Undergraduate admissions VIP: "Berkeley is not Harvard"

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

<p>This is the kind of thinking which lords over the Undergraduate Admissions Office. </p>

<p>And does he have any advice for his replacement, whoever that turns out to be?</p>

<p>"I certainly would tell that person that they are entrusted with this mandate that Berkeley has to educate students from all of California's communities," says Black. "We do it so well now, and we must keep doing it. There's no point in trying to make Berkeley mirror an institution that charges $45,000 a year to educate its students — a Harvard, an MIT, a Stanford, and so forth. Those schools do what they do very well, and they should continue to do that. But that's not who we are. And I'm confident that my successor will assure that Berkeley keeps true to its purposes of educating outstanding students from all economic levels of California."</p>

<p>Are you reading this "vicissitudes"?</p>

<p>Does this finally convince you that unless something absolubtly unexpected occurs, Berkeley's undergraduate admissions office will continue to increase what you perceive to be "unqualified" and/or "underqualified" student numbers?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2006/07/19_Black.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2006/07/19_Black.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>educating outstanding students from all economic levels of California</p>

<p>I think he's referring to the fact that Berkeley is much more diverse in terms of socio-economic backgrounds. Yuo're jumping to conclusions though by assuming that economically disadvantaged students are unqualified/underqualified, despite the fact that their SATs are lower (as family income is strongly correlated to SAT scores).</p>

3

<p>The way he words it is pretty shady. Berkeley should mirror those institutions in terms of prestige, academic excellence, etc. and admissions, while charging lower. I don't see how lowering the standards for admissions will help Berkeley in the long run, as then, no good students will even want to apply nor attend.</p>

4

<p>It seems pretty clear to me that Berkeley fully intends to keep using comprehensive review to admit underqualified students in the name of diversity, and to a larger extent than Harvard, MIT, and Stanford.</p>

5

<p>Needadvice, imblue, did you read my post?
Higher family income ====> higher SATs
Lower SATs =X=X=> less smart/qualified</p>

6

<p>sigh.</p>

<p>can't we all just agree to disagree? </p>

<p>everyone's definition of "qualified" is gonna be different based on personal experience and beliefs. in a way, the same is true of colleges and universities all over the place. it's what makes them all so different. </p>

<p>the UC system is made to serve Californians. thus, they give preference to Californians. a smart kid from a bad part of town who has experienced subpar teaching and has grown up with a group of slacker friends can still get into Cal, excel, and make a difference in the community and the world. that same kid may or may not have gotten into HYPS or similar institutions. if he had gotten in, it would have been the race card or the diversity card. at Cal, it's simply because the kid shows potential and deserves a chance.</p>

<p>i may be very wrong, but that's the way i see it.</p>

<p>[and no, i'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone. i think it's interesting that we all have such differing views regarding this stuff.]</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
Are you reading this "vicissitudes"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh yes, greatestyen. I read all your posts with great interest. :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Does this finally convince you that unless something absolubtly unexpected occurs, Berkeley's undergraduate admissions office will continue to increase what you perceive to be "unqualified" and/or "underqualified" student numbers?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I'm already convinced of that. That's why I want something "unexpected" to happen. Namely, for the administrative thinking to change. That starts with questioning what the administration is doing, which is what I believe we are doing on this forum.</p>

<p>This statement is obviously very politically oriented. What sounds good politically often isn't good for the school, and that's why I don't particularly like, or want to get involved in, politics. Sure if Berkeley decides to accept 40,000 students next year, that'll look great politically. Hey we're educating more Californians! But we can all agree that that wouldn't be a very good idea.</p>

<p>I am going to disect this excerpt and point out what I don't like about it (even though you are probably aware).</p>

