Why are classes so much more full this year?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
21

<p>So, all I know is, USC's tuition is roughly $37,000 a year, whereas Berkeley's is roughly $7,000. It's unfortunate that Berkeley does not have the resources to provide aid for families making over $90,000 a year nor the ability to meet 100% of all its students' needs. But COME ON! THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS CHEAPER!</p>

<p>Even when each school's average financial aid package and housing expenses are factored in, USC students still end up paying $18,000 a year. At Berkeley, this amount is closer to $5,000. </p>

<p>(Edit: According to the same set of College Board statistics, Stanford students pay roughly $15,000 a year, which seems somewhat inconsistent with the notion that armies of poor students are getting a much better deal in Palo Alto. To be fair, Stanford and Berkeley graduates are equally in debt at graduation.)</p>

<p>So, back to my original point: While housing prices in the East Bay may compel us to whine, let's not take an overall good deal for granted.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Stanford students pay roughly $15,000 a year, which seems somewhat inconsistent with the notion that armies of poor students are getting a much better deal in Palo Alto

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What do you mean? The average amount that a student pays at Stanford is $15,000?</p>

<p>
[quote]
To be fair, Stanford and Berkeley graduates are equally in debt at graduation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not for much longer, I'd think, since Stanford has eliminated loans. That means that the few students who choose to take out loans anyway will only bring that up somewhat from $0 (like Princeton). Berkeley's is likely to increase, I'd say--had I chosen Berkeley, I'd be graduating with about $21,000 in debt. (The UC financial aid booklet says the base loan is $4,160, yet Berkeley seemed to be giving out no less than $5,000 in loans to admitted students this year.)</p>

23

<p>I have to laugh at the "average indebtedness" numbers...</p>

<p>Over the past two weeks I've wondered if I chose the right school. As it stands now, if I do go to Cal, I'm looking at (at least) $25k in loans after just two years. Either that or working full time, taking a part time course load, and taking another 4 years to graduate. And I'm not high income! In the bay area, I make less than median wage and can barely afford my rent. In Cal's eyes, I make too much money to even be offered subsidized loans, so they offered me the max in unsubsidized loans and a small UG scholarship. Two of the other schools I applied to offered me only subsidized loans along with generous merit and transfer scholarships. The caveat? One is an expensive LAC and the other is out of state (in my parent's state which has a much better economy and balanced budget, so after one year the tuition would drop from $15k to $4k). I truly truly hope that the Expected Student Income appeal that I will file once I start working part time will at least convert my unsub loans to subsidized loans, but the very best thing for me would be for them to increase my student grants.</p>

<p>By the way, I don't qualify for Cal Grant either, as I was told "your income is too high". ha! I'm more than positive that my income will be "too high" for me to get the Cal Grant for my senior year, since they base it on the past year's income. Once I'm at school full time, I'll practically be a pauper. I feel just a bit shafted by the State of CA since I have not taken ANY aid for my years at a community college - I chose (probably unwisely now that I think about it) to work full time in order to support myself, and have paid quite high CA state income tax during that time.</p>

<p>Still, I've thought about it and wondered if I should have chosen the less-prestigious, but perhaps better in other ways, OOS university, whose Geography dept actually prepares students to work in a geographical field, such as GIS or remote sensing or transportation planning or... I'm trying to be optimistic about my choice though, since I was overjoyed when accepted at Cal. We'll see how I feel in a few weeks.</p>

24

<p>Honestly, I'm just regurgitating data straight off the College Board's website. If the average Stanford student doesn't pay $10,000 more for his college education than the average Berkeley student, then I apologize for the misinformation. But I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air...</p>

<p>As for my "inconsistent" comment, I honestly think that number ($15,000) would be much, much lower if tons of Stanford students were actually benefiting from zero tuition. My theory is, a few are, but not most. (Hence, "disproportionately wealthy.") To be fair, this average reduces tuition to roughly $4000 if housing is paid in full. But Berkeley's average ($5000) not only waives tuition in theory, but also contributes to housing expenses.</p>

<p>If I am wrong in my interpretation, I'd appreciate to know why. But I just don't see a mass migration of poor students to Stanford's or USC's campus; honestly, I don't.</p>

25

<p>There's one more thing that needs to be said about all this. It's kind of an obvious point, but I think it serves as a gentle reminder to those of you who think Berkeley does not help its student financially.</p>

