<p>You shouldn’t be surprised.</p>
<p>It’s called selection bias. :)</p>
<p>(P.S. Money was not a factor for me.)</p>
<p>turned down UCLA,UCSD, and USC</p>
<p>Turned down UCLA, UCSD, USC, UCI, UC Davis (regents)</p>
<p>I turned down</p>
<p>NYU (stern business school)
UCLA
USC</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point was simply that, perhaps, with the exception of Harvard, all schools attract students by giving them some form of financial accommodation. In short, if you think Berkeley is guilty of such “crime”, so are the top elite privates.</p>
<p>Brown - 2
BU - 1
Caltech - 1
Cal Poly SLO - 1
CMU - 2
Case Western - 1
Cornell - 4
Duke - 2
Emory - 1
Georgetown - 1
Harvey Mudd - 1
Johns Hopkins - 1
MIT - 1
Michigan - 2
Michigan (Honors) - 1
NYU - 6
Princeton - 2
RISD - 1
Rochester - 1
Stanford - 4
Tulane (Honors) - 1</p>
<p>UIUC - 2
University of Minnesotta-twin cities - 1
USC - 9
UT-Austin - 1
UTexas (honors) - 1
UW-Seattle - 2
U Wisconsin - 1
Vanderbilt - 2
Washington USL - 1
Yale - 1</p>
<p>UC Davis - 6
UC Davis (Regents) - 4
UCI - 3
UCI (Regents) - 1
UCLA - 15
UCLA (Regents) - 2
UCSB - 5
UCSB (Regents) - 2
UCSD - 11
UCSD (Regents) - 4</p>
<p>Tally ended atnandrewliu93</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure: I agree that all schools are guilty of this ‘crime’ (if it is indeed a ‘crime’). One could also argue that many schools also attract students via the ‘crime’ of simply being in an interesting location that offers a myriad of cultural and professional activities. Such schools would include Columbia, Harvard, MIT, and - yes - Berkeley. Ignoring academics entirely, and based purely on location alone, I would choose Berkeley over most other schools, including even Stanford. </p>
<p>But to your point that since nearly all schools are guilty of the ‘crime’ of financial inducements to attract students anyway, why doesn’t Berkeley leverage whatever resources they have to attract better students? For example, why not offer heavy merit awards to top international and OOS students - the very students who would otherwise attend a top private school - such that they would pay instate fees (or less) at Berkeley? Let’s face it, many current OOS/international students are, frankly, more qualified than some of the current in-state Regents/Chancellor Scholarship winners. After all, that’s what the University of Virginia does with its ‘Jefferson Scholars’ program, only a minority of which are actually residents of the state of Virginia.</p>
<p>Sakky, the reason Berkeley does not do that is because since 1996 in particular (removal of Affirmative Action via Prop 209) the school has been much more concerned about enrolling certain minority groups than attracting the most academically talented class that it can.</p>
<p>That’s a huge waste of its academic reputation. Berkeley is the only top reputation school that doesn’t aggressively go after the best students. </p>
<p>At least now it’s increasing OOS and international enrollment. The reasons are wrong though - more financial than quality related.</p>
<p>Let’s face it, Berkeley can and absolutely should be a lot better than it is. It needs better, more politically moderate leadership.</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying, sakky. And, quite frankly, if I were a Berkeley alumnus, I would initiate a move to encourage my fellow alumni to pressure Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau to stop adulterating Berkeley’s reputation by accepting more students than what it can really accommodate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, the University of Virginia also offers a palette of merit scholarships such as the Jerome Holland Scholarship and the Walter Ridley Scholarship designed specifically to attract the best black students not only from Virginia, but across the country, to attend UVa. Berkeley could have done the same to attract top minority students from across the country, at least during the pre-209 days. Even post-209, I suspect that a private scholarship fund that serves to attract the best minority students to attend Berkeley, but that is not officially overseen by the Berkeley administration, would not run afoul of the strictures of 209. After all 209 places no restrictions upon private organizations (i.e. Stanford) from implementing affirmative action programs. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The irony is that Berkeley actually does aggressively pursue some of the ‘best’ students - namely those in-state students who are conferred Regents/Chancellor Scholarships as an inducement for them to choose Berkeley over another school. It is almost certainly true that the average in-state Regent/Chancellor Scholarship winner is better than the average in-state admittee who was not provided a scholarship. </p>
<p>The problem is that the competition for the best students does not really seem to stretch beyond state borders. Like I said, many OOS and international students are probably more qualified than some of the in-state Regent/Chancellor Scholars. </p>
