<p>
[quote]
Hey, when did I ever say that it would happen smoothly? Plenty of things happen at Cal only through pain. But they do happen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point is, if there's too many obstacles they have to overcome, it might not happen at all. So this isn't the travesty that others are making it seem.</p>
<p>Berkeley admitted nearly 3x the number of international students this year. Perhaps a hidden motive is to increase money flow to Berkeley (since intn'l students get nearly no financial aid?)?</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is, if there's too many obstacles they have to overcome, it might not happen at all. So this isn't the travesty that others are making it seem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the history of Cal is such that if something is difficult to do, but the administration wants to do it, then the administration will do it anyway. For example, I remember before how people said that Cal couldn't increase enrollment without hurting the quality of the ug program. But the administration didn't care - they admitted more people anyway, therefore prompting L&S departments to respond by instituting impaction rules, which had never existed before in L&S. And even after the administration noticed that impaction was being instituted, the administration *still*didn't care. They admitted *even more *people. The fact that students in L&S no longer had free choice of majors - hey, that's not the administration's problem. </p>
<p>Hence, I can see one possible 'solution' to the town&gown conflict between Cal and the city of Berkeley is that while Berkeley might not want the city population to grow, Cal will still just admit more students anyway, but the total number of housing unit permits within the city of Berkeley will remain the same (hence, the city population won't grow much beyond the organic rate). What that will mean is that more Cal students won't be able to find housing within the city and will be forced to live elsewhere and commute. Lest you think that's totally outrageous, let me say that I know plenty of Cal students who used to live in apartments in Oakland and commuted every day. Hence, the city is happy because it doesn't have to take in more students who actually reside within the city, and the administration is happy because they were able to increase the student population. The students are probably not happy because they have to put up with longer commute times, but the administration doesn't care about that.</p>
<p>Of course that's just one possible scenario. Surely we can come up with others. However my salient point has always been that the administration has never really cared much about ug quality and satisfaction before, so why would they start now?</p>
<p>Wait, the whole article is about the UC system as a whole not just Berkeley. Could they actually be talking opening up more UC Merceds?</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, I remember before how people said that Cal couldn't increase enrollment without hurting the quality of the ug program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You don't think it's become increasingly difficult as Berkeley goes further and further?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Could they actually be talking opening up more UC Merceds?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think they're talking more about growing Merced (or rather, all the under-enrolled UCs).</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Every school was less selective back then. You have to look at things proportionately. And its not " therefore". The chances of its rank going up is going to be higher if it increases selectivity simply because thats how the rankings operate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if it increases selectivity simply because thats how the rankings operate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Its US News rank will go up. The others most likely won't change much. To be honest, it's clear that Berkeley doesn't care much for US News undergrad rankings.</p>
<p>Sakky while I agree with you now that at this moment the administration's views toward the undergrad are that the quality is expendable as long as the state is happy, I previously thought otherwise, I still think the city of Berkeley will be a major issue. Even if the students live in Oakland, which I have never heard anyone doing, the city could still have a case that the students still attend Cal, spend a substantial amount of time in the city and clog up roads and use city services when commuting to Berkeley and studying in Berkeley...the city may be the silver lining. Example, where I'm from in Florida they approved a casino to be built at the horsetrack. The casino is within the city limits and will be two miles from the nearest neighboring city's border, yet the neighboring city sued my hometown over the project saying it would drain that city's resources and forced my hometown to share tax profits if it wanted the casino to be built. My point is that Berkeley is a rowdy town and it will create major problems for Cal. Hopefully Berkeley does because the city would be doing itself a favor as well as the undergrads at Cal.</p>
<p>It just fustrates me. I don't care if Berkeley panders to US News rankings but I would like to see them at least show some initiative to improve the UG. It literally was a multi-stage military operation at Berkeley when gathering information for the upcoming NRC grad school rankings. While NRC may be a more respectable organization than US News, US News is respected by high school students nationwide and Berkeley could at least try to improve of some of US News metrics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley admitted nearly 3x the number of international students this year. Perhaps a hidden motive is to increase money flow to Berkeley (since intn'l students get nearly no financial aid?)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that. Berkeley increases international student admission, but Berkeley is committed to CA students which is why they will be increasing UG population. I don't mind at all that there will be more international students here...but its annoying the administration is saying one thing and doing the other.</p>
<p>We'll just have to wait and see what happens. :)</p>
<p>I'm really confused.......I am going to provide a link to the 2020 LRDP for Berkeley which states explicitly that the campus enrollment for 2020 should be 33450. I am hoping that the Daily Cal's numbers are wrong, although right now the school is above this target so maybe Berkeley just decided to ignore a plan they approved only a few years ago...maybe 2005?</p>
