UC enrollment rate projected to increase

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>As much as I provided proof to the contrary...Berkeley is increasing enrollment to 36410 by 2021 up from its current enrollment of 34953. Sakky you were right.....I still think there's a chance for Cal to build an endowment and become more independent, but at this point it seems you were right about the Berkeley administration.... they have a commitment to the grad school but not the quality of UG. I find it funny that the school touts itself of not being an elitist institution and giving first rate UG education of the ivies to the lower classes, yet it is committed only to its grad programs, where probably most of the grad students are from privates/ivies. </p>

<p>California's current third-graders may have a better chance of getting into top University of California campuses compared to today's high-schoolers, according to a new university report. </p>

<p>While state government agencies project that the number of California public high school graduates will decline through 2020-21, the university expects to continue increasing annual enrollment, thus reducing competition by leaving more spots open for admits. </p>

<p>"We'll keep increasing the number of undergraduates every year, but there will be less students competing every year," said Nina Robinson, director of policy and external affairs for the UC Office of the President. </p>

<p>According to projections, the university expects to increase its enrollment by about 20 percent by 2020-21, representing an increase of about 26,000 undergraduates and 22,000 graduate students from this school year. </p>

<p>The increased enrollment rate and projected high school graduate decline would allow the university to enroll an all-time high of 9.2 percent of California's public high school graduates, up from between 6 to 8 percent historically. </p>

<p>"Slower growth among high school graduates is good news in that it will relieve the pressure that has led to increasing competition for individual students applying to one or more of our campuses," the report states. </p>

<p>The number of high school graduates is expected to decline because of low birth rates in the 1990s. </p>

<p>The university hopes to focus growth at the graduate level, with officials aiming to increase the proportion of the UC system's graduate students from 22 percent this year to 26 percent by 2020-21. </p>

<p>While the number of enrolled students is expected to increase, the percentage of graduate students at UC Berkeley is expected to remain constant at 27 percent, while the percentages may jump at younger campuses such as UC Merced and UC Irvine. </p>

<p>While university officials foresee university enrollment to increase in the coming decade, the rate of growth for enrollment will be smaller than in previous years. The projected annual UC growth rate for 2007-08 is 2.5 percent and 0.9 percent for 2020-21. </p>

<p>But campus officials emphasized that projected enrollment represents goals, and actual enrollment is contingent on outside funding and the state budget. </p>

<p>"(The numbers are) fiction, to the degree that they represent the aspirations of various schools," said Catherine Koshland, vice provost for academic planning and facilities. "We can proceed with planning, but right now we're so constrained by the budget that no one's going to grow." </p>

<p>The university faces the largest graduating high school class this year, which poses constraints on the budget and enrollment in the next few years. </p>

<p>University officials announced in February that they would admit all students who meet university requirements for admission for the next school year. But officials said the UC system would be forced to close its doors to eligible students in the following year unless the state provides funds to support increased enrollment. </p>

<p>A similar situation occurred in 2004 when the university denied admission to some eligible students because of state budget cuts. </p>

<p>While the projected figures seem promising for future high school graduates seeking admission into the university, Koshland warned that the state budget could change in the coming years. </p>

<p>"These are the kind of exercises we engage in," she said. "It doesn't mean a whole lot because the numbers aren't definitive."</p>

2

<p>Well, I don't think Berkeley will expand 'indefinitely.'</p>

<p>sofla951, you seem to want Berkeley to be extremely selective, and it definitely is very selective, but to reach the level of selectivity where its average SAT scores rival Stanford's and the like would defeat the point of the university: to provide education to the public. I would be saddened if Berkeley had to turn away so many qualified students. The fact that its acceptance rate is so low right now is somewhat saddening.</p>

<p>In addition, larger endowment >> larger student population does NOT mean that the quality is going down. There is a relationship between the financial resources and the size. If Berkeley expanded with a fixed endowment, yes, the quality would go down. But with these financial resources, Berkeley may grow larger to accommodate more students; that doesn't mean that Berkeley will offer a 'lower quality' education to them. I highly, highly doubt that it will allow the quality to suffer to any large degree.</p>

<p>Lastly, these are very tentative plans. They may say they plan to; but there are many more unseen political forces behind such actions, and there very well may be a battle with the city of Berkeley and surrounding areas that would be impacted by this change. I daresay this isn't going to happen easily.</p>

<p>By the way, the article says 26k undergrads and 22k grads--that means about 46k students, doesn't it?</p>

