Exactly. UCB can just admit the # per the court’s ruling, and a bunch of WL’s. Sucks for the WL’s, but not gonna be irreparable harm to UCB.
FWIW, The Supreme Court met yesterday in person in San Francisco and heard oral arguments for 4 cases, but nothing related to Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v UC Regents.
It’s very hard to predict how long a court will take to rule on an emergency motion like this one. On the one hand, the case is obviously time sensitive. On the other hand, there’s a lot at stake, a lot of public interest, and a lot of amicus input from high profile parties, so the court is going to take the time it needs to get its analysis right. Also, although it seems like it’s taking a long time, it’s really not when compared to the usual months-long appeal process. It’s like reading tea leaves trying to guess at the outcome of an appeal, but the fact that it’s taking this long at least indicates that the court is evaluating all of the arguments presented rather than simply ruling against UC on the procedural ground that it was late in filing its initial request for a stay with the lower court. Appeals courts generally decide a case on the narrowest grounds possible so as not to unnecessarily create new law or inadvertently create bad law, so if they think a case should be disposed of on procedural grounds alone, they will generally do that. Also, the only issue before the Supreme Court is whether or not a stay should be granted, so the court will not consider the underlying dispute over the construction project, only whether the lower court even had jurisdiction to limit UC Berkeley enrollment in the first place (which is not something that’s been done in a CEQA case before) and, if so, which course of action would cause more harm, granting the stay or denying it. It’s painful having to wait for the court’s ruling, but it’s better that they take their time and get it right. One small comfort is that, at a certain point, the case will become moot because Berkeley’s admissions decisions will have to be sent out. I think the court would try to avoid that happening and get its ruling out before that point, but that’s just a guess on my part. Hope this info helps people understand the process. (Yes, I’m a lawyer and former litigator, so I’m familiar with the agony of waiting for court rulings).
5 Likes
Very insightful on the nuances but I’m not certain this is comforting. The question is what is Berkeley assuming when making these decisions. Are they admitting as usual or waitlisting or even worse denying people because they are unsure of the outcome. And if the SC issues a stay afterwards, it doesn’t help any of the kids affected.
They could be doing the final cut for each of two cut points – one for each lawsuit scenario.
By now, it is likely that all applications have been read by two (or three) readers and given a 1 to 5 score (1 = best; could have fractional scores like 1.5 for an applicant scored 1 by one reader and 2 by the other reader). This would be the time they are setting the cut point for each division (or major in the CoE). Typically, there will be a score straddling the cut point where they would have to do tie-breaking among applicants with that score. Presumably, with two cut points, they will have to do the tie-breaking procedure again for the second cut point.
1 Like
They’ve known about the issue for a few weeks now (they initially requested the stay at the end of January and it would have taken some time for their lawyers to research and draft the request, so my guess is that they’ve known about it since early to mid-January), so I would expect that they already have a Plan A and a Plan B, depending on whether they’ve received a ruling or not and what the ruling is. If they haven’t received a ruling, then the lower court’s order stands and they will have no choice but to limit enrollment, which means some students who would otherwise have been admitted will get denied or, at best, waitlisted. I guess Berkeley could delay its decision date slightly, but applicants need certainty about their options so I don’t think they could delay it for long. That’s what I mean about the case becoming moot if the court doesn’t issue its rule before that point – the harm that UC is trying to avoid will occur anyway if the court doesn’t rule before then. I think it’s unlikely the court will let that happen, although it could get down to the wire.
1 Like
If they are uncertain about the outcome when it is time to send out decisions, then it is likely that the applicants in the “would be admitted if UCB wins the stay but would be rejected if UCB loses the stay” will be waitlisted. If UCB wins the stay before May 1, it can convert that group of waitlists to admits. If UCB wins the stay after May 1, it may admit that waitlisted group and probably even more waitlisted students afterward (since yield from the waitlist admits is likely to be lower than if they were admitted before May 1). If UCB loses the stay, then those waitlisted applicants will be rejected (except maybe a few if yield of those who got admitted turns out to be too low).
3 Likes
That sounds right to me. Presumably, Berkeley would want to admit as many of them as possible to limit the hit to its tuition revenues, so it’s hard to see any advantage to denying them prematurely if they haven’t received a ruling yet.
1 Like
updates on the case right now on docket. UC Stay request denied?
No written opinion yet, but based on the docket entry it looks like the Supreme Court has denied the stay. Bad news for UC Berkeley applicants.
looks done per SF Chronicle
paywall but you get the idea.
Sadly, yes. The two dissenting justices have issued a written dissent suggesting that UC can refile in the Court of Appeals and ask for reconsideration and/or try to negotiate a resolution with Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods. Sounds like a long shot to me, but there could be a lot of pressure for a negotiation from Newsom, Wiener, etc. Here’s part of what the the dissenting justices said: “But this court’s denial of review need not be the end of the road for the several thousand students affected by this matter. The university may renew its request for a stay in the Court of Appeal, or the parties may engage in good faith negotiations or mediation to expeditiously settle this dispute. Indeed, given the stakes on all sides, it is hard to think of a case where a negotiated settlement seems more imperative for the good of the local community and our state.”
