<p>
[quote]
...the "certain people" who benefit from the UC's are also the MAJORITY of the state.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's look at it from a financial standpoint. The cutoff for a full-ride in the form of 100% grants from Harvard is 40k and from Yale is 45k, whereas the cutoff for a full-ride (but not necessarily 100% grants) is 60k. I believe the cutoffs at MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and Princeton are similar. The median household income in the state of California was only about 52k in the year 2004. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2004/04/26/daily38.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2004/04/26/daily38.html</a></p>
<p>So it seems to me that the majority of Californians would qualify for a fullride of one form or another from HYPSMC, if they could get in. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. It's not really about helping poor Californians. It's really about helping poor Californians who weren't good enough to get into HYPSMC. THAT's the truth. So what you're really saying here is that, as far as the poor of California is concerned, the poor don't really benefit from UC's low cost (because, as mentioned, HYPSMC are often times actually cheaper than UC for poor students). UC benefits the poor by providing easier admission. That's how the poor of California benefit. </p>
<p>So then, fair enough. That should be UC's new mantra. UC shouldn't go around saying that they offer a more affordable college experience to poor people, relative to HYPSMC. Because that's not really true. They should say that they offer a college experience that's easier to get into than HYPSMC. That would be the truth. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But like I said, are they really doing that? The data indicates that the median household in California would financially qualify for some sort of fullride from HYPSMC. Hence, from a financial standpoint, you could say that HYPSMC are serving the California middle class more than UC is. How UC serves the middle-class seems to not be financialy, but in admissions. </p>
<p>Even the discussion of Chancellor's/Regent's Scholarships doesn't quite cut it. The fact is, the dollar-value of the C/R scholarships are based on family income. If you have a strong family income, then your C/R scholarship comes with less money. I know one guy who came in with a Chancellor Scholarship that turned out to be worth only $500, because he came from a rich family. Hence he still ended up paying a substantial fee to go to Berkeley. </p>
<p>Contrast that with how merit scholarships work at other schools. Again, I would point to my brother. Caltech gave him not only a full-tuition merit scholarship, but also a stipend, which meant that he actually MADE money by going to Caltech. He didn't pay Caltech, Caltech paid him. Now THAT's the way a merit scholarship is supposed to work. As a result, Berkeley lost my brother. Berkeley was never going to match the package that Caltech offered him. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, and I've offered an idea to thread the needle. UC can offer a free-ride in the form of pure grants to anybody who makes less than 45k who managed to get into HYPSMC. So, not to ALL people who make less than 45k, just those who managed to get admitted to HYPSMC. Like you said, there aren't that many people who come from these kinds of backgrounds who can get into the elite private schools. Well, I would turn that around and say that the Berkeley administration has no excuse not to do it. If HYPSMC are really admitting a lot of these poor people and giving them freerides, then HYPSMC deserve all the praise they get, and then we have to wonder why UC can't work to do something similar. If HYPSMC are providing these rides to only a few people, then it should be easy for UC to match them for these few people. If it's easy to do, why not do it? </p>
<p>Then of course there is the other issue that I have discussed on other threads. I've heard people remark that UC has no money, that UC is in a financial crisis, that UC can't afford this-and-that. Well, the reality is that UC wastes PLENTY of money. The truth is, to be perfectly honest, a lot of state taxpayer money is wasted on bad UC students. There are students at UC who have been hanging around for years and years, and are not serious about trying to graduate. There are students who just don't go to class, don't want to study, and don't want to do anything. You guys who are current Berkeley students - you guys know what I'm talking about. Now obviously private schools have slothful students too, but at least they're not wasting state taxpayer money. If the private schools want to waste money on slothful students, that's the problem of those schools . But if UC wastes money on slothful students, that's the taxpayer's problem. I would argue that it is fair that those students who have demonstrated that they just don't want to study should lose their UC state subsidy so that UC can then redirect that money to people who do want to study.</p>