<p>Look, he already explained it to you. Poor people tend to be less academically qualified than rich people. Since Harvard is more selective than Berkeley, less poor people can get into Harvard. Berkeley doesn't purposely try to recruit poor folks.....it's just less selective. </p>
<p>Community colleges probably educate the most poor people. But that's because they have open door admission policies.</p>
<p>Thanks for stating the obvious, rooster. Very well thought out indeed. Gold star!</p>
<p>As Rooster said, obviously the average student at Harvard is significantly richer than the average person in the country. In fact, plenty of Harvard students come from backgrounds that are so rich that they don't really care about the cost of college.</p>
<p>Hence, UC picks up more poor people by virtue of simply being less selective. Does UC deserve credit for that? If so, then we should give even more credit to the CalStates, because they educate even more poor people than do the UC's. In fact, heck, the logical continuation of that is that if affordability was the true goal, then we should completely dissolve the UC's and turn them all into CSU's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're kidding right? The definition of affordable education doesn't mean nobody is getting a better deal elsewhere. That's ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not? The most affordable education by definition means that nobody else is offering a better deal to you, does it not? If not, then what exactly does an affordable education mean? Does it mean that it is affordable to some people, but not to others, and in particular, not to the poorest (but highly qualified) people who need affordable education the most? So what exactly does affordable mean to you, if not to offer the best possible deal out there?</p>
<p>GS, Dstark, I'll put it to you this way. If it's really true that there really are so few people who are able to take advantage of the financial deals available at HYPSMC, then there should be no problem for Berkeley to match it, right? Hence, anybody who gets into one of HYPSMC who qualifies for a fullride should also automatically get an equivalent fullride from Berkeley. Why not? If it's so easy to do, then why doesn't Berkeley do it?</p>
<p>"If it's really true that there really are so few people who are able to take advantage of the financial deals available at HYPSMC, then there should be no problem for Berkeley to match it, right?"</p>
<p>Its really easy for Harvard to say they'll pay for poor people to attent their school for free if they don't have to actually admit any of them. That's called a cloistered virtue. The fact is that Cal pays (either partially or in whole) for thousands of poor people to go to a great school. If Harvard would have taken them I'm sure they would have gone, but harvard didnt't take them, so should we blame Cal because it can't afford to say make big macho statements without backing them up, or should we praise them for giving a good, cheap education to the people that harvard wouldn't take? </p>
<p>Sometimes I'm amazed by the people on this site!</p>
<p>NO COLLEGE in the world would ever agree to categorically matching another college's financial aid award. Why? Because there'd be thousands of more applicants being sent to HYPSMC by California students who don't actually want to go there, rather, they're doing it to ensure themselves of a full ride to Berkeley. Berkeley's admission standards are not to make itself competitive with any other college, but to ensure that each year's incoming class is diverse, well-represented both socioeconomically and racially, as well as academically stronger than the previous year's class. Thus, a student's admittance to another college- be it UC Irvine or Harvard- has absolutely no bearing on admissions decisions, let alone financial aid considerations. The UC's have, however, employed one tactic of attempting to retain its top kids- Regent's and Chancellor's Scholarships. These honors are bestowed, however, exclusive of any other colleges these kids may or may not be considering. In all likelihood, the student who gets into the top private colleges probably will have qualified for the UC scholarships, anyhow. It may not be effective, but it's fair and does not deviate from general college admissions ethics. A goal of a college is not to knowlingly steal another IDENTIFIED college's applicants by throwing money at them. Is it sometimes implied? Sure, I think most of us can agree that Regent's and Chancellor's are a direct way of trying to stem the California pipeline into the top private schools, but there is no reason to pick and choose certain schools. Besides, these schools are all looking UP to Berkeley anyways- not the other way around.</p>
