<p>
[quote]
I've pointed out many times that public schools in the UK are not comparable to public schools in the United States, particularly the UC system; they are fundamentally different. You agree with this and seem to think the UC differences are its problems.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. The point is, Berkeley (and the rest of the UC's) COULD have modeled themselves on the Oxbridge model. They chose not to. You reap what you sow. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The Master Plan was approved by our state legislature; they are forced to follow it today, although I don't see any complaints. I've never seen one UC higher-up making a statement that enrollment should not be increased, for instance. Please send some links showing that
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on. Why would they? That would be career suicide. UC administrators, as public employees, are basically politicians. No politician is going to say something politically suicidal even if he really believes it. Just like any politician who admitsthat maybe taxes should be raised is going to be instantly pilloried, any UC administrator who admits that maybe enrollments should be decreased will be pilloried. This is a matter of political correctness, which is generally defined to be publicly espousing that which you privately do not believe to be true. It would take a great deal of courage for any administrator to state such a thing, and we shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for it to happen. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone wants to keep the quality of the education high while still serving as many students as possible. Private schools don't care about "serving as many students as possible"; I consider that a BAD TRAIT--you would too if you understood the fundamental differences between public and private that I have been trying to elucidate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All of the UC graduate schools are also not interested in 'serving as many students as possible'. Look at the UC Medical Schools. All of them are unbelievably selective. </p>
<p>Even many portions of the UC undergraduate program are not really serving as many students as possible. There aren't THAT many undergrad students in the Berkeley College of Engineering. Just visit an upper-division engineering class. It's generally not THAT full. The CoE could serve more undergrads. But it chooses not to. Same thing with Haas. Yet last time I looked, the CoE and Haas were part of the UC system. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You just don't understand what I'm trying to say. The idea that ANY DECREASE in enrollment would improve a university that measures its improvements in increases in enrollment obviously doesn't make sense. That's what you don't understand, that increasing enrollment is FUNDAMENTAL to the UC system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, I understand it perfectly. What I question is why is it 'fundamental'. It is only fundamental because they said it to be so. I could just as easily define a fundamental belief to drink coffee at Starbuck's every day. Anything can be arbitrarily defined as fundamental. But the point is, it's all a matter of free choice. </p>
<p>And besides, your point is going off-topic anyway. Just because the UC system may define increasing enrollment to be fundamental doesn't mean that Berkeley's enrollment has to increase. Just build another UC, and have students go there. In fact, that's precisely what UC has done with UCMerced. So just rapidly increase Merced and have the overflow go there. And if Merced fills up, then just build another UC. </p>
<p>Lest you think this is radical, again, let me point out that Haas isn't increasing its undergrad enrollment. Neither is the CoE. So they're not helping out with the overflow. So if they are somehow able to opt out, then why can't the rest of Berkeley's colleges/schools opt out of taking the overflow too? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The UC system should enroll more students WHO COULD NEVER AFFORD to go to HYPSM. The last thing we need are students who choose elitist schools as opposed to Berkeley; they belong where they decided to go--the UC system (not Berkeley alone) should be increasing enrollment among students who may not even attend college, some of whom may have great potential. For instance, students who come from the community college transfer program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since you brought up the issue of cost, that raises another sad fact of the UC system which is that, for poor people, it is probably actually the private schools that are the best financial deal. As I'm sure you know, Harvard has guaranteed full rides for anybody whose family makes less than 60k. Yale and Stanford's full-ride cutoffs are at 45k. Princeton and MIT have no official cutoff, but, unofficially, the cutoffs are around 40-50k. Berkeley makes no such aid guarantee. I will always remember two guys that I met who got into both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that, after financial aid, Harvard actually turned out to be cheaper. One of them drolly said that he always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. And all happened BEFORE Harvard raised the full-ride cutoffs to 60k. </p>
<p>So, really, we now have a situation where HYPSM now serve students who CAN'T AFFORD TO GO TO BERKELEY. In other words, a truly poor student may now actually be better served by the PRIVATE schools than they are from UC. </p>
<p>So let's be perfectly honest with what we're really talking about. The way things are currently structured, Berkeley exists to serve those students who are too rich to qualify for substantial financial aid, yet not rich enough to not care about college costs. In other words, Berkeley exists to serve the MIDDLE CLASS. That largely excludes those cases you are talking about - i.e. those people who would never go to college at all. Those kinds of students are largely poor, and the fact is, if you are poor, you are probably better off taking the free ride from Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
See, we have fundamentally different philosophies on this, and I think it comes down to how you define Berkeley and its place within the UC system. If you understand the fundamental nature of the system you can see that decreasing enrollment would never be good and that UC<HYPSM is not necessarily the case!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I never said that decreasing enrollments was the only way to go. I said that it was one option. There are other options. But the point is, something has to happen to increase the quality of the student body. One way is, like I said, to stop admitting the low tail-end of students. But that's not the only way. The other way is to convince more of the top students to come, or, in other words, to win more of the cross-admit battles with the top schools. </p>
<p>I also never said that UC<HYPSM was a perpetual axiom. I have always said that on the PhD level, Berkeley competes with everybody. I have always said that UCSF had one of the best medical schools in the world. I have always said that Haas was a top-flight business school and Boalt was a top-flight law school. </p>
<p>The problem is, and always has been, with the undergraduate program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You have a HYPSM worldview that doesn't allow you to see Berkeley in the way it is best seen: as a bastion for opportunity and improved social mobility; in some ways what Berkeley represents is the American dream.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't have a "HYPSM worldview". I have a QUALITY worldview. Like I said, Berkeley is a great place to get your PhD, and for certain disciplines, actually BETTER than HYPSM. Does that mean that I have a "Berkeley worldview" when it comes to PhD programs? No, it means that I respect quality wherever it happens to be. </p>
<p>But I would dispute the notion that Berkeley is the 'American dream'. If you really want to talk about social mobility and opportunity, then I would point to the community colleges. After all, the community colleges truly are dirt-cheap and are open-enrollment. Berkeley turns away 75% of its applicants. To paraphrase Thomas Friedman, if you really really wanted to improve social mobility and opportunity, then what you ought to do is make community colleges completely free of charge such that everybody could get an associate's degree without cost. In effect, you would be making community college equivalent to the 13th and 14th grade of high school. </p>
<p>After all, think of it this way. The guy working at Walmart or working at McDonald's probably is never going to be able to get into Berkeley, or to any UC for that matter. But he can have a shot at getting an associate's degree. The UC system is a full-time school system, meaning that it's exceedingly difficult to hold a real full-time job and also study at UC. But community college classes are predominantly night and weekend classes, so people can actually hold real jobs while studying. Furthermore, the community colleges offer tremendous retraining opportunities. If you're a 40 year old factory worker that just got laid off, you can't just go study at Berkeley. But you can retrain yourself with another skill at a community college. </p>
<p>Hence, if you were REALLY interested in improving social mobility and opportunity, then it is the community college system that are the real key.</p>