https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

The COB wouldn't exist without the University. What court made this ruling? $crew the COB

The judge ran unopposed...

My daughter, who has applied for the Fall, got an email from the school today disclosing the suit and its negative effect upon admissions this year. As I understand it, the letter ran through their obligations to admit certain numbers from specific categories, e.g. transfers and JCs, working down to the number of slots left for freshman admissions. Basically, "prepare to be disappointed."

grrrrah said:

---

My daughter, who has applied for the Fall, got an email from the school today disclosing the suit and its negative effect upon admissions this year. As I understand it, the letter ran through their obligations to admit certain numbers from specific categories, e.g. transfers and JCs, working down to the number of slots left for freshman admissions. Basically, "prepare to be disappointed."

---

She and thousands (including football recruits) are about to be shafted by this suit and judges. Pray that the CA Supreme Court has the brains to stay this ruling. Personally, I have zero confidence in any CA politician or just about any CA judge.

lmao the Berkeley NIMBYs are undefeated. https://t.co/AobIDfiyw5

— kang (@jaycaspiankang) February 15, 2022

One thing I’ve learned in my two years living here; you cannot defeat a well educated white liberal who wants to protect their property value. I thought the southern version in chapel hill was formidable but these ppl will beat your head in w a copy of A is for Activist.

— kang (@jaycaspiankang) February 15, 2022

Would it be that hard for some of these kids who are going to miss out on a Cal degree to sue in a class action the group and the leader of the group who have facilitated this frivolous suit? It seems to me that one of our smart lawyers here could take that on. The damages of career lost earnings by the 115,000 applicants with a 30% lower chance of admissions seems like that would be significant.

The players:

Phil Bokovoy is the President of "Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, which filed the lawsuit
He has a BA in Economics from Michigan and an MA in Economics and JD from UC Berkeley.
His office address is listed as 2601 Piedmont Ave, which is a 2-bedroom home near the corner of Parker St.
He's filed numerous lawsuits against the University in the past, and especially since 2018 on Cal's growth.

Judge Brad Seligman was appointed to the bench by Jerry Brown in 2012.
He's a registered Democrat.Has a BA from Sonoma St. JD from Hastings.
Was a partner in a law firm where he specialized in Civil Rights.

Clearly, UC applications are sky-rocketing after eliminating the SAT and ACT scores from admission in 2020.

But Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) who has pushed UC to expand access to California students, called the news "disappointing". McCarthy noted a $2 Billion dollar fund that was launched to help public campuses build student housing.

McCarty asked UC President Michael Drake what legislator's could do to help.
Drake said the state might examine the reach of environmental reviewed to control enrollment.

UC Berkeley may be forced by court to cut 3,000 undergraduate seats, freeze enrollment (yahoo.com)

Oski87 said:

---

Would it be that hard for some of these kids who are going to miss out on a Cal degree to sue in a class action the group and the leader of the group who have facilitated this frivolous suit? It seems to me that one of our smart lawyers here could take that on. The damages of career lost earnings by the 115,000 applicants with a 30% lower chance of admissions seems like that would be significant.

---

Yes, that would be a bad idea. The group would be protected from liability for filing the lawsuit by the litigation privilege. Likely the group would file an Anti-SLAPP motion and win, plus be awarded their attorney's fees.

Is anyone concerned about the increasing enrollment in the past 25 years? It doesn't seem like the goal is to educate Californians. It seems as if the goal is to get more paying out of state students to offset the lack of state and federal support. Can Berkeley expand the student body this rapidly without sacrificing quality of education and student body?

oski003 said:

---

Is anyone concerned about the increasing enrollment in the past 25 years? It doesn't seem like the goal is to educate Californians. It seems as if the goal is to get more paying out of state students to offset the lack of state and federal support. Can Berkeley expand the student body this rapidly without sacrificing quality of education and student body?

---

The math on tuition $$ actually works the opposite way - because an out-of-state student funds the subsidy on 2-3 in-state students, the question should be can the top UC schools maintain the same quality of education without that extra tuition money.

Schools like Michigan and Virginia actually go 30-40% out-of-state and are far less broke that Cal. Oregon and Colorado are up there too, but no one would mistake their student body for that of a top school.

The interesting thing from a donor and athletics perspective is that UC admits probably 2x as many international students as out of state US based students - curious how that affects donor rates.

