<p>ubermenesch, how do you come to that conclusion? We are talking about admissions not application volume.</p>
<p>Think about it. It is basic supply and demand. If you increase supply, the quantity demanded increases as well. So if Harvard or Stanford gradually increased their fresman classes (supply), the number of applications (demand) will go up as well. Likewise, if Berkeley lowered its freshman class, the number of applications will go down too because less people can get in. Since Berkeley does not become a BETTER school, there is no reason why the same large number of applicants will apply. If Berkeley only chose to accept the top applicants, they would lose them to other places like Harvard and Stanford. The quality of Berkeley's class would remain the same, the admit rate would remain the same, and the only thing that would be different is that the class would be smaller. Period.</p>
<p>The only way to increase selectivity is to become a better school or have a successful marketing campaign/media coverage. There is no other way around it. Otherwise, tons of other colleges would have already decreased the size of their classes.</p>
<p>You have to remember that colleges are just like any other consumer product. (They aren't free!) Therefore, the basic principles of economics apply.</p>
<p>I personally dont think that these basic principles of economics apply to berkely and los angeles. If the supply for students goes down, i don't think less people will apply. Remember that about 90 percent or more students come from California, students apply to berkeley and la to have a top notch quality education that will be less expensive than attending an ivy or a private school of its calibur. </p>
<p>A decrease in supply at a school like UCLA and UCB, will include media coverage, because everyone would start talking about how it's crazy that they're taking in less students. It has it's own marketing. Therefore they'll be able to choose the best quality applicants, meaning that thier rank will go up, not only because the admissions rate will be so low, but also the quality of the student will also go up.</p>
<p>The issue is that most people who get into UCB and UCLA would not have a prayer at an ivy. They are mostly CA public high school grads with inflated grades. Average SAT scores are much lower at Berkeley and UCLA than at any ivy. The UCs get the best from CA public schools only. There is no competition from the rest of the country or world. Or even from CA private schools! They can only be said to represent the best CA public schools produce. Ivy competition is a far cry above this.</p>
<p>Ubermensch,</p>
<p>I think your theory is rather skewed. If you happen to research the quality of the universities, you would easily find out that the research facilities, faculty and curricula of let's say Berkeley, are no lesser than those of Harvard, Stanford, Caltech, MIT, ect. In this case, Berkeley is restricted by its public status to admit a major in-flow of Californian resident. Consequently, if Berkeley somehow drops the number of its admission, instead of losing many applicants, Berkeley's prestige would rise significantly to the level of the elite HYPSMC.</p>
<p>Agree rtkysg. If Berkeley just dropped the easy transfers for CA community college students, their prestige would rise immediately. Still their freshmen admits are not HYPMSC calibre on the whole.</p>
<p>Berkeley's endowment is 1 billion. Harvard's is 11 billion. Harvard has 6400 undergrads and Berkeley has 22,880 undergraduates (<a href="http://osr4.berkeley.edu%5B/url%5D">http://osr4.berkeley.edu</a>). In order for Berkeley to match the resource per student ratio of Harvard, it needs to decrease its freshman class from 6,000 to 145 students. Haha, so I guess that shows the state of Berkeley's underfunded education. Imagine a room made for 145 people taking in 6,000 people. That's the difference in resources between HYPS and Berkeley.</p>
<p>collegeperson12,</p>
<p>The ratio is inappropriate, but I thought you're just kidding.</p>
<p>But otherwise, think about Caltech and MIT whose endowments are also not comparable to the filthy rich Harvard.</p>
<p>Harvard has 11 billion dollars and 7,000 undergrads. That's 157,000 per student. Not too shabby.</p>
<p>MIT has a 6 billion endowment and 4,000 undergrads. That's about 150,000 dollars per student. Not bad, almost as much as Harvard's.</p>
<p>Caltech has 1.3 billion dollars and 900 students. That's 144,444 dollars per student. Still not bad.</p>
<p>Berkeley has 1 billion dollars and 22,880 undergrads. That's 40,000 per student, which is almost 4 times less than MIT and Caltech's endowment per student. That's VERY bad. Bad dog. Bad Berkeley.</p>
<p>^^^
as far as i'm aware, they don't spend their total endowment in one year... so they don't really spend that much money per student. berkeley is a publically funded university, albeit one of the best ones out there. you're comparing apples and oranges.</p>
<p>crap. Multiply all the numbers by 10 please. I knew 11 billion didn't translate into 157,000 per student. It's 1.57 million lol.</p>