<p>If private school tuition is a good indicator of what higher education costs today, then over 90% of the students at Berkeley (not to mention the entire UC System) receive a $30,000 grant by virtue of being a Californian. Keep in mind that Berkeley accommodates roughly twice as many students as Stanford, not to mention four times as many undergraduates. It is also has lower admissions standards and accepts far more public school students- both in number and as a percentage of the student body. (Berkeley- 85%; Stanford- 60%).</p>

<p>So, you know, let's not pretend that Berkeley is some stingy, careless institution.</p>

26

<p>"So, you know, let's not pretend that Berkeley is some stingy, careless institution."</p>

<p>good post. sometimes it's easy to get caught in all the setbacks that come with a large public institution and forget all the upsides that a school like Berkeley offers.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
If the average Stanford student doesn't pay $10,000 more for his college education than the average Berkeley student, then I apologize for the misinformation. But I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not doubting the veracity of your claims--I'm just wondering where you got the numbers, or how you deduced them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
much lower if tons of Stanford students were actually benefiting from zero tuition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, 76% of students are on some kind of aid, and that's before the reforms of financial aid. With this new reforms geared specifically at sub-$100k income families, I daresay quite a large number are going to benefit from zero tuition.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If I am wrong in my interpretation, I'd appreciate to know why.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It'd be nice if I knew where your interpretation was coming from, so that I could decide if it's wrong. ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
But I just don't see a mass migration of poor students to Stanford's or USC's campus; honestly, I don't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Agreed. Unfortunately, that's just how the system works: low-income students are often shut out at the private universities. Publics like Berkeley tend to take on the most. However, just this past year, Stanford accepted more than 120 students through QuestBridge (these students are all low-income); that doesn't even count all the non-QB students who are low-income. Stanford is steadily raising its numbers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If private school tuition is a good indicator of what higher education costs today, then over 90% of the students at Berkeley (not to mention the entire UC System) receive a $30,000 grant by virtue of being a Californian.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's very true. Another way to interpret it is that those who are not Californian have to pay $30,000 just for being rotten OOSers who don't contribute to California's economy. :p</p>

<p>
[quote]
Keep in mind that Berkeley accommodates roughly twice as many students as Stanford, not to mention four times as many undergraduates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that that's very noble. I've always admired Berkeley for giving a world-class education to many more students, and criticized Stanford et al for making their educations so exclusive. I think sub-10% acceptance rates are sad. Hell, Berkeley's 20% acceptance rate is sad.</p>

<p>However, you must take into consideration the resources of the school. You wouldn't suddenly ask a 1,500-student LAC to take on 20,000 students, would you? That's an extreme example, obviously. IMO, Berkeley is stretching its resources a little too thin. Yes, it accepts far more people (while surprisingly maintaining a high-quality student body); but in the process of doing so, it often offers mediocre financial aid.</p>

<p>Now, I don't think that Berkeley should have, or even approach, the selectivity and size of a school like Stanford. Not because of the whole "Berkeley is a public school" bs, but because Berkeley is a leader in being able to educate tons of people while maintaining quality. I do think, though, that Berkeley overextends itself sometimes, this past year being a perfect example: Berkeley couldn't even offer its admitted students (even low-income ones) the base loan that UC has forever advertised--it gave more than $1000 over (per year).</p>

<p>That's not even counting the limited resources of the school--with a growing undergrad population of 25k, it's becoming harder to offer all students the resources they want and need. After all, there are only so many internships, and research positions, and campus jobs, and courses, and advisers, and so on, to give to students.</p>

<p>Berkeley is definitely not a stingy, careless institution. I have always disagreed with certain vocal critics (on CC especially) of Berkeley's administration, "uncaring" and "selfish" and such. But like any school, Berkeley has its limits, and those limits are where the law of diminishing marginal returns sets in. It has, unfortunately, begun to exceed this limit, especially since the budget cuts have lowered the bar of the limit.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
So, all I know is, USC's tuition is roughly $37,000 a year, whereas Berkeley's is roughly $7,000. It's unfortunate that Berkeley does not have the resources to provide aid for families making over $90,000 a year nor the ability to meet 100% of all its students' needs. But COME ON! THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS CHEAPER!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, 30k cheaper. But only the very wealthy actually pays the full ticket price. I totally understand your point that Berkeley, overall, is a good deal financially. But that deal is being outdone by Berkeley's private peers who have the resources to offer a more attractive financial aid, especially from families who make just enough to be considered middle class. This is unfortunate for Berkeley.</p>

<p>With that point aside, Berkeley is awesome.</p>