It’s not about disdain for wealthy homeowners. It’s way more complicated than that. It’s a decades-long struggle over scarce resources like buildable land, affordable housing, being able to get a good public college education, environmental pressures due to low density housing, NIMBYs versus YIMBYs. This article in the Atlantic gives some sense of the different interests involved: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/uc-berkeley-university-enrollment-nimby/622927/
5 Likes
Of course, these homeowners knew that there was a college nearby; However, they are not at fault for poor planning on the part of the institution.
There is an alternative to this drama and that is to extend the waitlist. Admit a target number and waitlist the ones that would have got in under their new admissions numbers.
If the numbers drop (their yield concern) then draw from the waitlist. CA residents would more than likely jump coming off the waitlist for CAL.
They have got to house the students they accept. Housing is expensive in that area and you don’t want kids to have housing and food vulnerability just so they can attend CAL.
I don’t think phasing this in would have made a difference with applicants. With the TO ruling, I believe they still would have had a record number of applicants…
This is actually happening across the nation with schools. Everyone is having a record-breaking number of applicants.
As a parent who sent a kid to NYU, I needed an assurance that he would have housing available all 4 years. We ended up getting him an apt this year, but it’s not cheap and he has witnessed kids with food insecurities…Thank goodness they are awesome with that sort of stuff. They allow kids to donate swipes and have a food pantry.
Kids will sleep in their cars to attend institutions like this. I believe it’s the school’s responsibility to make sure that those that request housing are provided it. If they can’t then they have to decrease their enrollment.
1 Like
as stated, I think no one faults homeowners in general. But the plaintiffs in this case, self-identified “liberals”, leveraged COVID-affected enrollment numbers and a Reagan-era anti-development loophole disguised as an environmental act to their advantage, students and state be damned.
8 Likes
How are they utilizing an artificially low enrollment number? It’s the same number required by the Board of Reagents for 2019-20, pre-pandemic (42,750). And that number is just shy of 10,000 MORE than the 33,450 students UCB set for their 2020 enrollment in their 2005 long term strategic plan. UCB is adding thousands of students each year without addressing the housing problem. It’s not the neighbors’ problem it falls squarely on UCB.
1 Like
I guess I am failing at voicing my concerns.
The kids…I am concerned about the kids. What the kids will do to go to Cal.
There are endless threads on Reddit and other news stories of kids living in their cars, couch surfing, and having food insecurities.
Students are damned either way.
2 Likes
Enrollment dipped in 2020 due to covid. Then jumped again in 2021. Yes we are talking about several hundredto 1000 spots per year, but to adjust back to 2020 level NOW, they have to slash the numbers completely from the incoming class. Certainly you see the troubling information here for HS seniors. Gaslighting the scenario for seniors with their hearts set on Cal won’t work.
If you read the Atlantic interview with the Plaintiff, you’d know his concern is hardly environmental, and more that he doesn’t want to see Dixie cups on a lawn following a party, or longer than normal lines at Cheeseboard.
The city of Berkeley is defined by the institution it houses more so than almost any other college town. The plaintiff has benefited squarely from the prestige of UC Berkeley (his alma mater). Now he has dealt it a costly blow. If there ever was a case of pulling up the ladder that you climbed up, this is it.
10 Likes
Some of the hyperbole here is a bit much. Even for California residents, nobody views UC-Berkeley as an institution where admission is likely or extremely likely. Thus, all applicants should have thought there was a good chance of denial and made plans accordingly. Based on today’s decision, it appears as though there will be 5,000 more students in that boat than there would have been otherwise. But those students should have already known that they were likely to be in that position even had there been no court case going on.
Earlier in the thread I felt more sympathy for Berkeley residents as it appeared as though the university was growing irresponsibly and not increasing the number of residences for students. It has since become apparent that there’s a lot of NIMBYism in Berkeley and multiple efforts have been made to stymie the university’s efforts to house students.
The university has continued to try and grow (I’m guessing for the OOS moneys) and the city’s residents have been obstructionists. Neither one of them have been acting like an angel. And although it’s unfortunate that there will be more disappointed seniors this year than there would have been in a different year, it is far from the end of the world.