<p>In terms of talking specifically about financial aid- look at how strong Berkeley's academics, student body, research, and professors are with 1/10 of Harvard's endowment. Cal is the most efficient university in the world in those respects. But it also means that the financial aid office can't pamper all of its students with rich packages. In spite of this along with state budget cuts, the administration has admirally tried to resist even more severe tuition hikes to keep college affordable for the majority of the CALIFORNIA population (remember, the state Berkeley is in?). When looking at this situation, it's not so much as to compare direct costs after financial aid awards, but it's more appropriate to look at the percentage of students with a particular income admitted against how much is given out to those lucky poor folks who have made it through to the top private colleges. If Harvard, Yale or Stanfurd has the decency to throw down its cloak of elitism and begin accepting poorer applicants (which, ironically, is actually middle class when compared to the rest of the student populations at these schools) in larger numbers, these colleges will be hard-pressed to sell their neat little "no-pay" formulae. It's easy for Harvard, with 1/5 the number of undergraduates accepted and 1/4 the PERCENTAGE of Pell Grant recipients and 10x's the endowment to Berkeley to offer free education costs. If anything, Harvard is holding back and not giving enough! Back to Berkeley, in general, it's much more affordable for middle-class, high-achieving students to attend a university like Cal. On a case-by-case basis, yes, you will encounter situation like your infamous friends (and brother!) sakky, but on the whole, I'd give the nod to Berkeley. Go Bears!</p>
<p>TTG</p>
<p>Affordable education by definition does not mean that you are the cheapest price for everyone. </p>
<p>Affordable means you have the financial means to pay.</p>
<p>The fact that so few people can take advantage of financial aid at HYPSMC has nothing to do with whether Berkeley is affordable or not.</p>
<p>Sakky, can you provide the numbers that show that San Jose State educates more poor students than Berkeley?</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>even if I agree with your POV, I've always wondered why you post it exclusively on Berkeley's board. </p>
<p>It seems to me that your position is more relavent to the University in general, and the state legislature specifically (since they control the purse strings), and perhaps public education in the big picture (note UVa only has 6-8% Pell grantees). In contrast, the UC's have the highest proportion of Pell Grantees in the country (~33%), but as you note these are not full rides. However, if they were, the State would have to raise the contribution level to the UC's by a significant amount to cover them. </p>
<p>So, why pick on Berkeley and not UCLA?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its really easy for Harvard to say they'll pay for poor people to attent their school for free if they don't have to actually admit any of them. That's called a cloistered virtue. The fact is that Cal pays (either partially or in whole) for thousands of poor people to go to a great school. If Harvard would have taken them I'm sure they would have gone, but harvard didnt't take them, so should we blame Cal because it can't afford to say make big macho statements without backing them up, or should we praise them for giving a good, cheap education to the people that harvard wouldn't take?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Great! Then if that's true then it will be completely costless for Berkeley to match Harvard's policy, right? After all, if it's really true that Harvard doesn't actually give out any full-rides to anybody because Harvard doesn't actually admit anybody of those income levels, then Berkeley will never have to pay a dime to match Harvard's policy. </p>
<p>Remember, I am not proposing that Berkeley provide full rides to everybody who gets in with an income level under 40k. I am proposing that Berkeley provide full rides to everybody who gets in who also gets a free ride from Harvard (or other peer schools like Stanford, MIT, etc.) If it is really true that nobody ever actually gets those Harvard free rides, then there is no reason for Berkeley to 'match' the Harvard policy, because Berkeley will never have to actually pay anything out, right? So why not match the policy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
NO COLLEGE in the world would ever agree to categorically matching another college's financial aid award. Why? Because there'd be thousands of more applicants being sent to HYPSMC by California students who don't actually want to go there, rather, they're doing it to ensure themselves of a full ride to Berkeley.... Thus, a student's admittance to another college- be it UC Irvine or Harvard- has absolutely no bearing on admissions decisions, let alone financial aid considerations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ttiang15, I don't understand what you are talking about. I am not talking about Berkeley changing its admissions to match some other school's. I am merely talking about financial aid awards. Once somebody is admitted, the question then becomes how much aid to award that person. If the person is never admitted, then it's a moot point. </p>
<p>Besides, I don't see why this new policy (where Berkeley matches the aid of HYPSMC) would change anybody's behavior. After all, you still have to actually prove that you got admitted to HYPSMC before Berkeley would kick up your aid offer. If you don't get admitted to HYPSMC, then it's a moot point. I agree that many more people might apply to HYPSMC in order to game the system to get more aid, but how many of them would actually get admitted? Not that many, I think you would agree. It's pretty darn hard to get admitted to HYPSMC. And if you don't get admitted, then my proposed policy does not apply to you. </p>
<p>{And besides, the truth is, if you get a full ride from HYPSMC, you're probably going to take it rather than go to Berkeley, even on a full ride. Only those people who would choose Berkeley over HYPSMC, regardless of cost, would be really getting the full ride, and there aren't too many such people. So it's really not going to cost Berkeley very much. So if it's not going to cost Berkeley very much, then why not do it?}</p>
