USNews rankings

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>First off, I was not asking you to reveal any sort of extreme personal information that would otherwise distinguish you outside of this forum. I apologize if you felt that I was trying to pry into your personal life, but I was just curious what you found appealing when you decided to come to Cal for your undergraduate degree. A simple "one certain professor" or "the opportunities in ___ department" would have been fine, as I did not need you to reveal anything else you felt uncomfortable sharing. I do not wish to message/email you or ask you for any further information, but thanks. I was just asking casually, but understand if you would not like to provide me with an answer. I just thought that since you talked openly about being mugged when you and another poster were discussing crime in Berkeley, I figured that asking you why you chose Cal would be on a similair level of personal value.</p>

<p>I agree, it is very true that you can attend a private school at a cheaper cost. I did not apply to any Ivies or extremely prestigious privates, yet was accepted to other schools of similair or lesser caliber, and offered more money, but I decided to come to Cal. The cost difference was not incredibly significant (<<10k) so I decided to go with my gut and attend the university I felt the most comfortable at, and believed would offer the best experience.</p>

<p>It is true that one university is not for everyone. But that is true everywhere. Some students will sink at the local state university, while they would have thrived at a top notch private, but for some, it's the other way around.</p>

<p><3,</p>

<p>Izzie Bear</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
The ironic thing is that for many people, private schools can actually be CHEAPER than Berkeley, even if you're a California resident.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, this is certainly possible. Obviously it's happened at least twice, considering you've told us each anecdotes at least 6 times. However, it obviously doesn't happen that often. Of course, being the resident rhetorician, you would employ the word "many" in your favor, but it really isn't that significant an occurrence. Plenty of people go to Berkeley and similar schools for reasons other than money, although since you did not post about money, I won’t press and argue this point. Some people go through the two situations that you describe, but the university obviously doesn't find it problematic enough to “solve” it.</p>

<p>Now, seeing that we have no numbers to work with, my post was as much a pile of rhetoric as yours. What you described happens to a very small group of people and not to most of the acceptees in the school.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Now, seeing that we have no numbers to work with, my post was as much a pile of rhetoric as yours. What you described happens to a very small group of people and not to most of the acceptees in the school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I would agree that this doesn't happen to a lot of people, but I think the reason for that is itself a matter of rhetoric. One sad thing about the way that higher education works in this country is that a lot of people of modest economic means don't understand the financial aid system, and in particular, don't understand that schools like HYPSMC may actually be CHEAPER than a public school, once financial aid is factored in. They figure, innocently, that since they can't afford the putative sticker price of those schools, they shouldn't bother to apply. Instead, they hear the hype that the UC's are affordable, so they only apply to there. And the UC's parrot the hype that they are the affordable option, which has the effect of continually discouraging poor Californians from applying elsewhere, including places where they might get a better financial package. I've seen it myself - people who end up at Berkeley and paying tuition who quite honestly could have probably gotten into one of HYPSMC and gotten a free ride, but they never applied because they didn't know how aid works. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people who are the first in their family to go to college, and they don't know about all these subtleties and they don't know how generous the elite private schools can be. And certainly UC isn't going to tell them about it.</p>

<p>Now to some extent, this is just a natural outgrowth of organizational behavior. Every organization naturally tries to perpetuate itself. It is in the political interest of the UC's to tout the refrain that they offer the most affordable higher education to all Californians. Whether UC does actually offer the most affordable higher education to all Californians is not important to UC. What is important is that UC has a good political soundbite to use in Sacramento to justify its existence, and UC drills this soundbite into the head of Californians, especially the poorer ones. Hence, it's a self-perputating cycle - lots of poor Californians believe that UC really is the most affordable option for them, which means that many apply only to the UC's and not to any privates, which UC then takes as proof that they really are the most affordable option. UC points to all its poor students and uses that as proof that it is serving the poor, when in reality, many of those poor students never knew about all their options. </p>