<p>
[quote]
I certainly would tell that person that they are entrusted with this mandate that Berkeley has to educate students from all of California's communities. We do it so well now, and we must keep doing it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, if Berkeley is doing so well, the California Community Colleges should really be praised! They educate students from a lot more of California's communities than Berkeley does. I mean, someone who grew up in East LA probably wouldn't have a shot at getting in Berkeley. I remember at orientation hundreds of students were there, from all over California, but no one from East LA. And CCCs educate a broader spectrum of students in terms of age too. So the main point of Berkeley isn't really to educate students from all backgrounds; that just makes Berkeley sound good politically. What Berkeley really does is try to educate OUTSTANDING students from all parts of California, and right now it is losing those students in cross-admit battles to other private institutions. So if Berkeley makes its undergrad program better, and start winning some of these cross-admit rate battles, then it would be doing a better job of fulfilling its actual mandate.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There's no point in trying to make Berkeley mirror an institution that charges $45,000 a year to educate its students — a Harvard, an MIT, a Stanford, and so forth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is obviously a faulty argument that is again, used to make Berkeley look good. All he is doing is attacking these universities based on how much they cost, which distracts the reader from the fact that Berkeley undergrad is just not as good as those of these universities. Berkeley can be more like these institutions without charging 45,000 a year. Furthermore, he has completely ignored Berkeley tuition for OOS which is about the same, or that HYPSM are so generous with aid which often makes it cheaper to go to them than to Berkeley.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Those schools do what they do very well, and they should continue to do that. But that's not who we are.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's fine with me. Berkeley in no way has to try to copy these institutions, if Berkeley can become just as good, or even better. But as of right now, Berkeley isn't, so why not try to learn from these institutions? In Stanford's earlier days when the university was still not very good the president visited many colleges to find out what they were doing right, and I think he tried to model some things using Cornell's example. You find out what works, and you stick with it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The way he words it is pretty shady. Berkeley should mirror those institutions in terms of prestige, academic excellence, etc. and admissions, while charging lower. I don't see how lowering the standards for admissions will help Berkeley in the long run, as then, no good students will even want to apply nor attend.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<p>
[quote]
the UC system is made to serve Californians. thus, they give preference to Californians. a smart kid from a bad part of town who has experienced subpar teaching and has grown up with a group of slacker friends can still get into Cal, excel, and make a difference in the community and the world. that same kid may or may not have gotten into HYPS or similar institutions. if he had gotten in, it would have been the race card or the diversity card. at Cal, it's simply because the kid shows potential and deserves a chance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, here's the thing. A smart kid from a bad part of town who has experienced subpar teaching and has grown up with a group of slackers COULD excel at Berkeley, but chances are that he won't. He's probably shaky in his education and has developed a bunch of bad/lazy habits. If Berkeley starts accepting these people then for every kid who excels, there will probably be 4 or 5 who flunk out.</p>

<p>Put it another way, if this kid really could excel at Berkeley, he could certainly excel at a CC, transfer to a four-year university where he will continue to excel, and get into a good grad school.</p>

8

<p>vicissitudes, I agree with some of the things you're saying, but</p>

<p>its a bit ironic to say a student is smart, and then go on to assume he has lazy/bad habits. If hes smart in the first place, why would he have lazy/bad habits that would set him apart from any other student at Cal...</p>

<p>You're assuming things about the type of student you described.</p>

<p>Students from middle-class and upper-class households, neighborhoods, and schools are not the only ones who deserve a right at an excellent university education.</p>

<p>I'm sure a lot of you would change your opinions if you were that one 'smart kid with potential' who grew up in the ghetto but was constantly looked down upon and underestimated because of his background.</p>

<p>Dont get me wrong, I'm totally against race being a factor in selection at any college, but I dont see the harm in taking a student's financial situation into consideration. </p>

<p>If it is Berkeley's objective to give disadvantaged students (according to some here, 'unqualified' students) a chance of a lifetime, then let the university decide for itself the direction it wants to move in....although i do agree with the point made about looking at other prestigious institutions as a model to improve UC Berkeley and make it overall "better."</p>

<p>I dont want anyone angry at me, just my two cents. Feel free to respond without attacking.</p>

9

<p>As said before, Berkeley is perfectly happy, and wants to do things the way it wants to now.</p>

<p>
[quote]
There's no point in trying to make Berkeley mirror an institution that charges $45,000 a year to educate its students — a Harvard, an MIT, a Stanford, and so forth.