<p>A further irony is that Berkeley does indeed aggressively pursue the very best OOS and international students, including financial inducements if necessary…for graduate school. That is why incoming yearly cohorts to certain graduate programs sometimes don’t include even a single California state resident. I doubt that it is a coincidence that Berkeley runs some of the most respected graduate programs in the world, precisely because they can attract the best talent from around the world. Why not for undergrad too? </p>
<p>For those who would argue that the California Master Plan mandates admissions preference for instate students, I would argue that that very statement provides its own rebuttal. The Master Plan mandates admissions preference. But it is entirely silent about any preferences regarding financial inducements, beyond the standard instate tuition subsidy. Berkeley should therefore be free to allocate merit scholarship funding however it wishes.</p>
<p>UCLA and UCSD</p>
<p>UChicago, UCLA, UCSD, UCD</p>
<p>RML. I’m from the eastcoast and I got 22k FA+Scholarship</p>
<p>mainly, came down to Cal, Michigan and NYU (Stern) before I picked Berkeley (for perspective, I’m from CT and got 10k from NYU so they were all basically the same price) But also over Illinois Urbana-Champaign (exclusive Business Honors Program that has only 35 kids), UT Austin (McCombs), Villanova, Wisconsin and UConn.</p>
<p>
Wow! Did you get good financial aid at Berkeley? Full scholarship opportunity is tough pass up, and I’m a die hard Berkeley supporter. But, your parents obviously have great taste… ;-)</p>
<p>Hi! I’m an OOS Bioengineering major but I am considering switching into EECS my first year at Berkeley. I was initially deferred for Cornell ED, and was later accepted. All in all, i turned down Cornell, Northwestern, Michigan, NYU Stern, UCLA, UCSD, USC, and SUNY Binghamton.</p>
<p>UCSD, UCSB, UCD, UCLA, SJSU, and SFSU.</p>
<p>m3csl1994:</p>
<p>I’m not whining about Berkeley not being as good as Stanford, I’m just accepting the fact that academic opportunities are largely better across the bay. That DOESN’T mean there aren’t very good opportunities here at Cal, though. For example, I was able to get research at the end of my first semester here, my classes are sufficiently intellectually stimulating, and I haven’t (in my first three Telebears rounds) had any trouble getting into my classes. And Cal’s (mainly the College of Chemistry’s) generous AP credit policies will allow me to never take another humanities class, whereas Stanford would force me to take a bunch of them. All of these things are very good, but they don’t change the fact that Stanford would offer me better (and more easily accessible) opportunities overall.</p>
<p>I also never said that I want Berkeley to become like Stanford. I like that Berkeley provides a relatively cheap education that is accessible to normal students with, let’s be honest, mediocre high school preparation. I believe that the job of a state university flagship is to educate as many California students as possible, not just to provide a top-notch education to very few people, like Stanford does. Therefore, the things you suggest to “improve” Berkeley, like decreasing class size, accepting more out-of-state students, and focusing on a tight-knit campus are counter-productive to what I think the purpose of the University of California is… If Cal was more like Stanford, most current Cal students wouldn’t stand a chance of getting in, and would therefore have to go to a school with lesser opportunities than Cal provides. </p>
<p>I don’t see anything wrong with accepting that private schools provide a better education for the BEST students, while public schools provide a decent education to a lot more people that don’t necessarily need to be top students. Top students can still do well at public schools, but they have to work to show everyone that they are top students. That’s why it surprises me when people turn down Stanford for Cal.</p>
<p>shadowzoid, interesting…</p>
<p>Would you mine sharing with us how you got the 22k FA+Scholarship? </p>
<p>You might be able to provide some ideas for those OOS who’d like to have a Berkeley education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t seem to understand the situation you’re in. All the things you’re enjoying now at Berkeley are opportunities that await for those well-motivated students like you. Some students at Stanford don’t enjoy the things and privileges that you are enjoying now. </p>
<p>There’s this common saying on CC which goes: “college is what you make of it.” And, that is true. If you’ll continue to achieve great grades at Berkeley, you will win in future job placement competition, even beating those from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT. The best graduates of Berkeley can easily head-to-head with the best graduates of the best schools anywhere on earth. </p>
<p>Be proud of the situation you’re in. Be proud that you are in Berkeley. A lot of OOS students would want to study in your school but couldn’t do it due to a lot of reasons, foremost of which is financial. You’re lucky you only have to pay substantially less than what OOS students pay in general. :)</p>