<p>What I would really like to see is what would happen if UC was placed on a completely even playing field with HYPSMC when it comes to outreach and marketing among the poor communities of California. I would surmise that very few poor Californians simply don't know that Harvard provides a free ride to anybody whose family makes less than 40k, and Yale to anybody making less than 45k, and Princeton has an interestnig 'no-loan' policy that converts all need-based loans to grants or workstudy, which hence means that a poor student should be able to graduate from Princeton debt-free. Stanford, MIT, and Caltech have similarly highly aggressive financial aid departments. I believe if more poor Californians knew about this, then more of them would be applying to and going to those schools, and eventually, the political mantra of the affordable UC would be called into question. Heck, I would imagine that there are some current UC students who might be reading this post who had never applied to HYPSMC, because they didn't think they could afford it, who might now be wondering what would have happened if they had applied. </p>

<p>The point is, if UC does not see this as problematic enough to be solved, I think that has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of poor people just don't know how financial aid at the private schools really works. And as long as people don't know, then the situation will never become problematic enough for Berkeley to be forced to solve. People don't know, and Berkeley doesn't want them to know. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I figured that asking you why you chose Cal would be on a similair level of personal value.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, simply put, I believed a lot of the hype about Cal. I had heard of the prestige and the famous profs and the ground-breaking research, and all of the stuff that makes Berkeley famous. What I didn't realize then that I realize now is that most of Berkeley's prestige stems from its graduate programs. The undergraduate program, while still good, definitely plays second fiddle to the graduate school. Back then, a place like CC didn't exist where I could learn these things. </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it was all bad. Indeed, some things were quite good. What I would say is that the undergraduate program definitely caters to a certain personality, and if you don't have that kind of personality, then you're probably not going to have a good experience. Even if you do have that kind of personality, it doesn't mean that you're going to enjoy it. I have talked to numerous alumni who, while having done well at Berkeley, did not particularly enjoy the experience and hence are not particularly loyal alumni.</p>

64

<p>Sakky, you have it backwards. HYPSM has to go into the poor neighborhoods in Cal and recruit kids. Cal has more poor kids in its school than those schools combined. So HYPSM, get going.</p>

65

<p>"I would surmise that very few poor Californians simply don't know that Harvard provides a free ride to anybody whose family makes less than 40k, and Yale to anybody making less than 45k, and Princeton has an interestnig 'no-loan' policy that converts all need-based loans to grants or workstudy, which hence means that a poor student should be able to graduate from Princeton debt-free. Stanford, MIT, and Caltech have similarly highly aggressive financial aid departments."</p>

<p>Does being poor make you stupid and lazy? So some kid gets a 1600 on his SATs and has a 4.5 GPA, yet he somehow can't find the Harvard or Yale websites? I don't know about that. I think those people are smart enough to figure it out and apply to whichever school they want to.</p>

66

<p>Dstark, I agree, there is an onus on HYPSMC to go into those poor neighborhoods and tell the kids about it. I'm not letting them off the hook, believe me. </p>

<p>However, my point is that it doesn't help when UC goes around in those poor neighborhoods touting itself as the 'true' cheap option, which will discourage many poor kids from looking further than the UC's. Obviously, I'm not saying that UC shouldn't do any outreach at all. Clearly, UC should be telling people what it has to offer. But there is a fine line between doing that and giving poor people the message that they are more affordable than the private schools are. From what I have seen, it is actually the private schools that tend to more affordable than the UC's are for the poor. It's one thing to announce what you have to offer. It's quite another thing to make false claims about what you have to offer. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Does being poor make you stupid and lazy? So some kid gets a 1600 on his SATs and has a 4.5 GPA, yet he somehow can't find the Harvard or Yale websites? I don't know about that. I think those people are smart enough to figure it out and apply to whichever school they want to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh come on. You're the one who talks about how it is to live in a true ghetto. Then you ought to know that a lot of people in those ghettos simply don't know about all the things that people like us now. They don't know the nuances of the college process. Many of them have never had a family member go to college. When they hear that UC is the 'affordable choice', then they simply reason that they should be applying to UC and can't afford a private college.</p>

<p>Let me give you a trenchant example. When I was a high school senior, I didn't know that it was often times cheaper for a poor person to go to a private school than to UC, and I didn't grow up poor. Now obviously I did know about financial aid. However, I didn't know that various schools would calculate financial aid differently and allotted aid awards differently such that it is was often times cheaper for a poor Californian to go to HYPSMC than it was go to to UC. I learned about these things when I was in undergrad. In fact, amongst all my dormmates, I would venture to say that almost none of them knew about this, and few of them were poor.</p>