In all this discussion, people also seem to miss the fact education is not just something that is a reward for doing well in high school, but something that creates more productive citizens in the future that will drive the economy, increase knowledge, and help society... And pay more taxes (which justifies spending more on education not the bare minimum). So getting top out of state students into California is a way to really help increase future tax rolls and not stagnate. But that only works is they stay in state.

Oski87 said:

---

Would it be that hard for some of these kids who are going to miss out on a Cal degree to sue in a class action the group and the leader of the group who have facilitated this frivolous suit? It seems to me that one of our smart lawyers here could take that on. The damages of career lost earnings by the 115,000 applicants with a 30% lower chance of admissions seems like that would be significant.

---

yes, it would be hard for the students to maintain a suit and also prevail.

I did a lot of CEQA work, particularly representing a large CA governmental agency (not UC). Reader's Digest is that CEQA was intended as an informative process, by which there was public disclosure of environmental impacts for public debate on approval of real estate projects. The practice, when it comes to CEQA litigation, is CEQA often is used for a variety of strategic purposes that include business competitors trying to stop companies from business growth, "green mailing" project proponents, NIMBYs or similar types to delay and hopefully stop undesirable projects, and other objectives not always considered perfectly fitting within the intent of why CEQA was drafted. CEQA is one reason why the housing shortage exits, and Newson and the legislature have been incrementally exempting different types of housing projects from CEQA review (or greatly limiting review).

In response to CEQA challenges, project proponents started suing plaintiffs and politicians for defamatory remarks (a lot of activists, in particular, would make some wild assertions) and on other grounds, and the threat of lawsuit basically shut off nimby suits. There were situations where a LA City Councilwoman made a snarky remark to a developer during a CEQA hearing that she lost a $20 plus million judgment, and could not afford to run for reelection (the angry developer put her into BK and took most of her assets). The only plaintiffs soon became green mailers (who are sophisticated environmental law firms) and those who could mount serious CEQA challenges, which are not inexpensive, on technical grounds, without bad mouthing projects. The State responded with legislation that made if very difficult for those benefitting from real estate projects to sue CEQA plaintiffs, known as the "anti-SLAPP" law, and that has eliminated many counter CEQA suits. I will let litigators discuss this more, but I don't see students having standing or being able to prove damages when they can go to other top colleges. This is deliberately a general response. My sitting and computer time is rationed in conjunction with negotiations with my spine surgeon, so I may not be able to respond further for a while.

Cal has said that the decision made by the trial court, which in essence suggests the decision to admit more students is a real estate project that should have been reviewed (as opposed to requiring CEQA review on the actual real estate project to provide housing) is unprecedented and a reach that could have devastating impacts on operating a businesses in California, and should be overturned. I suspect that Cal is correct that the case will be overturned, or that the results of the case ultimately will be overturned by the legislature. But in the interim, there is a trial court decision outstanding, and unless the State Supreme Court or legislature intercedes quickly, those students are not coming to Cal until the appellate court hears the appeal (which it has agreed to do) and rules against the plaintiffs.

Will these students be SOL or absorbed by another campus? Is it only undergraduates impacted?

"Yay, I got into Berkeley! Go Bears! Go pound sand UW, Stanfurd / $C / uc los angeles!"

...

"Oh, crap"

bluehenbear said:

---

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/02/14/uc-berkeley-enrollment-drop-court-of-appeal-ruling

Quote:

---

The order to cap enrollment at the 2020-21 level of 42,347 as opposed to the current enrollment of 45,057 is the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2019 by a neighborhood group, Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, against UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and others. The city of Berkeley had been party to the lawsuit until it withdrew after signing an $82.6 million letter of agreement in July with the university

---

---

I believe that the increase in size is partly or entirely attributable to orders from the CA Governor

I just received the same email. My daughter will be entering her Senior year at Cal in the Fall. This is crazy.

I really feel for applicants and incoming Freshmen. Now Cal will be even more of an impossible place to attend. And higher tuition to boot! (We got hit with notice from the kid's sorority - due to lower house occupancy numbers due to Covid, we got a surprise $2,000 bill for our daughter NOT living in the house this semester while studying abroad! Ouch.) Now a tuition increase. The good news just keeps on coming!

Ironically, I have a connection to Phil Bokovoy from my campus days.

Two issues: Isn't COB seriously pro-housing? But their NIMBY stance is directly in conflict with this position. More students is more density and more density is EXACTLY what COB should be embracing. The entire region needs to increase density to deal with both the homeless issue as well as projected increase in population. Two more million people expected in the upcoming decades. Or was it more? One KQED guest said 8 million, but that must have been in error.