3

<p>It's not that I want Berkeley to rival Stanford, but the point is that right now with capped majors, large classes, and subpar financial aid that there is really no reason to increase the schools undergrad population, especially when the four year grad rate is so low and state funding is going down year to year. I think Berkeley should work to improve its undergrad before expanding. The fact is that Berkeley holds it grad programs to an extremely high standard, at times refusing to increase fees and not expanding the grad programs. I feel the administration should work to improve the undergrad before it crunches in more students. Berkeley will be able to offer better aid to its students and a better overall experience if it focused on improving its undergrad when it builds an endowment....then, when it has fixed all the problems with the undergrad, then expand enrollment if Berkeley is in the financial position to do so. In 1994, Berkeley had around 29000 UGstudents now it has almost 35 thousand, yet Berkeley financial position has actually deteriorated compared to privates. In the 90s Berkeley paid its professors higher than the ivy and thus had a competitive advantage, now average pay is up to over 20% less than private counterparts and the school is racing to try and catch up in endowment because its grad schools are now vulnerable. I got my numbers from the Daily Cal. The 46 thousand is for UC total enrollment, and as the article states UC will soon be able to accomadate a record percentage of the states high school graduates. I don't understand why Berkeley has to expand. There are other UCs that can accomadate students. The undergrads at Cal worked extremely hard to get into this school and I feel that we deserve to get the educational experience and services the grad programs receive. The fact is that Berkeley says it works for the people of CA, but it works harder for the grad students, most of whom probably aren't from CA and are probably from private institutions. At 21K undergrad population, Berkeley would have an enrollment that would equal Stanford, MIT, Harvard and Yale's undergrad populations combined.</p>

4

<p>Well, if you don't like it, try to change it. I know there have been student groups who work to improve Berkeley's undergrad. Join or lead one.</p>

5

<p>I agree with sofla. It's unfair for those of us who have worked hard to get into Berkeley when a few years from now when I am applying for grad school and jobs, the reputation of the school will be lowered due to less qualified students being admitted. We have CSUs for a reason. The fact that Berkeley remains the top public university is that it is highly selective. If Berkeley continues to admit less than the best, it will soon decline to a second tier school.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
the reputation of the school will be lowered due to less qualified students being admitted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Er, the reputation won't dip. And even if it did, it wouldn't dip that fast.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily mean that less qualified students are admitted; while the # seniors graduating will decrease, it isn't known whether the number of students applying to top schools will decrease--which is why schools like Harvard may actually have more students applying in the future, not fewer.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The fact that Berkeley remains the top public university is that it is highly selective.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it's because Berkeley offers amazing resources--professors and facilities and libraries...</p>

<p>Not to mention that it wants to get about ~36,500 students when it already has ~35,000. Consider that UCLA now has over 38,000 students and manages to be one of the best publics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If Berkeley continues to admit less than the best, it will soon decline to a second tier school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Berkeley will never become a "second tier school." I guarantee it.</p>

7

<p>Higher and higher tuition ("fees") for a more crowded school. What a bummer.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
Er, the reputation won't dip. And even if it did, it wouldn't dip that fast.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily mean that less qualified students are admitted; while the # seniors graduating will decrease, it isn't known whether the number of students applying to top schools will decrease--which is why schools like Harvard may actually have more students applying in the future, not fewer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would think that the number of graduating seniors would increase since CA's population would be around 45 million plus by that time, even though the article says the opposite, but Berkeley's situation is different from Harvard's because Berkeley's application base is CA, Harvard's is more national. CA's graduating seniors may decrease, but the nation's isn't. Also why is Berkeley going to even chance its reputation may decrease, that seems to be the difference between Berkeley and privates. While privates are working to decrease it's faculty/student ratio, increase financial aid, and improve their problems, Berkeley is doing the opposite by continuing to add to a maxed out campus. Really I've always wondered what took Berkeley so long to start building an endowment and now I'm starting to realize it's because its grad school reputations are now at risk.... not being able to attract the top grad students through funding and having professors recruited. Berkeley allowed its UG to remain status quo while protecting its grad programs. It's only now that the situation has gotten so dire and its grad programs are at risk that its racing to build an endowment. </p>

<p>
[quote]
No, it's because Berkeley offers amazing resources--professors and facilities and libraries...</p>