<p>
[quote]
A goal of a college is not to knowlingly steal another IDENTIFIED college's applicants by throwing money at them. Is it sometimes implied? Sure, I think most of us can agree that Regent's and Chancellor's are a direct way of trying to stem the California pipeline into the top private schools, but there is no reason to pick and choose certain schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I am afraid that one of the goals of aid is PRECISELY to steal students from one school to another. For example, why did my brother choose Caltech over MIT? Simple - Caltech offered him a full ride and MIT didn't. And I think the Caltech administration is not stupid. They know full well that they are using their full-merit-rides to poach students from their top cross-admit competitors: Harvard, Stanford, and especially MIT. Hence, they are not just distributing their scholarships randomly. They are doing it strategically to preempt whoever they think is most likely to bolt. In the case of my brother, they were absolutely correct. </p>
<p>Similarly, I think that Berkeley should do the same. And as you pointed out, Berkeley already does so, even if Berkeley doesn't want to admit it. The Regent/Chancellor Scholarships (RCS) are used to poach students who might go to another UC. So why not also do it to try to poach those who might head off to HYPSMC? But the first step to poaching students away is to at least match the offers. Before you can poach, you at least have to match. Before you can run, you have to walk. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, these schools are all looking UP to Berkeley anyways- not the other way around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I'm fairly certain that HYPSMC are not looking up to Berkeley, at least at the undergraduate level. I think that's part of the fundamental problem - a lot of people still don't want to admit that at the undergraduate level, Berkeley is probably not as good as some of the other schools. Berkeley is still good, don't get me wrong, but the others are better. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In terms of talking specifically about financial aid- look at how strong Berkeley's academics, student body, research, and professors are with 1/10 of Harvard's endowment. Cal is the most efficient university in the world in those respects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Come now. To say that is to say that Harvard should be punished for growing its endowment so quickly. Harvard's endowment didn't used to be this big, you know. It became that big through very lucrative recent donation drives, coupled with shrewd investments in the financial markets. If Harvard had invested its endowment poorly, it would be a lot smaller than it is, and so Harvard would look more 'efficient'. So are you suggesting that Harvard engage in poor investments in order to boost its 'efficiency'? </p>
<p>
[quote]
But it also means that the financial aid office can't pamper all of its students with rich packages.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I never said for the office to give rich packages to ALL students. I said for the office to give rich packages to those students who also got rich packages from the top private schools. And again, if it's really true that the top private schools give out very few such rich packages, then it should be very easy for Berkeley to match those very few packages. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In spite of this along with state budget cuts, the administration has admirally tried to resist even more severe tuition hikes to keep college affordable for the majority of the CALIFORNIA population (remember, the state Berkeley is in?).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but whose fault is that? Maybe some of y'all are too young to remember but the late 90's was a time of lavish windfalls to UC. The state of California greatly increased state spending on UC during those years. What happened to all that money? I know that when I get a raise, I don't just rush out and spend it all. I may spend some, but I also put some away for a rainy day. If you say that UC is in a financial crisis today, then I would ask what happened to all that extra money lavished onto UC in the late 90's? </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's easy for Harvard, with 1/5 the number of undergraduates accepted and 1/4 the PERCENTAGE of Pell Grant recipients and 10x's the endowment to Berkeley to offer free education costs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But is it really that hard for Berkeley to match it. Let's do a bit of math.</p>
<p>Harvard has about 6000 undergrad students. Let's say that fully 1/4 of them are coming in on full-grant-rides, so 1500 students. Now of course I think that is far too high, but let's just use the number 1500 for now just to see what happens. Let's also presume that all 1500 are California residents (which is obviously ridiculous, but just bear with me). </p>
<p>So how much money would it take for Berkeley to match those free rides of all 1500 of these students, presuming that all of them decide to attend Berkeley over Harvard (which is another ridiculous assumption, but let's just go with it to see what happens). According to the Berkeley student budget website, the yearly cost to educate a California state resident is about 23k a year to live in a Berkeley residence hall. (I don't count the state subsidy because that has already been factored into the 23k cost) </p>