The second issue also concerns housing. How will these Berkeley rental unit owners feel to know their units won't fetch as much rent with incoming Freshmen numbers cut by a third! Oops, might want to rethink!

And without The University of California at Berkeley, the COB would be a complete pile of trash. You think they'd be supporting a lucrative real estate market on Northside without all the highly-educated and trained professionals working in and around LBL, the University and associated industry? Nope.

Berkeley wants its cake and to eat it too. All the benefits of UC, but can obstruct the very economic engine feeding them. It was one thing with the stadium and the idiot Hill People (living in a total death trap, completely irrelevant of the stadium's location), but this is a direct attack. And again, counter to demographic pressures across the Bay Area and state. Head in the sand.

ColoradoBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Is anyone concerned about the increasing enrollment in the past 25 years? It doesn't seem like the goal is to educate Californians. It seems as if the goal is to get more paying out of state students to offset the lack of state and federal support. Can Berkeley expand the student body this rapidly without sacrificing quality of education and student body?

---

The math on tuition $$ actually works the opposite way - because an out-of-state student funds the subsidy on 2-3 in-state students, the question should be can the top UC schools maintain the same quality of education without that extra tuition money.

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

something....something...Prop 13...something...

TandemBear - I like your mindset re; this! Wish such could happen. But sadly it never will.

TandemBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Is anyone concerned about the increasing enrollment in the past 25 years? It doesn't seem like the goal is to educate Californians. It seems as if the goal is to get more paying out of state students to offset the lack of state and federal support. Can Berkeley expand the student body this rapidly without sacrificing quality of education and student body?

---

The math on tuition $$ actually works the opposite way - because an out-of-state student funds the subsidy on 2-3 in-state students, the question should be can the top UC schools maintain the same quality of education without that extra tuition money.

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

---

As someone who was an out-of-stater and recruited athlete, I take great issue with your anti-out of state bias. I think ALL universities benefit from a diverse student body including geographic diversity. I can guarantee you that Cal's standing would suffer greatly if out of state students were barred from attending. When I was a student in the late 70's, the out of state percentage was around 15%, which was a pretty good percentage. I met a lot of super smart kids from all over the US and I think the natives really liked having people from other parts of the country in the mix. In a purely Machiavellian sense, it's highly beneficial to have alumni from all over the country and the world for Cal grads to network with in their careers.

juarezbear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Is anyone concerned about the increasing enrollment in the past 25 years? It doesn't seem like the goal is to educate Californians. It seems as if the goal is to get more paying out of state students to offset the lack of state and federal support. Can Berkeley expand the student body this rapidly without sacrificing quality of education and student body?

---

The math on tuition $$ actually works the opposite way - because an out-of-state student funds the subsidy on 2-3 in-state students, the question should be can the top UC schools maintain the same quality of education without that extra tuition money.

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

---

As someone who was an out-of-stater and recruited athlete, I take great issue with your anti-out of state bias. I think ALL universities benefit from a diverse student body including geographic diversity. I can guarantee you that Cal's standing would suffer greatly if out of state students were barred from attending. When I was a student in the late 70's, the out of state percentage was around 15%, which was a pretty good percentage. I met a lot of super smart kids from all over the US and I think the natives really liked having people from other parts of the country in the mix. In a purely Machiavellian sense, it's highly beneficial to have alumni from all over the country and the world for Cal grads to network with in their careers.

---

I see your point. In an ideal world, we should be able to accommodate out of state and foreign students. But with resources stretched thin, we don't have the luxury to open our arms to everyone. Plus, the motivation is misplaced - the the Regents start pursuing out of state $$$, why stop at 15%, 30%? Just make it all out of state and it becomes a money-making endeavor and the idea of public education is lost.

I write this as a student of foreign language and one who worked abroad, thanks to a Foothill College program. My only regret was not following that work with a year of Cal study abroad. But I pursued athletic interests that ended up making my Cal experience just that much better. (Kicking Furd's ass on their own campus was about as sweet as it could get!!!) My kid's spending her Cal spring semester abroad. So I see the value of foreign exchange. But again, I think we're doing it at the expense of our kids. It has to be reciprocal and cannot displace hard-working California kids who have absolutely busted their asses to achieve top scores and placement at our best schools.