<p>Not to mention that it wants to get about ~36,500 students when it already has ~35,000. Consider that UCLA now has over 38,000 students and manages to be one of the best publics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While those do contribute to Berkeley being a great university, it has many problems with its UG that need to be resolved before it adds students. And while Berkeley is considered the top public, is that all the school is going to settle for. Let's take USC, it now has an admission rate equal to Berkeley's and has worked very hard to improve its UG. I feel if Berkeley had worked as hard it could very well have an UG program of quality equal to the top privates. It will be a sad day when USC UG is seen as better than Berkeley's.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley will never become a "second tier school." I guarantee it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think it will be second tier, but many schools may surpass Berkeley in UG quality and rankings and that's a shame because you and I both know Berkeley would never allow that to happen to it's grad schools. Again I feel now that Berkeley is making strides to increase it's endowment, it needs to rectify many of the UG's problem, and then, expand if it can. Berkeley is an amazing school.... but it has even greater potential for UG quality.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
As much as I provided proof to the contrary...Berkeley is increasing enrollment to 36410 by 2021 up from its current enrollment of 34953. Sakky you were right.....I still think there's a chance for Cal to build an endowment and become more independent, but at this point it seems you were right about the Berkeley administration....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To reiterate what I said before in the previous thread, on this topic, I don't want to be right. I wish I was wrong. Unfortunately, I think I am right. </p>

<p>One core principle from the field of economics is the principle of revealed preferences. History has shown that the administration simply wants to increase ug enrollment time and time again. It's quite clear to me that they have (unfortunately) revealed this preference to us in the past. So why would we ever believe that they wouldn't keep doing so in the future?</p>

<p>I seem to recall that your basic argument was that as soon as Berkeley was able to build a large-enough endowment, then the administration would be able to decrease or at least cap enrollment. I have never been convinced that that causation is correct. I strongly suspect that the administration would grow Berkeley anyway even if the school had more money. Why? Again, one possibility consists of the same institutional factors that I discussed before in the previous thread: that individual administrators increase their political power and career potential if they are allowed to run larger systems with more students, hence they have a built-in incentive to engage in empire-building. {It's a variant of the theme of why government programs in general are so difficult to shrink, because they spawn a constituency who have vested personal interests in seeing them grow.} Another aspect stems from simple social psychology: if you have an organization that has continually expanded, as Berkeley has done for decades, then you are inevitably going to ingrain within your workforce a sense of organizational inertia in favor of expansion that is difficult to stop. For example, the general consensus within business academia as to why Microsoft is having so much difficulty competing with Google on the Internet is not because of resources (as Microsoft has far more money than Google does) but simply a matter of culture: there are numerous Microsoft employees who have been ingrained to think that software should always revolve around the desktop and they have great difficulty in thinking of any other way. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Lastly, these are very tentative plans. They may say they plan to; but there are many more unseen political forces behind such actions, and there very well may be a battle with the city of Berkeley and surrounding areas that would be impacted by this change. I daresay this isn't going to happen easily.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And in such an extreme situation, that's when Cal might consider just moving some of its divisions to another city entirely, as I discussed in the other thread. Like I said, Northwestern's Law School isn't even in the same city as the rest of Northwestern. Johns Hopkins's SAIS (arguably the leading international studies school in the world) is located in a completely different city from the rest of JHU. </p>

<p>Now one might ask, why doesn't every school move some of its programs to other cities? Why doesn't Harvard, why doesn't Yale? The answer is simple - they don't have to. They're not under heavy stress from their resident cities. But Cal is. Hence, Cal's logical response is to consider building programs outside of the city of Berkeley. It probably won't happen soon, as in the short-term, Cal will obviously look to cram as many students into the city as possible. But as soon as that well has run dry, Cal will probably consider building programs elsewhere.</p>

10

<p>Sigh, I read about this in the Daily Cal.</p>

<p>Eventually a Berkeley degree will probably mean as much as a Cal-State's.</p>

<p>This is why you should all apply to private (and more selective) universities for graduate school. I am in the process now and am ONLY applying to private universities that i feel would maintain the quality of my degree years after I graduate.</p>

<p>I know a lot of Berkeley graduates who have a really hard time finding jobs. Some of them end up working as cashiers for 5 years. It's pathetic, but this is where our degree is leading.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
I agree with sofla. It's unfair for those of us who have worked hard to get into Berkeley when a few years from now when I am applying for grad school and jobs, the reputation of the school will be lowered due to less qualified students being admitted. We have CSUs for a reason. The fact that Berkeley remains the top public university is that it is highly selective. If Berkeley continues to admit less than the best, it will soon decline to a second tier school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know people who graduated a few years ago who are working minimum wage jobs at grocery stores. Given they were humanities majors, but still...you'd expect something to come out of a Berkeley degree.</p>