[/quote]

An excuse, perhaps, but that is the way they see things.</p>

<p>And in truth, there is no need to "mirror." Berkeley can, in its own way, become an excellent institution. None of those universities are really THAT alike to one another. Improve, however, is something quite different from this.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I'm confident that my successor will assure that Berkeley keeps true to its purposes of educating outstanding students from all economic levels of California.

[/quote]

Berkeley SHOULD take students from all economic levels of California. It would be vastly detrimental to the institution NOT to do so.</p>

<p>Note "outstanding," however. Black, of all people, was HIMSELF not one to allow underachieving students into Berkeley (nor does Robinson, Director of Undergraduate Admissions). In the end, with the necessity to fill a class as large as Berkeley's, however, the level of the candidates does dip below that of Harvard, MIT, etc.</p>

<p>I wouldn't fret too much. As said, Black himself was not one to simply make policy to admit poor (academically) students. He certainly preferred the top... and unusual geography, and unusual circumstance... just like his counterparts at private institutions. In any case, Black ISN'T the one there making the actual case-by-case decisions... Robinson does much more in that respect.</p>

<p>And besides that, it is the Chancellor that ultimately approves his successor, and that is at least one person in the administration (whatever his motives) who wishes to make Berkeley better than the private elites.</p>

<p>Black, ultimately, still did a pretty good job (personally though, I would credit Robinson more for the direct effect...), but I don't expect his replacement will disappoint.</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
its a bit ironic to say a student is smart, and then go on to assume he has lazy/bad habits. If hes smart in the first place, why would he have lazy/bad habits that would set him apart from any other student at Cal...</p>

<p>You're assuming things about the type of student you described.</p>

<p>Students from middle-class and upper-class households, neighborhoods, and schools are not the only ones who deserve a right at an excellent university education.</p>

<p>I'm sure a lot of you would change your opinions if you were that one 'smart kid with potential' who grew up in the ghetto but was constantly looked down upon and underestimated because of his background.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Okay you misunderstood me. I meant that if the student were really smart and hard-working, he could probably get into some pretty good private school too, which are very generous in handing out financial aid.</p>

<p>I suppose there is a small portion who barely get rejected by the top privates but barely get into Berkeley and goes on to do pretty well at Berkeley. I think these students can be equally successful by going to a CC and transferring to a four-year university, and they save even more money that way. So Berkeley isn't really needed, although it's a nice option. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm wondering just how much Berkeley really helps "those from disadvantaged backgrounds."</p>

<p>
[quote]
An excuse, perhaps, but that is the way they see things.</p>

<p>And in truth, there is no need to "mirror." Berkeley can, in its own way, become an excellent institution. None of those universities are really THAT alike to one another. Improve, however, is something quite different from this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that it can, but so far it hasn't done so. Well since trying to be its own excellent institution hasn't worked out TOO well, let's try to learn from some other institutions that are doing better. It's like how communism in China wasn't doing too well but now they are integrating some capitalism in its economy and so far, I would certainly say that it's an improvement.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm wondering just how much Berkeley really helps "those from disadvantaged backgrounds."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, as far as I've observed, it seems that Berkeley graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds are very frequently employed by California businesses that are run by aging California baby boomers who are alumni of CSUs and lower UCs. Usually that is because those employers are awed by Berkeley's name since to many of them, Berkeley symbolizes the liberalization of American education following WWII. That historical event is almost universally thought of as a "good thing." But of course, the view of said employers, who tend to be white, upper-middle class, and Protestant Christians, is generally not the view of CCers, who seem to overwhelmingly support the views of higher education most associated with the pre-GI Bill era New England elite establishment. </p>