6 Likes
But this lawsuit was filed in 2019. If anyone is gaslighting the seniors it’s UCB who seemingly ignored this problem until it was smacked in the face with the stay and is now complaining. Clearly planning ahead isn’t a well developed skill in their administration.
I’m on the side of the plaintiffs. Students are notoriously poor neighbors and cramming 18 students into single family homes isn’t a well thought out housing plan on the part of the university. The Plaintiff didn’t just move in (otherwise you could say he knew what he was getting into) but has lived there for decades and witnessed first hand the progressive deterioration of the neighborhood/student housing over that time.
However, UCB could ultimately prevail. Yes it’s sad for those few thousand kids who won’t be attending UCB. It sounds like UCB will prioritize California citizens for admission, and fortunately California has a wonderful state university system and I imagine most if not all will have the option to attend another UC or another school on their list.
2 Likes
Phasing in would have helped. The current class of applicants “relied” on the expectation that the usual number of spots would be available. This late decision is a game changer and makes Cal much more difficult to get into and will have a marked impact at UCLA. Had my child known the parameters were changing this year, she would have applied to more peer schools of UCLA/Cal. In the end, this is a first class problem for sure but they are leaving the current class in a bad spot.
As for the campus, my son went to Cal and we paid insane rent the last few years. This is admittedly problematic. They did house all the freshman. So the impact on this ruling will also negatively affect landlords in the area. It’s just hard to believe an institution like Cal, with such a noble overarching purpose and the high % of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, would have this ruling sprung on them last minute …
3 Likes
I may missed it, but I’m assuming that there’s roughly 4,000-5,000 transfer admissions and those will be impacted as well? So, if correct, then that’ll reduce the effect on the freshman applicants?
UCB Freshman Admitted/Enrolled per CDS (apologize if I grabbed the wrong #'s):
Fall 2019 14,676 / 6,454
Fall 2020 15,448 / 6,117
Fall 2021 16,410 / 6,931
Maybe the transfers pay the bigger price or does the TAG program prevent that from happening?
I was wondering about this too…whether the impact will all more to the first years or transfers. It seems the first years will be hit harder, because the CCer’s/TAG are guaranteed spots in UCs and UCB will have to take their normal share.
The first years will have other options (at least they should if they have a balanced list)…because, like some already said upthread, every single unhooked applicant should have categorized UCB as a reach.
2 Likes
What Berkeley could do is a 3 + 1 program, for example, send 900 freshman on a service year in another location with experiential learning + online classes. Freshman classes are huge anyway.
4 Likes
The student-heavy neighborhoods were student-heavy decades ago. Fraternity participation was higher, and campus-recognized fraternities were not as regulated then (many that were once campus-recognized now are not). Student demographics have shifted toward those with lower rates of drinking over the past few decades.
3 Likes
I’m googling, so please forgive me if I’m dead wrong, but google’s link says UCLA and Cal don’t have a TAG program per CCSF? Is that correct?
1 Like
I am with you on part of this. And the Regents nonchalance-until-it-was-too-late-approach cost them dearly. They blew it, by not taking the suit seriously.
However, “Students are notoriously poor neighbors” obviously brings about multiple arguments, starting from “well, you decided to live in a college town” to “Yes, but without the university and students, everything declines.” No, he didn’t just move in, but certainly he knows the deal with living near a school. With or without increased enrollment, Juniors and Seniors are going to rent private housing near campus. As a resident, you take it or leave it.
2 Likes
That’s what I thought - no TAG for LA or Berk
1 Like
at CCSF, there is a program called TAP that specifically is in conjunction with UCLA.
This is linked off of the CCSF site
That is correct. UCLA and Berkeley do not offer TAG.
1 Like
If true, then transfers will take a hit too. I think the “5,000/3,000” # in the original post/article may be a bit overdone, again, if I’m not completely off base.
2 Likes
TAP is not guaranteed admission
2 Likes