<p>The fact is the standards for admissions seem to be dropping each year and by increasing admissions we reduce the caliber of our students. We can't even compete with the private universities especially as they toughen admissions.</p>

<p>I worked hard in high school to get here (it was my top choice!); in retrospect I should have gone elsewhere.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
The fact that its acceptance rate is so low right now is somewhat saddening.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The acceptance rate isn't low at all. For a "highly selective" university its acceptance rate is one of the highest.</p>

<p>When I was a freshman my entering class had an SAT of 1360 (out of 1600)..that's not "very high" or overly selective. We could do with tightening admissions standards.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
This is why you should all apply to private (and more selective) universities for graduate school. I am in the process now and am ONLY applying to private universities that i feel would maintain the quality of my degree years after I graduate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I think that's too extreme. Whatever the problems of the ug program, the Berkeley graduate programs - especially the PhD programs - are likely to continue to maintain their strength. In fact, there is some evidence that indicates that the Berkeley PhD programs may well be getting stronger, relative to some of its peers. </p>

<p>Like I've always said, the Berkeley graduate programs are examples of what the ug program ought to be like. The grad programs take great pains to shield their students from the issues that plague the undergrads.</p>

14

<p>Graduate student fees are lower than undergraduate fees-ug students are subsidizing graduate students' education (some article has stated that higher graduate student fees would deter top students from attending Cal, so they froze the increase in fees at least once in the past). :o</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
Graduate student fees are lower than undergraduate fees-ug students are subsidizing graduate students' education (some article has stated that higher graduate student fees would deter top students from attending Cal, so they froze the increase in fees at least once in the past).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually, that's not true. Graduate fees are higher.</p>

<p>UC</a> Berkeley Registrar : Registration Fees</p>

<p>But more to the point, I don't know how much difference this really makes. After all, only a tiny few of the students in the PhD programs - which are generally recognized as Berkeley's crown jewels - actually pay fees out of their own pockets. Almost all of them are financially supported by their departments in one way or another, either through fellowship or through TA/RA-ship. Hence, even if Berkeley jacked up their fees, the departments would simply respond by jacking up their support. </p>

<p>Fees do hit the professional school students and the financially unsupported master's degree students. But especially in the case of the professional degree students as well as many of the master's degree students (i.e. in engineering), their earning potential upon graduation is such that having to pay additional fees, while painful, is not insurmountable. Furthermore, I think those graduate programs may well be improving commensurate with the increase in cost. For example, I have been quite impressed with the improvements made to the Haas MBA program, such that it may well be worth the increase in fees.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
And in such an extreme situation, that's when Cal might consider just moving some of its divisions to another city entirely, as I discussed in the other thread. Like I said, Northwestern's Law School isn't even in the same city as the rest of Northwestern.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you think that will happen smoothly? No, there's going to be much opposition within the school. Not to mention that the structure of the school--the administrators, the staff, etc.--is not shielded from bureaucratic BS. If satellite campuses are to happen, they're not going to happen easily.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Given they were humanities majors, but still...you'd expect something to come out of a Berkeley degree.</p>

<p>The fact is the standards for admissions seem to be dropping each year and by increasing admissions we reduce the caliber of our students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't try to blame that on the standards for admissions. The same sort of thing happens to graduates of schools like Stanford, Harvard, etc. It's not specific to Berkeley.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Given they were humanities majors, but still...you'd expect something to come out of a Berkeley degree.</p>

<p>The fact is the standards for admissions seem to be dropping each year and by increasing admissions we reduce the caliber of our students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, that's why Berkeley's stats steadily rise (minus the recent dip that many schools felt)?</p>

<p>You don't seem to realize that an increase to 26k undergrads isn't HUGE and won't really affect selectivity much. (The UG population is almost 25k as it is.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I worked hard in high school to get here (it was my top choice!); in retrospect I should have gone elsewhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's completely illogical. Because students in the future--up to 2021--will supposedly have it "easier," you wish you'd never even gone to Berkeley? Despite the fact that they very well may not have it easier, than the increase in size is not much, that Berkeley still manages to compete with other top schools, that its reputation will still be as strong as ever? Wow...</p>

<p>Edit: just read your comment:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Eventually a Berkeley degree will probably mean as much as a Cal-State's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow, why don't you just go ahead and drop out of Berkeley and get it over with? Jesus, melodramatic like no other...</p>

17

<p>KyleDavid: You're the only one in this thread who thinks that Berkeley is going to improve/maintain its reputation by increasing admissions. </p>