<p>Here's the link...its quite an interesting document but now I am questioning its purpose if the school doesn't adhere to it. </p>
<p>Wasn't there a point in time when Berkeley's ug program was ranked much higher in US News? Then some of the private universities got angry and US News changed their metrics so it favored private universities. I think even if Berkeley were to improve some aspects to climb up the rankings, US News would simply alter and create a new set of metrics (as they do so annually) to keep the privates up high.</p>
<p>sofla951, in regards to the total number of students-it might have to do with the policy that Berkeley cannot exceed the figure of ~33k during "normal hours." But the figure that Daily Cal states may include students that attend night time classes (evening MBA program comes to mind), they do not violate the student population cap agreement with the city of Berkeley. It's along the lines of admitting students in the spring to admit the most number of students possible.</p>
<p>^^ extension sort of thing?</p>
<p>Also, I know students in high school can sometimes take courses at Berkeley, not to mention other people, but I doubt they're included in the figure.</p>
<p>sofla951: the discrepancy in the figures is odd. Perhaps the Daily Cal has an error? It wouldn't be the first time...</p>
<p>I'm pretty the cap agreement with the city of Berkeley is only during "normal hours," during the afternoon when the campus is most busy. I read it some article awhile ago so I can't offer the source.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't think it's become increasingly difficult as Berkeley goes further and further?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure. I think you could go either way on that one. For example, while one might argue that as you continually increase the student population, you inevitably start running into physical constraints, yet at the same time, as you continually increase the student population, then you get used to increasing the student population. </p>
<p>I think about it the way I think about going to the gym after you've never worked out before. The more times that you go to the gym, the more sore you may get. Yet at the same time, the more times you go to the gym, the more habituated you become towards going to the gym, such that it soon becomes an ingrained part of your lifestyle just like showering or brushing your teeth every day. I think the administration sees undergrad expansion as just something that they are accustomed to doing almost as a matter of habit. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Even if the students live in Oakland, which I have never heard anyone doing
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Here are a couple of Craigslist apartments in Oakland (Rockridge) and Emeryville that are being advertised as "Perfect for the UC Berkley student" or "ideally situated for the UC Berkeley student" or "ideal place for a student attending UC Berkeley". That sort of advertising verbiage seems to indicate that at least some Berkeley students are probably indeed living in Oakland. </p>
<p>Spacious</a> 1-bedroom, 1-bath garden apartment with walk-in closet
ENJOY</a> SHARING A BEAUTIFULL 2-LEVEL TOWNHOUSE
Completely</a> Remodeled in Desirable Area
Short-Term</a> Rental Bargain!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
the city could still have a case that the students still attend Cal, spend a substantial amount of time in the city and clog up roads and use city services when commuting to Berkeley and studying in Berkeley...the city may be the silver lining
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, they probably would argue that. And then Cal would argue that, as far as those students who live outside the city, they are no more of a burden on the city as are, say, extra employees who work at any of the businesses in the city. For example, if Wells Fargo were to want to increase employment in its branches in the city of Berkeley, I don't think the city can really stop that, even though those extra employees presumably would also be using city services to get to and from the city. </p>
<p>But in any case, see below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that Berkeley is a rowdy town and it will create major problems for Cal. Hopefully Berkeley does because the city would be doing itself a favor as well as the undergrads at Cal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's when Cal might respond by simply moving part of the school to another city entirely, which is what I had discussed before. Again, why not? Like I said, many schools run split campuses. Northwestern's School of Law is nowhere near Evanston (in fact, not even close). Johns Hopkins SAIS is nowhere near Baltimore. </p>
<p>But that's just pure speculation. What is not speculation - in fact, what is undeniable - is that the administration has perennially found ways to expand the undergrad program time and time again, in spite of former plans/guidelines that tried to prevent them from doing so, in spite of city opposition, in fact, in spite of everything. The administration has always (sadly) found a way. Hence, there is unfortunately no confidence to believe that they won't find a way this time too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then some of the private universities got angry and US News changed their metrics so it favored private universities. I think even if Berkeley were to improve some aspects to climb up the rankings, US News would simply alter and create a new set of metrics (as they do so annually) to keep the privates up high.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think that's a bit too conspiratorial, don't you? After all, if what you said is true, then wouldn't the private schools also want to manipulate USNews to get a higher graduate ranking? After all, I would argue that, with the exception of a few, the top private schools care about their graduate programs at least as much - and almost certainly more than - their undergrad programs. </p>
<p>Yet the fact remains that Berkeley does extremely well in the USNews Graduate rankings. As one example, the Berkeley Haas MBA program has steadily increased in the MBA rankings over the last decade. If the private MBA programs are trying to manipulate the rankings to keep Haas down, it's clearly not working.</p>
<p>If Berkeley was to reduce its incoming size to half, the admit rate would be comparable to the elite private universities.</p>