<p>So, essentially, I belive that Berkeley degrees are truly helping poor students make it into higher economic classes. But it's pretty obvious that Berkeley's leverage isn't equal to say, Harvard's-a school where networking is a very valued and dirt poor students can often make it into the the upper classes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think these students can be equally successful by going to a CC and transferring to a four-year university, and they save even more money that way. So Berkeley isn't really needed, although it's a nice option.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You said it yourself. It's a "nice option." People want nice options and the more people you have, the more they will want it. So what you've got to understand is that, given California's current demographic surge of Hispanic-Americans, it is absolubtly idiotic to stand in the way of increased UC Hispanic-American enrollment. If you don't give the smartest Hispanic kids a chance to become the state's leaders, you risk alienating the Hispanic-American community. If the situation gets bad enough, its quite possible that, as a recent book has argued, California will become an autonomous, ethnicially-conscious, violent "Mexifornia." Is that what you want? Because it's most certainly not what I want and if we can avoid it by increasing Berkeley enrollment in general and Hispanic-American enrollment in particular, I think we should definetly do it.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
Needadvice, imblue, did you read my post?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I read your post. I just don't agree with you.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
So, essentially, I belive that Berkeley degrees are truly helping poor students make it into higher economic classes. But it's pretty obvious that Berkeley's leverage isn't equal to say, Harvard's-a school where networking is a very valued and dirt poor students can often make it into the the upper classes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i feel sorry for the lower-middle class kid who tries to climb the social rungs at harvard. it can be done....but oy, not fun AT ALL. it's much more realistic to attempt that at berkeley, methinks.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
Well since trying to be its own excellent institution hasn't worked out TOO well, let's try to learn from some other institutions that are doing better.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think UC Berkeley, on the whole, is doing a pretty good job, all things considered, and doing amazingly well in many areas. Could it do much, much, more, particularly in some areas? Yes, I think it can, and will do a lot of it, especially with goading and demand. Do I think it should learn from other institutions? Yes, of course. Is talking about Berkeley like it is overall in a state of crisis beneficial in general, and likely to increase the speed of change? I think it's a bit far from the truth and dishonest, but perhaps it may increase the rate of change a bit, although i don't think it does too much besides misrepresent reality. What do you guys think?</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
Is talking about Berkeley like it is overall in a state of crisis beneficial in general

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Whoa, I hope you're not referring to me. I certainly do not think that Berkeley is in an overall state of crisis. I think on the whole, it is definitely doing a pretty good job, but that there's also room for improvement, that's all. But yeah, I agree with what you wrote.</p>

<p>In fact, I am becoming increasingly convinced (and irked) that prospective students really do not know anything about colleges at all. All this time we've been talking about problems at Berkeley and I doubt they know anything about them! Rather they choose to attend other universities based on "oh I hear Berkeley is too big" or "I hear the campus looks depressing." I think most students realize that Berkeley had great academics but they are increasingly putting more value onto things like weather, location, size, difficulty, etc. and Berkeley is losing in these areas for some reason.</p>

16

<p>vicissitudes, how many times have you visited the campus?</p>

17

<p>i actually find it interesting to analyze why students do or do not end up at berkeley.</p>

<p>of the dozen or so students from my high school who will be coming to berkeley this fall, several of us are ivy league waitlist-->rejects who may have gotten in had we not applied for financial aid. some never wanted to leave the west coast, so they applied to the better schools around here [cal, satanford, 1 or 2 of the claremont colleges, etc.] and chose cal out of those which accepted them. still others are going for sports recruitment, and there are always a few who simply got lucky.</p>

<p>of those who got in but aren't going? yes, one thought cal was much too big and scary and will be attending claremont mckenna. another hated the wet coast and fell in love with UChicago. a few DID get into those ivys or satanford and chose those. and there were like 1 or 2 who simply liked one of the other UCs better; i have a friend who has always loved ucsd and decided to go there because she knew it was what she wanted most. ...in actuality, fewer turned down berkeley than i expected. </p>