<p>So that's 23k * 1500 students = about $34.5 million. That is really not a lot of money compared to the rest of Berkeley's total budget. Berkeley's total yearly budget is in excess of over $1 billion a year. A cost of $34.5 million is nothing more than a rounding error.</p>
<p><a href="http://budget.vcbf.berkeley.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://budget.vcbf.berkeley.edu/</a></p>
<p>And of course you have seen that I have made a number of ridiculous assumptions. I have assumed that fully 1/4 of the entire Harvard undergrad student body are coming in on these full-rides. I think we can all agree that the true number is probably substantially less. I also presum that they all come from California, which is of course ridiculous. Furthermore, the most egregious assumption I have made is that all of them will elect to take the free ride from Berkeley rather than take the free ride from Harvard. Remove any of these assumptions, and the true cost of the policy drops substantially. I personally think the true cost would be at least an order of magnitude less. But even with all these assumptions, the true cost is negligible, when compared to the entire Berkeley budget. </p>
<p>The point is, it's really not that expensive to do. So why not do it? </p>
<p>Guys, do the math yourself, if you don't believe me, and I think you should be able to convince yourself that even with the most egregious assumptions, it really isn't that expensive. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Affordable education by definition does not mean that you are the cheapest price for everyone.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would argue that it is. Otherwise, the meaning of the word 'affordable' loses all meaning. For example, a school that charged 500k a year could claim to be "affordable", in the sense that a Kennedy or a Rockefeller could afford it. Hell, any school is 'affordable' when you look at it that way. I think if the word "affordable" is to have any meaning, then it has to have something to do with having the lowest pricetag. </p>
<hr>
<p>Look, the point is this. I believe that Berkeley should match the Harvard policy - any Californian who is admitted both Berkeley and Harvard and gets a fullride from Harvard should also get a fullride from Berkeley. We can dither about the details all day long, but the bottom line is, for those who don't like the idea, why don't you like it? What's so bad about it? I believe I have demonstrated that it really doesn't cost very much at all. And it would allow Berkeley to restore its credentials as truly being the most affordable option to all Californians, especially those poor Californians who are still qualified enough to get into Harvard. I have laid out why I think Berkeley should do it. For those who don't like it, I would like to hear why Berkeley shouldn't do it</p>
<p>Sakky, sorry, I must've misread your previous posts. I thought you meant Cal should offer "full rides" to anyone under 40k. If you are just saying Cal should offer full rides to anyone being offered the same at HYPSMC, then sure, why not. Its not like anyone would take them up on it, but as far as making a token gesture, I wouldn't have a problem with that. What would be the point though? I'm a big fan of Cal, but if I would have been offered a full ride at Harvard you can bet I'd be sitting in Boston writing this instead of Berkeley.</p>
<p>" NO COLLEGE in the world would ever agree to categorically matching another college's financial aid award."</p>
<p>"A goal of a college is not to knowlingly steal another IDENTIFIED college's applicants by throwing money at them. Is it sometimes implied? Sure..."</p>
<p>I repeat these once more. Colleges make their decisions independent and irregardless of the students' involvement with other schools in the admissions process. CalTech may be in direct competition with MIT, but CalTech is only giving these scholarships whether or not that student has applied- let alone accepted- to MIT. If colleges are going to base financial rewards- and to an extension 'second-round' decisions aka matriculation- on the basis of how much that applicant is offered at an IDENTIFIED, competitive school, then there'd be mutiny on hand. Listen, Berkeley is NOT going to throw money at a kid who Harvard thinks is good for their (Harvard's) school; Berkeley is going to give merit money to students who it thinks will excel at Berkeley. Are there overlaps? I'm sure in some cases, but not across-the-board. Again, we must take into consideration costs. However you look at it, Berkeley still only has 1/10 of Harvard's endowment. If we are going to take that $34.5 million cost to pay for these cross-admits, in relative terms, it would only cost Harvard $3.45 million. And let's face it, Harvard needs more poor-to-middle class kids then Berkeley and that's why they're offering it. Cal does not significantly benefit from these giving out these scholarships, and Cal's intent (retaining top kids) would certainly be different from Harvard's (getting poor kids to shed their 'wealthy kid's school' association); it's like comparing apples and oranges. </p>
<p>TTG</p>
<p>Sakky, in post #98, you stated that San Jose State has more poor people in the school than UC Berkeley....</p>
