value, everything else is a result of that. You must realize that certainly, Berkeley could have maintained 90% IS and increase tuition, but 10 years from now, when all those talented people who would have gone to Berkeley went to some other private school, and Berkeley’s research and teaching reputation is in the dumps, would anyone still pay that tuition to go? I could have gone to the top public college in my state for under 10k a year, half our school could have. So why does their yield suck?</p>
<p>Hope I made sense and offered some food for thought. Feedback would be great =D</p>
<p>^^balpoint:</p>
<p>Your point is well taken. But I would offer in rebuttal that EVERY other state charges more for its state flagship. Why does Cal charge the same as Merced? Perhaps Cal is too high and Merced should be lowered? But there is absolutely no reason to charge the same fees.</p>
<p>@bluebayou: I’m not familiar with other state schools, but as far as I am aware, in New York, SUNY (State University of New York) charges roughly the same for the flagship SUNY Binghamton vs the other SUNYs (~6000 for tuition). I think what you’re referring to maybe because in many states, the system is constructed in away that most of their public schools are more like satellites of its flagship school, and most of the research/graduate programs are conducted ONLY or MOSTLY at flagship school (ie. Michigan). There is significantly research done at Merced, though a lot less than Cal since it is newer, I think the analogous “higher tuition for flagship schools” would be like comparing UCs and CSUs, but I do agree that there should probably be somewhat of a tiered tuition level for the different UCs as the education one received at Berkeley would almost always be superior to Merced’s.</p>
<p>Sorry for my wordy posts haha</p>
<p>there is a lot of research done at MSU to though, it is not exclusive to Michigan. just thought i would say. there is some different costs at the public universities in michigan, but not that much for the top 4 or so. MSU and Michigan have very similar costs and the two universities are quite far apart in there academic excellence.</p>