<p>omg sakky made a thread.</p>
<p>Yudof is so out of touch with reality. Re-focusing some campuses is very reasonable and could enhance the UG experience at these schools.</p>
<p>I don’t know why they think out of state students will increase next year – why should anyone pay premium out of state tuition for an educational mess. My daughter was thinking of applying from oos but has decided against…maybe the internationals won’t have heard the bad news and will bail them out.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong but the “lower” UC’s–Merced, Riverside and Santa Cruz–have made no significant scholarly contributions. Furthermore, I’d imagine the undergraduate students at such institutions have no aptitude nor inclination towards research. The answer is obvious: remove the research component from these universities and if necessary, tap into the endowment until state financing returns to friendlier levels.</p>
<p>DougK, get off your high horse.</p>
<p>Some people are more than willing to pay for a UC education…often if money isn’t an issue. Just looking at my international roommate, whose parents will easily hop on a plane from Dubai without a care for the price. She doesn’t care about the protests at all, or really think about the consequences of the cuts.</p>
<p>Xatal, neither of my parents went to college–I am on no high horse. The truth is that we are paying for a service that the kids at such universities do not value. It’s a win-win; cut non-performing research thereby balancing the budget and catering the curriculum to the students’ desires.</p>
<p>DougK, you can’t be serious. I’ve known numerous grad students and postdocs - very smart ones, I might add- here at Berkeley who completed their undergrad education at those “lesser” schools you mentioned. You’ll find plenty of people, wherever you go, who take their education seriously.</p>
<p>I’m sure you can pick a few apples but when running government, you have to keep in mind efficiency. Should we spend money on the few Merced kids who’ll end up coming to Berkeley or should be delegate that money to keeping brilliant professors on board at Berkeley? Which sacrifice would you like to make?</p>
<p>If a school like Notre Dame, Georgetown, Rice, Emory or Vandi can charge exorbitant price for its undergrad education, why can’t Berkeley do the same when it’s a more premium same than any of those schools? </p>
<p>Tuition increases are probably the best things that happen to Berkeley.</p>
<p>Yes, RML, but Berkeley has long been a haven for students who had the talent but not the money to go to more expensive top tier private universities. The steep tuition increase comes with some loss for social mobility.</p>
<p>Edit: I just remembered an uncannily prescient article I read in The Atlantic during the summer shortly after I accepted my acceptance to Berkeley.</p>
<p>[RIP</a> UCB](<a href=“Erik Tarloff, The Atlantic”>Erik Tarloff, The Atlantic)</p>
<p>DougK, the whole point of public education is to make it accessible for all, not to favor specific students because it’s “more efficient”.</p>
<p>^ But Berkeley has to adopt to the current situation. The California budget is stiff, so why would Berkeley exhaust its means the futile way? Berkeley has to wake up to the realities that it cannot rely full funding from the State of California, and therefore, must do some fruitful means on its own to maintain the high level of education it provides. This isn’t the 60s anymore, and Berkeley wasn’t founded for the poor but for those deserving but bright students, regardless of socio-economic level. If Berkeley can raise funds from the rich students, the money will in turn finance those poor Berkeley students as Berkeley will continue to provide scholarship grants to the poor but very talented students. Let the rich Berkeley students pay the full price and give grants to the poor students. That’s sounds equitable for all.</p>
<p>Berkeley has to raise tuition because it’s in need of funds and the government as well as the rich alumni aren’t helping the institution.</p>
<p>That’s how private universities determine their tuition, at least in theory. In practice, there are always kids who are stuck in between who can’t pay the difference between aid and tuition. It also sucks for children of skilled immigrants (me for example) who started working at a late age so they have high income but low savings. </p>
<p>However charging different rates depending on ability to pay also leads to effective price discrimination. This, coupled with isolating consumers from the cost have been driving up tuition costs at private universities for a long time now.</p>
<p>Using this kind of pricing for public university really is unfair. The rich already pay more in taxes which provide public facilities. Raising their tuition is hosing them twice.</p>
<p>2 years ago I would have been willing to pay premium tuition for UC’s B & LA as they had an excellent product. But right now, these schools are experiencing such drastic cutbacks in product provided that the student/customer would not be getting their money’s worth for their premium tuition – far better to go to a private school where at least you will be getting your money’s worth.</p>
<p>cavelier, </p>
<p>Berkeley is in financial turmoil now. In as much as you’d like Berkeley to accommodate poor students for free, it cannot do so at the current situation. People must also understand that Berkeley is not just tasked to accommodate the poor - it’s also tasked to be at the forefront of cutting edge research and leader in teaching quality. How can Berkeley do their tasks if they don’t have funding and the alumni aren’t donating to the university?</p>
<p>The most viable way to save Berkeley from degrading is to raise tuition charges. Like I said, if a school with “little name” in the academic world can charge as much or even way higher, why can’t Berkeley do the same when it has a name that extends far more than you’ve imagined. A Berkeley degree is more respected than a Vandi degree, in general. But if Vandi can charge 2x as much as Berkeley does, why can’t Berkeley do the same? </p>
<p>Let the rich Berkeley students pay more, the average earners pay less and the poor students pay nothing. </p>
<p>Top quality education is not cheap. Those who want a bargain price for their education, let them attend Cal State Us. Berkeley isn’t a Cal State U, obviously.</p>
<p>I understood what you meant the first time. Still, I object to it because it leads to effective price discrimination. I’m also pretty tired of the current trend to solve all economic problems by heaping the burden on one particular group of people. Politicians already treat the upper-middle class like an infinite reservoir of wealth that can be mined without limit. It isn’t fair that they should be the only ones who must pay.</p>
<p>To make up for the legislatures boneheaded disinvestment in education, it would be more fair to increase everyone’s tuition proportionately to what they currently pay.</p>
<p>cavilier,</p>
<p>the problem is that the state does not have enough money and Berkeley needs a substantial amount of money to operate like a first-class university. how are you going to solve Berkeley’s problem having that in mind?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While that’s a noble sentiment, the fact is that the ‘public education’ in question in this thread is clearly not open to all, or even most, and hasn’t been for decades. A regular Californian can’t just decide one fine day that he wants to study at Berkeley. Only the top 12.5% of all California high school students as a matter of law are even eligible for the UC system at all, and even within that selectively subgroup, the vast majority will not be admitted to Berkeley. Less than 25% of Berkeley’s applicants were admitted even before the financial crisis hit. Berkeley is therefore already deeply inaccessible to the public and is exclusive only to those specific students who happen to have strong academic records. I can’t just laze through high school with straight C’s, score a dismal SAT figure, and then decide I want to go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>A possible counterargument is that while Berkeley is obviously not accessible to the vast majority of the public, everybody has the right to compete for a spot at Berkeley under a larger definition of ‘accessibility’. Yet that’s no different from the type of accessibility available at most private schools. Let’s face it: of the thousands of schools in the country, Berkeley is among the most selective. Anybody who is good enough to get into Berkeley is also good enough to get into the vast majority of other schools in the country. Hence, Berkeley does not provide any greater accessibility than the rest of the higher educational infrastructure does. Berkeley may be offering greater accessibility to a more reputable education at a lower cost than those other schools, but that’s different from offering mere accessibility. There isn’t a single student at Berkeley who could not have gotten into some other school in the country.</p>