<p>Now it is also true that Berkeley probably educates a larger percentage of poorer people than do the top private schools. But that has more to do with selectivity than anything else. The fact is, we live in a world where the richer you are, the more likely you are to be able to amass the qualifications necessary to get into a top college. Like it or not, that's the world we live in. And the fact is, it is easier to get into Berkeley than to get into HYPSMC. Hence, Berkeley picks up a lot of poor people simply through lower selectivity. Should Berkeley get credit for that? To follow that logic, you then have to give even more credit to San Jose State, because they pick up even more poor students than does Berkeley, primarily through even lower admissions standards. Quite frankly, lower admissions standards is a 'cheap' way to to pick up poorer standards.</p>
<p>Those are your words. Can you provide me some proof?</p>
<p>How many people does Harvard give free rides to?</p>
<p>DStark, I'm looking for the SJSU data. Now even I have access to all the data all the time. Some of it is only available in hardcopy, you know. </p>
<p>But do you seriously doubt that this is true? That the average income of a Berkeley student is not going to be higher than the average income of a SJSU student? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Its not like anyone would take them up on it, but as far as making a token gesture, I wouldn't have a problem with that. What would be the point though?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The point would be that a token gesture is still better than nothing. More importantly, it would give weight and body to Berkeley's charter and mission. Berkeley has specifically declared within its charter and mission that one of its goals is to provide an affordable education to Californians. So if that's the case, then why not actually put its money where its mouth is? You said it yourself, not too many people are going to take the offer anyway, so why not offer it? At least then Berkeley would be able to say that it they at least matched the financial deals offered by the schools it is trying to compete against. Maybe that's not much, but it's better than nothing.</p>
<p>Of course, my real goal is for Berkeley to ultimately construct a strategy to actually beat out the top schools for the top students.. And that's obviously going to require more than just matching a bunch of financial deals. For example, I think it would probably need some of my other ideas, like creating that honors college. Or constructing a BA/JD program with Boalt or a BS/MD program with UCSF Med. I think the last idea really would start pulling students away from HYPSMC. But the first step is to at least match the financial deals. You gotta walk before you can run. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I repeat these once more. Colleges make their decisions independent and irregardless of the students' involvement with other schools in the admissions process. CalTech may be in direct competition with MIT, but CalTech is only giving these scholarships whether or not that student has applied- let alone accepted- to MIT. If colleges are going to base financial rewards- and to an extension 'second-round' decisions aka matriculation- on the basis of how much that applicant is offered at an IDENTIFIED, competitive school, then there'd be mutiny on hand
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? The fact is, we both know that that's done already. For example, the competition between Caltech and MIT. Now, yes, of course, Caltech never EXPLICITLY said that it uses its scholarships to poach students from MIT. But that's basically what's going on. Even if nobody explicitly says it, we all know that that's what's really happening. The fact is, Caltech gave the scholarship to my brother (and others like him) because Caltech was afraid that they would run off to a rival school like MIT. Sure, Caltech didn't explicitly know that those people were applying to MIT, but they had very strong reason to believe so (and in the case of my brother, they were 100% correct). </p>
<p>The only new 'innovation' in my idea is that Berkeley would actually come out and specifically say that they are out to match other schools. You say that would cause mutiny. Why? Because they actually say what they are doing rather than leaving it unsaid (but everybody knows it anyway)? At the end of the day, what's the difference between very strongly implying that you are doing something and actually saying you are doing it? What mutiny would it cause? Everybody knows that right now, Berkeley is using its RCS's to lure people away from other schools, and I don't see any mutiny. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If we are going to take that $34.5 million cost to pay for these cross-admits, in relative terms, it would only cost Harvard $3.45 million. And let's face it, Harvard needs more poor-to-middle class kids then Berkeley and that's why they're offering it. Cal does not significantly benefit from these giving out these scholarships, and Cal's intent (retaining top kids) would certainly be different from Harvard's (getting poor kids to shed their 'wealthy kid's school' association); it's like comparing apples and oranges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not about comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about what is good for Berkeley here. For the purposes of this discussion, who cares about what's good for Harvard? I'm not saying that Harvard is altogether altruistic and perfect in all this, but who cares? We're talking about what's good for Berkeley here. And I believe that what's good for Berkeley is to match the Harvard deals. Like GS said (and I agree - one of the few times that GS and I actually agree), probably very few people are going to take the Berkeley fullride anyway if they can get the Harvard fullride. So in that case, it costs nothing for Berkeley to offer it, so why not offer it? At least Berkeley can then say that they were not beat out on affordability. I think it's downright embarrassing that Berkeley can be beat out on affordability like this. Since it's so easy to fix, why not fix it?</p>
