<p>
[quote]
The issue of standards can be debated ad nauseam, but unequivocally this will cost more money, as more students will be eligible for admission and it will take longer to assess each student since there will be no concrete criteria from which to judge them. With the budget already being cut, it is impossible to believe that this is a good idea at this time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, it probably would cost money, but, frankly, not very much in the grand scheme of things, and certainly relative to the rest of Berkeley's budget (which is huge). Let's face it. Admissions officers don't get paid that much, and there aren't that many of them anyway. Nor are administrative costs of the admissions office that high. Even if there are 30 adcom officers making $100k each in salary/benefits, that's just $3 million a year. Add on another, say, $2 million a year to run the office, and that's really just $5 million a year. Compare that to Berkeley's total annual 2008 operating expenses of $1.8 billion. Note, that's not Berkeley's endowment, or total cash in the bank, but what Berkeley spends on operating costs per year. Doubling the adcom budget would represent nothing more than a rounding error. </p>
<p>University</a> of California Financial Reports</p>
<p>
[quote]
You notice something about all of those schools Stanford, Yale, Duke ALL private. That means they have access to resources beyond what publicly financed schools do. The best way to use vital public resources is not to completely change the admissions process in the middle of a budget crisis. Public universities, who have built their reputation on merit based admissions and for admitting the best and brightest individuals, need to maintain their standards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is ironic is that Berkeley does indeed operate an extremely stringent and merit-based admissions process that at least equals, and arguably exceeds that of the top privates... for *graduate * school, especially for PhD programs. Berkeley PhD admissions are certainly no easier than that of any other school. I know quite a few people who got into PhD programs at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and the like, but got rejected from Berkeley. Whatever financial resources Berkeley may be lacking never seems to affect the graduate admissions. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Not sure what this means....if they leave the state to attend other "elite" colleges, why does UC care, and beside ramping up merit aid, what could UC do about it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think UC should care for the same reason that any school should care about getting the best students. Having the best students not only vicariously enhances the reputation of the school through the accomplishments of their alumni, but more importantly, also enhances the current quality of the education for the other students. Much - probably most - of the actual learning that happens within a college environment comes from the other students, because that with whom you spend the most time. The better and more motivated the students, the more you will tend to learn and be motivated. </p>
<p>Again, take the example of Berkeley's PhD programs. One of their major draws is the chance to interact with many of the most promising young and ambitious graduate students in the world, whether for future research collaboration or general networking (which is crucial in the world of academia).</p>