<p>Most schools spend about 5% of the endowment per year. UCB gets $400,000,000 in state funding which is equal to the cash off an endowment of $8 Billion.</p>
<p>Yeah, Berkeley has a reputation for being counter culture. </p>
<p>So does San Francisco. And so does the Bay Area. And so does California. And so does the West Coast.</p>
<p>When you ask the British, they probably think America is counter culture as well in comparison to the British Aristocracy. Who cares if its counter culture or not? Thats such a strange argument.</p>
<p>If counter culture is so bad, then how come the Berkeley faculty is the highest regarded in the world? Wouldn't the counter culture be reflected as a negative in the rankings? If wanting to help out poor people, and help alleviate poverty and want to turn the world into a better place is called "Counter Culture", then there is something seriously wrong with the mainstream.</p>
<p>"They are mostly CA public high school grads with inflated grades. "</p>
<p>wow. maybe my public high school was an exception then? we've had students who outperformed their ivy-matriculating counterparts in terms of gpa and sat scores who chose to go on to ucb, ucla, and ucsd. i think its really wrong that you made that statement, because then youre just saying there are ivy-matriculating students who got in with inflated grades too. i can make a comparison of valedictorian vs HYPSM student at our school</p>
<p>valedictorian 02 (UCR) vs. stanford
valedictorian 03 (two, UCLA and USC) vs stanford
valedictorian 04 (UCLA) vs caltech</p>
<p>maybe my underfunded, mediocre h/s is just an exception. otherwise plz dont tell me ivy-matriculants are either from private schools where grades arent inflated (very elitist view in fact), or that any ivy admit can outperform every single ucb/ucla admit because this is just not true (many ucb/ucla admits decide to stay in-state for many good reasons).</p>
<p>Collegeperson12,</p>
<p>Those endowments are not spent mainly for students, especially not for undergrads. I think currently available resources (i.e. labs, computers) at Berkeley, given its endowment, should be sufficient if the number of undergrads it admits every year is about the same as MIT's. On the other hand, a school's prestige is mainly determined by the quality of its admitted students. Hence, given a sufficient resource, the difference of budget surplus shouldn't stand against the prestige of the school.</p>
<p>You may well have gone to an exceptional CA high school There are a few. In general though, there are tremendously inflated grades at CA high schools. The average GPA for admits at the top several UCs is a 4.0! This represents the top 10% of CA public high school graduates. This GPA would be far better than top 10% in most States. There are many very smart kids in CA high schools and at UCs. You just can't compare admission to that of top private colleges. CA pays more attenrion to the SATII. 4.0s at davis can have a 1250 and be competitive. A 1400 at UCLA or UCB. These would not be comprtetive candidates at an ivy or at many highly selective schools. The pool is simply lower.</p>
<p>yea i do agree that overall, the pool of qualified candidates for ivies are much more competitive than for the UCs, i just wanted to say that not all UC students are products of high school grade inflation and would never make it into an ivy league. </p>
<p>btw my h/s is NOT exceptional HAHA we are clearly dwarfed by better publics around us, we are very underfunded, the teacher salary is one of the lowest in LA county, were basically a training ground for new teachers as most of the better, experienced teachers have left for higher pay elsewhere. but anyway, grade inflation nevertheless is low (example: only 2 students got A's in APUS). but bobby100, i do notice grade inflation at some other high schools cuz when students from our h/s take classes at "better" publics for summer school, they find it ridiculously easy there... so i kinda see where youre coming from</p>
<p>"The issue is that most people who get into UCB and UCLA would not have a prayer at an ivy"</p>
<p>bobby100, I think you seriously need to rethink that rediculous comment. Just gather some data and do a little math and I'm sure you'll see how silly that sounded.</p>
<p>I went to the Harvard website and started looking at the CV for their profs. I think they have heard of Berkeley and UCLA and University of Michigan etc. especially the Profs and ass't profs who graduated from those schools. I know other Ivy League Profs who came from Public Universities including Davis, one of the UCs.</p>
<p>I find that some people who argue brand names don't usually have a good grasp of the product. When you start discussing specific programs, departments and courses that are specific to your interests then there is more to talk about.</p>
<p>I am sure there are people who never heard of Harvey Mudd, that doesn't make it a bad school. How many of you have heard of "Deep Springs" California's two year college (average SAT Range 1400-1500)? Not to mention the think tank schools that only accept a handful of students.</p>