<p>I have to confess, I'm a bit surprised at all the pushback I'm getting here. You guys all have connections to Berkeley, yet it seems to me that a lot of you (not all of you, but a lot of you) just don't want Berkeley to get better. It seems to me that a lot of you just don't want Berkeley to fix its problems. Some of you go are trying to use the excuse that other schools have problems, but who cares about that? Just because other schools have problems doesn't mean that Berkeley should not fix its problems. Some of you are saying that it's just a small, inconsequential problem. Ok, fine, if it really is such a small problem, then it should be easy to fix, right? It seems to me that what's really going on is that some of you just aren't interested in having Berkeley get better.</p>
<p>There's nothing wrong with Berkeley, Sakky, I'm thrilled with what we got here.</p>
<p>No school will become dependent on another's school be it admissions or financial aid- you might as well call our school "Yale's bi***" while you're at it. Financial aid is about (1) giving deserving students merit money; (2) to helping out students who can't afford full education costs. I know you'll insist the #1 is why these full-riders to whatever school it may be should be matched by Berkeley- but get this, a student isn't "better" simply because he or she happens to get into one of the top private colleges. If what college we get into is a litmus test on how deserving an applicant is, then, well, I don't know what to say because there is so many things wrong with that. Is that what I should expect once I get to Berkeley and sit in on a classroom- "oh hey, you see that kid over there? He got into Harvard, therefore, he's much better than us. Let's just sit back and be quiet, we wouldn't want to ruin his experience." (of course, you'll probably contest that a kid choosing Berkeley over Harvard doesn't even exist..)</p>
<p>If you contend that your proposal should be only practiced by Berkeley, and only by Berkeley with respect to merit money, and only with Berkeley with respects to merit money against your identified schools ("Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanfurd, MIT, CalTech"), then you are holding a very narrow, oversimplistic view. Colleges don't even dare ask students what other schools they've been accepted to while students are musing over their choices, and now one school (Berkeley) is supposed to break out of that and even dare to match the FA offer of another, specific school? Ridiculous. I have said it once, twice, now three times over- colleges will not make decisions based on another school's decision. Ya know, there's a reason why colleges don't go near that question ("what other schools have you been accepted to?") and if you don't see why in the 350 years of United States college education this has never been done, well then that's your problem and not mine. Of course, that's not what your proposing. No, what you want is for a kid to drive all the way to good ol' Berkeley, CA in April, flash the financial aid office their Princeton acceptance and say, "show me the money." Boy, you sure know how all of this works!</p>
<p>In terms of the money issue, it'd be very similar to our burdensome, across the board benefits social security system and considering how difficult money is to come by in the state of public education today, it's simply unfeasable. It seems, for you, Sakky, that for Cal to "get better" (your words) the Univeristy must invest its resources at getting the top kids (I can't follow that logic, but I'll play along). But you say that Cal needs not be worried about the cost of such an enterprise, because obviously (<- said with as much sarcasm as humanly possible) everyone would choose to go to the other top private schools anyways. Well, so at what point will Cal become "better" than the rest? Why, when Berkeley gets the vast majority of these cross-admits, right?! Well then, why don't you pull out your magical calculator and tell me how much it'll cost then. This reminds me of that IBM solutions commercial, with the Old English King and his advisors seated around the table. One advisor holds out a sack saying that he's got the solution and the king asks, "Well, what's in it?" "Money," says the advisor. Throwing money as "perceived" problems doesn't solve anything, in fact, it might very well cause much more harm than the relative good ("relative good"- nabbing a couple of the "better" kids who got into "better" schools). Of course, a lot of Berkeley kids are just fine with how most things are and when we do have gripes it's not about not getting enough snobbish elitist kids who otherwise would've gone to the "hallowed halls of the yada yada yada...."</p>
<p>We're fine just the way we are. Sakky, why don't you go to the Stanfurd boards and work you're magic there. Maybe they'll be much more receptive and far more appreciative of your efforts. Maybe you're just not appreciated in your own time... yeah, that's gotta be it!</p>
<p>TTG</p>
