One other thing to include in this tiny rant. I think what the UCs need to do is create a very prestigious award that has no monetary value. The problem that currently exists (and it does exist, we need to disagree) is people who are not getting financial aid are overwhelmingly feeling shut out from recognition of good work. I know a family whose kid, no aid, high GPA, created an app that he sold, a health-related app, got into Berkeley, but did not get a Regents and then heard of three cases with less leadership who got it (adversity). It’s not the $$$ that is bothering these folks, it’s the systematic shut-out of recognition, recognition that can follow you through life and be put on your resume. Sure, some people will say well if you don’t need aid, then you don’t need these awards. I say they’re missing the point. Deserving students should not be shut out from recognition.
So, create a new prestigious award with no monetary value whatsoever, and let it truly be a level playing field.
Also, just to note another situation to put this in perspective. I know three people who ran the Berkeley alumni association in our area for years. Great folks. Very philanthropic. Two were Asian, a great deal of money - very generous and fair, who worked tirelessly both physically and financially to help the community. The woman who was the president of the group, not as wealthy, but again countless hours to every ethnic group and low income, etc.
So, for years this is how the Berkeley alumni scholarships unfolded: Berkeley would send the applications of every student in their alumni district. From those, the group would pick the targeted number of finalists for interviews, etc. Their list included a wide array of students from different ethnicities, income brackets, etc. It was based on leadership and initiative, taking into account aspects of the student’s life.
About 6-7 years ago, not sure when, the rules changed and Berkeley was not allowed to send the full applications because of privacy. From that point on, rather than sending all the area applications with student number and devoid of personal and identifying info for the group to sift through, Berkeley hand-picked the finalists and sent them over. For the next three years, until they all quit, every single finalist (100%) for all three years had hardship or adversity and financial need. Not one single applicant for a leadership award sent over in those three years did not have need of some sort. These people I know are fair-minded, but the process totally turned them off. They knew there were deserving students being shut out.
So, there needs to be a way to not shut out one group. Obviously there are no public stats, but if Regents were 70/30 I would see that as OK, but I sincerely doubt it is. I suspect the true breakdown is more like a few crumbs tossed to non-financial aid, with about 90% or higher going to hardship. Again, the Regents is a merit award, so for me it’s troubling from the recognition POV.