<p>so, at my high school/in my area at least, cal still has quite an excellent reputation, though you can always find a contingent of people who look down on it simply because it isn't a private school. in fact, several people from this area simply couldn't understand why i chose berkeley over tufts.</p>

<p>this post hasn't been incredibly coherent. BUT, my point is: people from the outside [including many prospective students] form their opinions based on what "everyone knows about berkeley." that is, it's a very good public institution. some would say on a par with the privates, others would beg to differ. in any case, people's negative views stem from the fact that it's public and it's big [and in some cases "hippy-liberal."] thus, they make decisions based on pretty over-generalized and often superficial claims. such is the way of the world?</p>

<p>[as a side note: my only real concern coming to cal is the difficulty. at a private school, there's that sort of comfort zone known as grad inflation. at cal, from what i've heard, that pretty much does not happen. you also hear abou thte pre-med, pre-engineering, pre-haas, wtc. kids being ridiculously cutthroat. many of us, i think are iffy about how we'll fit in to this whole equation, because it's not what existed at our high schools.]</p>

18

<p>stuckinthemist and I went to high school together. I don't fit into any of her categories though: for the last three years I've known that I wanted to go to Berkeley and nowhere else (I was rejected by top-flight ivies, waitlisted at others, and accepted at UCSC/Berkeley). I know all about all the strikes against it, I've read everything Sakky has to say, and yes, there are a lot of people admitted to Berkeley who are neither sincerely intellectually curious nor destined for financial/political/etc. success. but Berkeley really isn't Harvard, nor should it be. both have comparable faculties, and both are in really exciting intellectual communities. I always cringe when people at this website gauge universities' prowess by their grad school admittances, &c. because university is really supposed to be an intellectual community. there are two american universities that, internationally, are synonymous with this notion--that a university is a forum for thought. those places are Berkeley and Harvard. I know this is going to set off some sort of debate, and I'm not trying to be controversial. I'm merely saying that Berkeley and Harvard both do the same thing in different ways. Berkeley is however, I should think indisputably, the more democratic of the two options. in any case, the idea of ranking universities is pretty stupid, and I'm so glad to be done with the college admissions process. long live high-quality public education.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
vicissitudes, how many times have you visited the campus?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I dunno, like 3-4 times.</p>

<p>But I was talking about why high school seniors choose another school over Berkeley so that question was a bit random.</p>