67

<p>"Oh come on. You're the one who talks about how it is to live in a true ghetto. Then you ought to know that a lot of people in those ghettos simply don't know about all the things that people like us now."</p>

<p>I don't talk about what its like to live in a true ghetto, but I realize what they are. And your logic is horrible on this one, sakky. I think you might be loosing your touch. First, being poor enough to recieve fin aid doesn't neccesaraly mean you're living on 8 mile with Em. You can be in any of California's large or small towns, as well as rich or poor highschools, and still be poor. And not giving these people credit because they don't know "all the things that people like us know." Sheesh, we have a bloated sense of self worth and knowledge, don't we? I freely admit that if your parents make under 45,000 and you're lucky and smart enough to make it into harvard or yale then by all means you should go, but its just arrogant to think that people, brilliant people, won't do research on their prospective schools and just blindly go to UC_____ because they're too dumb to know the diffierence.</p>

68

<p>Honestly, I can understand that it is sometimes cheaper for a student to attend an elite private university. But when you really look at the full picture, private universities like the ones you speak of are basically realistic choices for either very poor or very wealthy families. In my opinion, the University of California does an excellent job providing MIDDLE CLASS CALIFORNIAN families with an afforable and pretigious education. </p>

<p>The middle class is the most common economic class in the country. With that said, it is fabulous to live in California and have these sorts of schools at our fingertips. My family makes a comfortable amount of money each year, but we are, by no means, rolling in obscene amounts of money. My parents offered me financial assistance through college but informed me that they would not be able to afford the 40k price tag many of these elite privates include. Going to Berkeley for less than 20k a year is a realistic and exciting opportunity, and one that I'm not unhappy to take advantage of. Because of my family's middle class income, we make too much to receive excellent sums of financial aid from any school, but make too little to comfortably afford a private school, and still live a life that requires a very small amount of financial sacrifice.</p>

<p>Any kind of financial aid that I am receiving is merit based, and came from outside sources. Berkeley offered me work study and loans, but that is about it. When it comes down to it, I believe UC Berkeley is the absolute best university I could attend with this kind of affordable price tag. Next to Stanford, which I could not afford, Berkeley was the absolute best school in California for me. I exclude Caltech only because I am interested English Literature, would not like to attend the school, and do not think their department holds a candle to the one availabe at Cal.</p>

<p>All in all sakky, I think you make valid points, but only as it relates to poor families - as in, families that make less than 40k a year. For middle class families, the UC system is a fantastic and afforable choice.</p>

<p><3,</p>

<p>Izzie Bear</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
I don't talk about what its like to live in a true ghetto, but I realize what they are. And your logic is horrible on this one, sakky. I think you might be loosing your touch. First, being poor enough to recieve fin aid doesn't neccesaraly mean you're living on 8 mile with Em. You can be in any of California's large or small towns, as well as rich or poor highschools, and still be poor. And not giving these people credit because they don't know "all the things that people like us know." Sheesh, we have a bloated sense of self worth and knowledge, don't we? I freely admit that if your parents make under 45,000 and you're lucky and smart enough to make it into harvard or yale then by all means you should go, but its just arrogant to think that people, brilliant people, won't do research on their prospective schools and just blindly go to UC_____ because they're too dumb to know the diffierence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>GS, give me a break, will you? As you should have read, I didn't even know all the intricacies of the financial aid process when I was an undergrad. Now of course, I knew that there was such a thing as financial aid that would serve to defray the costs of school for people who come from lower-income families. And of course I also knew that the poorer you are, the more the costs get defrayed. That is generally well known and well understood.</p>

<p>The key difference is that the elite private schools dole out financial aid DIFFERENTLY from the UC's, and in particular, are far more generous and aggressive than the UC's are. THAT is the main difference that I didn't catch onto until I was already well into undergrad. Back in my high school and early college days, it would neve have occurred to me that it might actually be CHEAPER for a poor person to go to Harvard than to UC. I had thought that the financial aid process was a Federal process. Why not? You fill out a Federal document called the FAFSA, which calculates your need. I believed that your aid was just then distributed mechanically by every school according to your need, such that your aid package would end up having to pay about the same amount regardless of which school you were at, or maybe having to pay more at a private school to compensate for the public/private tuition delta. </p>

<p>When I realized that this was not true, I was surprised to see it. And when I told the other students, most of them were surprised also. Few of them knew that the elite private schools might actually be cheaper than the UC's. A few of them even actually said that if they had known that before, they would have applied to some of those private schools. </p>