<p>So Sakky, you don't have the information about San Jose State, yet you compare SJSU and Berkeley like you know the facts?</p>
<p>How many people at Harvard get free rides? You have been writing ad nauseum about Harvard's free rides and you don't know how many people get free rides at Harvard either? </p>
<p>Facts aren't too important to you are they?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No school will become dependent on another's school be it admissions or financial aid- you might as well call our school "Yale's bi***" while you're at it. Financial aid is about (1) giving deserving students merit money; (2) to helping out students who can't afford full education costs. I know you'll insist the #1 is why these full-riders to whatever school it may be should be matched by Berkeley- but get this, a student isn't "better" simply because he or she happens to get into one of the top private colleges. If what college we get into is a litmus test on how deserving an applicant is, then, well, I don't know what to say because there is so many things wrong with that. Is that what I should expect once I get to Berkeley and sit in on a classroom- "oh hey, you see that kid over there? He got into Harvard, therefore, he's much better than us. Let's just sit back and be quiet, we wouldn't want to ruin his experience." (of course, you'll probably contest that a kid choosing Berkeley over Harvard doesn't even exist..)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on. You even said it yourself that this precise sort of things happens, just on a defacto level. For example, we all know that Caltech strategically uses its merit scholarships not for the idealistic reason of trying to get the best class, but for the more Machiavellian reason of poaching students from its strongest cross-admit competitors, which happen to be Stanford, Harvard, and especially MIT. The fact is, if Caltech didn't use its merit scholarships the way it does, a lot of its admittees, like my brother, would have gone to MIT. </p>
<p>Sure Caltech, doesn't come right out and SAY that that is what they're doing, but everybody knows it. By the same token, as you said yourself, each of the UC's uses the RCS's to poach students away from the other UC's. Sure, they may not come right out and SAY that that is what they are doing, but we all know that's what they're doing. They're simply choosing not to acknowledge the truth. But the truth is still the truth. </p>
<p>This is why your notion of designating certain students as 'better' than others is not relevant, because you presume that it doesn't exist now. But it does. The mere fact that you receive a merit scholarship means that the school thinks you are better than the other students who don't get anything. Caltech doesn't give out president's scholarships to just anybody. Only certain people get it. The UC's don't give out RCS's to just anybody, but only to certain people. And again, a big reason why Caltech gives out scholarships to certain people is because it thinks that those people would get into (and matriculate at) places like MIT. A big reason why the RCS program exists in the first place is because UC's are competing against each other. Hence, there is already a delineation that certain students are better than others. That's the truth. </p>
<p>So it seems to me that you are simply proposing that schools continue to use their scholarships strategically to poach students away from other schools (like they do not), as long as they don't explicitly acknowledge that that's what they're doing. Is that your proposal?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you contend that your proposal should be only practiced by Berkeley, and only by Berkeley with respect to merit money, and only with Berkeley with respects to merit money against your identified schools ("Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanfurd, MIT, CalTech"), then you are holding a very narrow, oversimplistic view. Colleges don't even dare ask students what other schools they've been accepted to while students are musing over their choices, and now one school (Berkeley) is supposed to break out of that and even dare to match the FA offer of another, specific school? Ridiculous. I have said it once, twice, now three times over- colleges will not make decisions based on another school's decision. Ya know, there's a reason why colleges don't go near that question ("what other schools have you been accepted to?") and if you don't see why in the 350 years of United States college education this has never been done, well then that's your problem and not mine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why not? First off, just because other schools don't do something, that means that Berkeley can't? So basically, Berkeley is held hostage by the custom and tradition of other schools? In other words, Berkeley is not allowed to innovate? If schools adopted this attitude, then no school would ever develop any new academic programs until every other school adopted them, which would basically mean that no new programs would ever be developed.</p>
<p>And besides, why is it ridiculous? Don't you think that this sort of thing is happening already? There have been plenty of stories about parents "dialing for dollars" - essentially armtwisting certain schools to cough up more financial aid for threat of sending their kid to some other school. And often times, it works. So isn't this basically an example of a school making aid decisions based on the decision of another school? </p>