<p>thespondee: yeah, you have some good points. One thing I also really look for in colleges is just the intellectual communities. I just want to find other people to whom I can talk freely. I wouldn't say that there are A LOT of people admitted to Berkeley who are not intellectually curious / will be successful. There are some, and I think Harvard wins in this aspect in that it has a stronger student body. But CalX had a point too in that you can just seek out people who are intelligent and motivated, and Berkeley definitely does have these people. So yeah, I like it.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Sure if Berkeley decides to accept 40,000 students next year, that'll look great politically.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No it wouldn't. You think too little of the general public. Far too little.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So the main point of Berkeley isn't really to educate students from all backgrounds; that just makes Berkeley sound good politically. What Berkeley really does is try to educate OUTSTANDING students from all parts of California, and right now it is losing those students in cross-admit battles to other private institutions. So if Berkeley makes its undergrad program better, and start winning some of these cross-admit rate battles, then it would be doing a better job of fulfilling its actual mandate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No it wouldn't. Think about it. We acknowledge that HYPSM are good, in fact, great schools. Berkeley has never said that certain private schools are inferior to itself (not only would it be bad PR, it would be wrong). If we make offers to the top students and they don't choose us, that's fine, because they're getting a great education anyway. The job of any institution is to provide competition, to give some incentive for a student to come at all. That forces everyone to build better universities and gives everyone a chance at a better education.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley can be more like these institutions without charging 45,000 a year. Furthermore, he has completely ignored Berkeley tuition for OOS which is about the same, or that HYPSM are so generous with aid which often makes it cheaper to go to them than to Berkeley.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Berkeley doesn't WANT to be more like HYPSM. Didn't you read what he wrote? Berkeley isn't not because it can't be, but because it doesn't want to be. If we wanted to take 6,000 students instead of 22,000, what prevents us? Nothing except the California administration--who clearly don't want this. We're not saying students have to choose us--if they get a better offer from HYPSM, that's great. We can't afford to outbid them all the time, and we don't need to. We make an offer, and if that's the best offer the student gets, then that's what s/he'll take.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But as of right now, Berkeley isn't, so why not try to learn from these institutions? In Stanford's earlier days when the university was still not very good the president visited many colleges to find out what they were doing right, and I think he tried to model some things using Cornell's example. You find out what works, and you stick with it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What isn't working? Tell me. Where are we significantly deficient in comparison to other schools? What makes our quality of education significantly worse? You've SAID it's worse, but can you PROVE it's worse?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, here's the thing. A smart kid from a bad part of town who has experienced subpar teaching and has grown up with a group of slackers COULD excel at Berkeley, but chances are that he won't. He's probably shaky in his education and has developed a bunch of bad/lazy habits. If Berkeley starts accepting these people then for every kid who excels, there will probably be 4 or 5 who flunk out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd much rather have the kid that was the top 1% student in his class out of the ghetto than a top 5% kid from the suburbs. Why? Because even though the kid from the ghetto may not have taken as many AP exams or had as high an SAT score, he had to excel over more students than the other. He took the competition and demolished them. While one student may come in better prepared to take Math 1B, the other will come in better suited to take on the challenge of college in general. Like most schools, Berkeley looks at students in context. That's why rank is more important than GPA (because, as we all know, some schools have 40 valedictorians, and a 4.0 GPA is meaningless).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Put it another way, if this kid really could excel at Berkeley, he could certainly excel at a CC, transfer to a four-year university where he will continue to excel, and get into a good grad school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By that terrible logic, we should only take transfers. Let them all have another two years of weeding. The point is, we take people we see having the potential to succeed. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise (unless they were rich and donated craploads of money to our school, but Berkeley isn't exactly known for pandering to stuff like that).</p>

<p>
[quote]
I certainly would tell that person that they are entrusted with this mandate that Berkeley has to educate students from all of California's communities," says Black. "We do it so well now, and we must keep doing it. There's no point in trying to make Berkeley mirror an institution that charges $45,000 a year to educate its students — a Harvard, an MIT, a Stanford, and so forth. Those schools do what they do very well, and they should continue to do that. But that's not who we are. And I'm confident that my successor will assure that Berkeley keeps true to its purposes of educating outstanding students from all economic levels of California.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Personally, I think this quote is the right mindset for Berkeley admissions to have. If you're rich and affluent, fine, go to a private, get a great education. If you're not, but still show exceptional qualities, come to Berkeley and still get a great education, on par with the privates. Maybe bigger and more impersonal, but providing spectacular opportunities and excellent faculty nonetheless. Both Berkeley and HYPSM have their roles (as does every college). Why make Berkeley a HYPSM clone? What's the point? HYPSM already exist--do we really need another? Further, Berkeley has proven that it can educate at the same levels as HYPSM (if you hang around the right groups here, you'll see that). There's no reason you can't come here and get just as good an education as you would get anywhere else.</p>

<p>There's also no reason you can't come here and fail miserably, just as you could anywhere else. We have 22,000 students, so we see a broader spectrum of success and failure than most, and, naturally, more failure, since we aren't as selective. It's a trade-off, certainly, but who's being harmed by it? The top students, who're kicking butt anyway? Or the bottom students, who would've failed anyway? Berkeley doesn't make or break success, but gives ample opportunities for both.</p>