<p>The point is that this financial aid 'trick' of attending an elite private school for less cost than a public school is NOT known by everybody. It should be known by everybody, but it is not known. Furthermore, UC isn't doing anybody any favors by muddying the waters by constantly repeating the mantra that UC is a great financial deal in higher education for everybody. The real truth is that UC is a great financial deal for only certain people. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In my opinion, the University of California does an excellent job providing MIDDLE CLASS CALIFORNIAN families with an afforable and pretigious education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly right, and that's what I'm getting at. UC does a good job at providing a good financial deal to the middle class of California. But not to every California. In particular, the poor of California (but otherwise highly qualified) are probably better served by the elite private schools. Which is why the UC's ought to stop saying that they exist to serve the poor of California. You know what I'm talking about. Whenever UC comes under political fire in Sacramento, UC will trot out a bunch of poor but high-achieving UC students in an effort to frame the discussion in terms of helping out high-achieving poor people. Well, if UC really wanted to help these poor high achievers, then UC should be willing to give them the same sort of aid that HYPSMC will give them. I should never have to hear of a poor Californian remark that it's cheaper to go to Harvard than to go to Berkeley.</p>

<p>So the question I would pose to the UC administrators is - are you really trying to help the poor of California, or not? Make up your mind.</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
The real truth is that UC is a great financial deal for only certain people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good rhetoric, but you fale to mention that the "certain people" who benefit from the UC's are also the MAJORITY of the state.</p>

<p>Many rich and poor alike are rejected by the "elites," and many of these benefit highly from the availability of a comporable education for much less, even if this was not the orginal intention of the attendees. I was rejected by privates with comporable resources, prestige and quality as the fantastic publics to which i was accepted. To some, these schools are the reaches, to others, the safeties, but they are there for everyone, rich and poor alike.</p>

<p>You know that very few institutions are created without any degree of personal benefit involved. Guess what else: the UC system isn't on the list. Of course they want things selfishly, but there are probably not many students that would rather not go thousands of miles away, would not be able to get into any institution that would pay for a lot, or would rather not go to these institutions. Are they really trying to help the poor of california? Yes, to a great extent.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, if UC really wanted to help these poor high achievers, then UC should be willing to give them the same sort of aid that HYPSMC will give them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sure you're aware of what this would cause. Would you save me time, point out the problems with this, then refute those, showing why your solution is better?</p>

71

<p>I personally know of two situations in which students coming from families or independently making a low amount of income received a full financial ride to UC. Would they have received full ride at a school like Stanford, Harvard, Yale? Probably. But my point is that financial assistance like this can and do exist in the UC system. Perhaps the elite privates we speak of can offer more of these 'full rides' to those making even more money than the two students I included in my example, but that is because their ticket price is double the cost of UC, and much more of a financial constraint.</p>

<p>The truth is, California is indeed home to the very wealthy and also to the very poor. But the fact is, the majority of this state is made up of the distinguishable middle class. We all know that out-of-state and foreign students come from all around to attend schools in California, and that includes schools existing within the UC system. But we must remember the true mission of the UC system, and that is to serve California. The UC's are funded by the state, and in term, promise to make it their first priority to provide valuable education to Californian students. </p>

<p>Of course there are people in California that live both above and below the means of a 'middle class' family. I'm positive the UC system understands this. But for a system that is state owned and operated, it makes sense to cater to the largest economic class - the middle class. </p>

<p>Elite privates have greater funding, and don't need to extend priority to the state in which they are located like the UC system must. They have a broader applicant pool, and are able to accomodate those outside the more fortunate social class. </p>

<p>It makes sense that the UC's adjust their financial cost so the system remains a good bargain for members of the undeniably dominant social class that applies. Of course, is it really fair for those that can't afford the price of UC to slip through the cracks? Not really. I freely admit that it sucks. But the system of higher education in California was created so these students had a cheaper option available - the CSU's. Of course, we can all admit many intelligent, high acheiving, but less fortunate students will not consider CSU an option. This is when the financial gift of the elite privates come in. Sure, this creates the idea that the UC is prodominantly filled with the middle or upper class, but like I said, the very poor can and are financial taken care of by UC.</p>