<p>And like I said, take a gander at what Caltech is doing. Again, Caltech uses its scholarships to poach students from rival schools, especially MIT. Everybody knows that that's what's really happening. The big difference is that Caltech doesn't explicitly come right out and say that that's what's happening. But, come on, we know it is. So, again, looks like it's OK for schools to do what they are doing, as long as they don't explicitly say that that's what they're doing? </p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems, for you, Sakky, that for Cal to "get better" (your words) the Univeristy must invest its resources at getting the top kids (I can't follow that logic, but I'll play along). But you say that Cal needs not be worried about the cost of such an enterprise, because obviously (<- said with as much sarcasm as humanly possible) everyone would choose to go to the other top private schools anyways. Well, so at what point will Cal become "better" than the rest?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cal will become better when they truly are able to match the undergraduate offerings of those other schools. Matching the financial aid of poor people is just one small step to get there, but it's at least a step in the right direction. It's better than doing nothing at all. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, a lot of Berkeley kids are just fine with how most things are and when we do have gripes it's not about not getting enough snobbish elitist kids who otherwise would've gone to the "hallowed halls of the yada yada yada...."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look what we're talking about. I'm talking about getting those kids who come from low-income backgrounds who nevertheless still have the werewithal to get into top-ranked private schools. I think this is PRECISELY the sort of student that Berkeley ought to get. Why not? I would argue that they are better for Berkeley than some of the students that Berkeley does get. </p>
<p>
[quote]
We're fine just the way we are. Sakky, why don't you go to the Stanfurd boards and work you're magic there. Maybe they'll be much more receptive and far more appreciative of your efforts. Maybe you're just not appreciated in your own time... yeah, that's gotta be it!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm getting more convinced that some of you just don't want to make Berkeley better. Look at GentlemenandScholar. We almost never see eye to eye, but even he now agrees that he wouldn't mind seeing my proposal put into effect. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So Sakky, you don't have the information about San Jose State, yet you compare SJSU and Berkeley like you know the facts?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, give me some time. But are you willing to bet that I'm wrong? </p>
<p>
[quote]
How many people at Harvard get free rides? You have been writing ad nauseum about Harvard's free rides and you don't know how many people get free rides at Harvard either?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I say that knew how many people got these rides? I am simply stating what the Harvard policy is. I never said that I had information about how many get them. And I am sure that it is not a large number - and if that's true, that simply reinforces my question as to why Berkeley shouldn't match it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Facts aren't too important to you are they?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, and they are to you? Let me ask you this. Why are you only asking me for the facts? Why don't you go ask EVERYBODY ELSE for their facts too? After all, I see a lot of posts on this thread, and in many other Berkeley threads, where people declare things without immediately presenting data. Yet I don't see you getting into their face about it. But why not? If you're so interested in the facts, then wouldn't you always be asking EVERYBODY to present their facts? So why are you only asking me.</p>
<p>I'll tell you what. While I'm looking for the SJSU data, I want you to go back and ask everybody on this thread who has ever made an assertion to show you their facts. OK? If you're so interested in seeing data, then you should demand that everybody show you their data, right?</p>
<p>In answer to Dstark's requests, I found some data. Check this out.</p>
<p>"...[in 1995, it was reported by the CRO] that the median family income of entering African-American freshmen at UCBerkeley was found to be $35,000,... that of entering Chicano freshman was about $33,971...and that of Caucasian freshman was about $80,000...and that of Asian freshman and freshmen who chose not to identify themselves was $76940. ...[In 1995], the median family of entering African-American freshmen at San Jose State University was found to be $31510...that of entering Chicano freshman was $28715...and the family income of entering Asian and white freshman was $69,515..."</p>
<p>Granted, this data is a bit old. And I'm going to keep looking for more recent data. However, I'm fairly certain that what was true in the past still holds true today - that the average fulltime student at San Jose State comes from a less wealthy background compared to at Berkeley. Does that really surprise anybody? Am I really reporting anything shocking here? I think it is common sense that Berkeley, being a good school, is going to draw lots of students who come from financially comfortable backgrounds, and San Jose State, not being as good of a school, is going to draw a less financially comfortable student body.</p>