2 Likes
Indeed, this is sad and honestly, not sure that the whole episode is well managed by the Regents which let it drag on for too long and now, seems to be caught by surprise. There may be a last-ditch legislative effort afoot to put pressure on SBN to act/mediate (by excluding UCB from the obligation to comply with environmental rules) but there is literally no time left. An appeal would probably take too long and it is unlikely that it will result in a different outcome. Too bad for the UCB applicants.
Unfortunately, this is bad news for admissions not only at Cal, but for all the UCs. The trickle down impact at the other UCs (particularly, UCLA) is material and undeniable. UCLA will have to bank on a much higher than expected yield and will adjust … I would think nearly similar impact at UCSB, UCSD and UCI … at least the owners of multimillion dollar homes in the Berkeley area will have a few thousand less students to contend with. Unreal.
9 Likes
I don’t understand why there is such disdain for the homeowners? is it because they’re wealthy? Wealthy people don’t get to have quiet neighborhoods?
This was the university’s fault for not planning better. I live nearby (not close enough to affect me personally) a college and the poor homeowners there have to deal with a lot of traffic and illegal parking. Sometimes the student will literally park in front of their driveways to get to class. Tickets don’t seem to stop the behavior and the homeowner can’t leave their property until the cars are towed or the owner moves them. This can take hours.
The schools need to “plan” for expansion. They can’t just over-enroll then hope it works out. That’s not good for the student or the surrounding neighborhoods.
I can understand the disappointment of UB not being able to expand enrollment, but it’s still accepting the same number it always has. They just have more applicants now.
8 Likes
Agreed. Without knowing the basis for the denial of the stay, it’s hard to know what grounds there would be for re-filing in the Court of Appeals but it would take too long in any event. Same with settlement negotiations. As a lawyer, it’s mind-boggling to me that UC and their counsel made this error in the first place and then took so long to catch it. CEQA court orders are generally stayed pending appeal, but this was a very unusual order because it included the enrollment cap so you would expect them to look very closely at whether it was actually stayed and, if there was any doubt at all, go immediately to the court to ask for clarification. If they’d done that months ago, there might have been time for these things that the dissenting justices are suggesting. Hard to know for sure when you’re not directly involved, but it sure looks like someone wasn’t minding the store carefully enough.
3 Likes
It’s not the same # of candidates being accepted. The cap is based on the artificially deflated level of enrollment from last year. They are literally cutting admissions by 1/3. I don’t have disdain for homeowners in upscale areas, as I am one, but there is a level of entitlement here. If you live in Westwood, for example, you know there is going to be student crowding for better or worse. It comes with the turf. Obviously, there need to be limits but this seems like a very harsh ruling. There should have been a long term phasing in of the cap so applicants could plan accordingly.
14 Likes
This situation is on UCB and the state and local governments. UCB has been purposely over enrolling for just short of 2 decades. During that time the housing situation for UCB (and California in general) has continued to deteriorate in terms of supply and cost. Yet, neither UCB nor the state or city governments took steps to address the problem (atleast not in any meaningful way). They just kept cramming more and more students into the university and its surrounds.
“UC Berkeley’s enrollment has increased by more than 30%
UC Berkeley’s enrollment growth has exacerbated the situation. In 2005, in a long-range development plan, UC Berkeley said it would grow to 33,450 students by 2020. But driven by a mandate by the UC Board of Regents, there were 42,347 students in the 2019-20 academic year. By 2036, there will be 67,200 people on campus, including students, faculty and staff.”
Did they just assume there would never be any pushback from the neighbors? I understand the environmental laws and NIMBYism played a role but laws can be changed or repealed. It doesn’t appear that avenue was pursued. As far as relationship with it’s neighbors, UCB isn’t the first university to deal with town/gown friction but they seemed to ignore those issues as they chose to over enrolled students year after year after year.
Perhaps the redistribution of those students not admitted to UCB across the other UC schools will improve the academic quality across some of the other UC schools? It’s really not much different than what’s been happening with the private T20 schools. More and more students who had traditionally been admitted into those tippy top schools are not because of changes in admission priorities. So those kids choose another school and the academics and standards of those schools are improved due to the increased caliber of student attending.
2 Likes
Completely agree with your comment. I live in Santa Monica, blocks from Santa Monica College which has greatly expanded over the pat 20+ years. Although there have been increases in traffic and pressure on local housing, I nonetheless support the college’s efforts. It’s pretty tiring to hear the Berkeley NIMBY’s complaining, particularly since they benefit from so many aspects of UCB. A bunch of spoiled elitists.
4 Likes