<p>There is, of course, problems with this financial system. But the only solution is to either shrink or expand the middle class, and that can only be done by the efforts of the individual Californian. Remember that the UC system isn't bursting with cash. We can all sit here and complain about it, or we can accept that there are many problems with how money is spread around the state of California, and hope that someday, this changes for the sake of us all.</p>

<p><3,</p>

<p>Izzie Bear</p>

72

<p>What about scholarships such as the Regents' and Chancellor's? It's merit based, but it also meets full financial need. This, to me, is at least some attempt on the part of Berkeley.</p>

73

<p>Agreed.</p>

<p><3,</p>

<p>Izzie Bear</p>

74

<p>I think this might boil down to the fact that sakky is mad that he didn't apply to Harvard, MIT, CalTech, Princeton, Yale or Stanfurd.</p>

75

<p>Check this out~ I agree with Sakky. It's not the elite schools, but any school with a respectable endowment will give significantly better (in terms of the details of the package) financial aid than the UC's, now this is considering that student didn't get Chancellor's or Regent's... I chose Berkeley, but the school happened to give me the poorest package of the eight schools I was accepted to. Among them were other in-state publics, out-of-state publics, and good private colleges. Granted, I come from a low-income family... and just from my perspective, if my family happened to be middle-class, I can't imagine how I'd be able to manage a private school of comparable quality to Berkeley. However, it is fairly interesting when it comes to the "elite's" and financial aid~ everyone praises them for what is explicitly listed- $45,000 income and under don't have to pay- but they're only able to do that because they don't accept ENOUGH low-income applicants, so much so that they consider $45,000 the standard ($45,000 and under is NOT lowincome, even for Californians- the national standard for lowincome is $19000 I believe, and this includes the likes of cheaply Montana, Iowa, etc).</p>

<p>TTG</p>

76

<p>First off, I am poor. Annual income ~19K. I had to work for my own lunch. Not a big deal, many ppl around me do the same anyways. Do smart poor kids know about HYPMS financial aid? Of course. Most smart kids know how to use the internet. Smart kids also talk to eachother about this stuff. It's a fact. I am poor, I know.</p>

<p>Pretty much every school I got admitted to gave me the best financial aid they could offer. Simply put, I wasn't smart enough for HYPMS. (Junior year stats: 3.92/4.26/1400/750/760/700/3APs with 4 avg/3 yr waterpolo, 1 yr swimming, 2 yr japanese school, 3 clubs, 2 yr martial arts, 1 yr tutor, 4 yr cashier). Most "rich" ppl are not smart enough either. And it's stupid to be jealous of the more well off. Simply put: Work, don't vent. Just be thankful you live in America and get an equality of OPPURTUNITY.... ok?....</p>

77

<p>High schools around UC Berkeley have a pact that gives "incentive awards" to a large number of accepted applicants a free ride for 4 years.</p>

78

<p>I've been abroad on vacation for 2 months and I haven't visited this site since. (I'm currently registered on a new name because I forgot my old password.) Some of you guys have been posting continuously at this site. I ask you the question: What is the point of arguing about which university is better?</p>

<p>There is life to live; a world to see. So take a deep breath, step away from the monitor, and venture outside. </p>

<p>All in all, most people who attend top universities have the same intelligence, but excel in different areas. And a lot of it depends on hard work--for example, studying or not studying for your SATs. And frankly, it suffices to say most students at Berkeley did not study for them (at least I didn't). So I'm happy with my mediocrity (1420 SAT). </p>

<p>It shows what natural intellect I have, instead of what I memorized from a preparatory book. So instead of playing on which university is better because of the SAT scores etc....why not realize that your youth is slipping away quickly and surely every second you argue about the perpetuated topic of "rankings." Does it truly matter?</p>

<p>Class of 2008, UC Berkeley
18 years old </p>

<p>P.S. who has been backpacking across Europe before? Has anyone stayed in youth hostels?</p>

79

<p>Zip, don't be so high and mighty. If there is no point talking about school then why are you here? Or is only ok to talk about college when you're around?</p>

80

<p>zip, how is mediocrity 1420? many kids would kill for your lovely litte test score, a full 100 points above mine. Go you.</p>

<p>If you're so aware of the world, you must realize, although it doesn't matter, that is in the top at least 10% of scores. How is that mediocrity?</p>