<p>
[quote]
that its reputation will still be as strong as ever?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By what, loosening admissions criteria?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't seem to realize that an increase to 26k undergrads isn't HUGE and won't really affect selectivity much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You do realize that it's a compounded effect...If there are less seniors applying in future due to low birth rates in the 1990s while they are accepting more people, then it's not just a blanket increase. Our admissions would be affected by less people applying and their increase in admissions. Thus selectivity would be affected by both demography and admissions standards. Of course we won't know how many people actually apply in 10 years, but it is safe to say that fewer will apply from California given 90s birth rates...that decrease (coupled with an increase in admissions) might just make a huge difference in selectivity and undergrad reputation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
By 1942, the American Council on Education ranked UC Berkeley second only to Harvard University in the number of distinguished departments.[10]

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Interesting...something to keep in mind. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Wow, why don't you just go ahead and drop out of Berkeley and get it over with? Jesus, melodramatic like no other...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But having a Cal-State degree is still better than having none.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
Well, I think that's too extreme. Whatever the problems of the ug program, the Berkeley graduate programs - especially the PhD programs - are likely to continue to maintain their strength. In fact, there is some evidence that indicates that the Berkeley PhD programs may well be getting stronger, relative to some of its peers.</p>

<p>Like I've always said, the Berkeley graduate programs are examples of what the ug program ought to be like. The grad programs take great pains to shield their students from the issues that plague the undergrads.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The graduate programs are superb and possibly the best in America, but after being somewhat scarred as an undergraduate by the large classes, the dearth of advisers, the bureaucracy, the cramped living conditions, etc. I've decided to apply elsewhere even if the graduate programs are the antitheses of undergrad's. In addition I don't think my chances of gaining admission to graduate programs here are very high. There's some statistical evidence that Berkeley graduate programs tend to shy away from their undergraduates. For example at Boalt the average admitted GPA is a 3.8 while for Berkeley undergrads going to Boalt it is a 3.9+. They seem to expect more from Berkeley undergraduates.</p>

<p>edit: Not to mention it's nice to attend two different institutions for undergrad/grad in case one tanks in future. In addition it's not fun staying at the same place for 7/8/9 years!</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
If there are less seniors applying in future due to low birth rates in the 1990s while they are accepting more people, then it's not just a blanket increase.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And it's already been acknowledged that while nationally the # graduating seniors may decrease, the # in CA may not, or rather the # applying to Berkeley may not. I don't think that the # applying to Harvard will decrease drastically, if at all. In fact, I think there's going to be a higher demand for top educations as our fast-paced society will "mandate" that people have it.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Quote:
By 1942, the American Council on Education ranked UC Berkeley second only to Harvard University in the number of distinguished departments.[10]
Interesting...something to keep in mind.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You know, right, that Berkeley was less selective than, and so as Berkeley became more selective, its rank went down? And that, therefore, by becoming less selective, its rank will go up? (That's why that comment makes no sense.)</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
And you think that will happen smoothly? No, there's going to be much opposition within the school. Not to mention that the structure of the school--the administrators, the staff, etc.--is not shielded from bureaucratic BS. If satellite campuses are to happen, they're not going to happen easily.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, when did I ever say that it would happen smoothly? Plenty of things happen at Cal only through pain. But they do happen. </p>

<p>Let me give you an example. I remember when there was quite the ruckus raised when Cal closed down the old undergrad mining engineering and petroleum engineering programs, particularly given Cal's proud tradition of heavy involvement in the California mining industry. {Heck, you still have vestiges of that old tradition like the Hearst Mining Circle and the Heart Mining Building on campus.} But shut them down they did, and the tenured professors in those programs (of which there were quite a few) were simply moved to the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. </p>

<p>What makes that story so sad is twofold. #1, there were still students interested in those programs when they got shut down. For example, I think the last petroleum engineering BS class graduated about 6 students, which is about the same number of students who graduate from, say, the Scandinavian major. Yet nobody is talking about shutting down the Scandinavian major. Furthermore, we're now in the midst of a giant commodities and oil boom, and people who are graduating with degrees in petroleum or mining engineering are doing very well for themselves. Yet Berkeley undergrads can't earn degrees in those subjects. Why not? It's not like the professors aren't there - guys like Glaser, Rector, Patzek, they're all still there. (Granted although I understand that Patzek is leaving soon - to become the Chair of the Petroleum Engineering Department at UTAustin. That's just sad. Cal had one of the best petroleum engineering profs in the world, and yet wouldn't offer an undergrad petroleum engineering degree program).</p>