So when COB sues to reduce enrollment, if UCB is forced to follow the ruling, out of state enrollment should be first cut. But given the budget situation, I'm gonna assume the opposite occurs. Which again, hurts top California students.

TandemBear said:

---

I just received the same email. My daughter will be entering her Senior year at Cal in the Fall. This is crazy.

I really feel for applicants and incoming Freshmen. Now Cal will be even more of an impossible place to attend. And higher tuition to boot! (We got hit with notice from the kid's sorority - due to lower house occupancy numbers due to Covid, we got a surprise $2,000 bill for our daughter NOT living in the house this semester while studying abroad! Ouch.) Now a tuition increase. The good news just keeps on coming!

Ironically, I have a connection to Phil Bokovoy from my campus days.

Two issues: Isn't COB seriously pro-housing? But their NIMBY stance is directly in conflict with this position. More students is more density and more density is EXACTLY what COB should be embracing. The entire region needs to increase density to deal with both the homeless issue as well as projected increase in population. Two more million people expected in the upcoming decades. Or was it more? One KQED guest said 8 million, but that must have been in error.

The second issue also concerns housing. How will these Berkeley rental unit owners feel to know their units won't fetch as much rent with incoming Freshmen numbers cut by a third! Oops, might want to rethink!

And without The University of California at Berkeley, the COB would be a complete pile of trash. You think they'd be supporting a lucrative real estate market on Northside without all the highly-educated and trained professionals working in and around LBL, the University and associated industry? Nope.

Berkeley wants its cake and to eat it too. All the benefits of UC, but can obstruct the very economic engine feeding them. It was one thing with the stadium and the idiot Hill People (living in a total death trap, completely irrelevant of the stadium's location), but this is a direct attack. And again, counter to demographic pressures across the Bay Area and state. Head in the sand.

---

Let me try to answer your questions: 1) Why is it the COB job to house students. If you read the article the university has the lowest undergrad and grad student housing of ALL UC campuses. Sounds like the university has failed the students not the COB.

2) There is a housing crisis in Berkeley. Many staff and faculty members would love to live in Berkeley but cannot because there is not enough housing. This is another failure by the university not the COB.

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

calpoly said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

I just received the same email. My daughter will be entering her Senior year at Cal in the Fall. This is crazy.

I really feel for applicants and incoming Freshmen. Now Cal will be even more of an impossible place to attend. And higher tuition to boot! (We got hit with notice from the kid's sorority - due to lower house occupancy numbers due to Covid, we got a surprise $2,000 bill for our daughter NOT living in the house this semester while studying abroad! Ouch.) Now a tuition increase. The good news just keeps on coming!

Ironically, I have a connection to Phil Bokovoy from my campus days.

Two issues: Isn't COB seriously pro-housing? But their NIMBY stance is directly in conflict with this position. More students is more density and more density is EXACTLY what COB should be embracing. The entire region needs to increase density to deal with both the homeless issue as well as projected increase in population. Two more million people expected in the upcoming decades. Or was it more? One KQED guest said 8 million, but that must have been in error.

The second issue also concerns housing. How will these Berkeley rental unit owners feel to know their units won't fetch as much rent with incoming Freshmen numbers cut by a third! Oops, might want to rethink!

And without The University of California at Berkeley, the COB would be a complete pile of trash. You think they'd be supporting a lucrative real estate market on Northside without all the highly-educated and trained professionals working in and around LBL, the University and associated industry? Nope.

Berkeley wants its cake and to eat it too. All the benefits of UC, but can obstruct the very economic engine feeding them. It was one thing with the stadium and the idiot Hill People (living in a total death trap, completely irrelevant of the stadium's location), but this is a direct attack. And again, counter to demographic pressures across the Bay Area and state. Head in the sand.

---

Let me try to answer your questions: 1) Why is it the COB job to house students. If you read the article the university has the lowest undergrad and grad student housing of ALL UC campuses. Sounds like the university has failed the students not the COB.

2) There is a housing crisis in Berkeley. Many staff and faculty members would love to live in Berkeley but cannot because there is not enough housing. This is another failure by the university not the COB.

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

---

Because the NIMBY's and the COB make it impossible (and impossibly expensive) to build additional housing for students. It's very simple and doesn't mean the Administration doesn't have its own faults.

calpoly said:

---

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

---

Sadly, you have no clue how difficult COB and the NIMBY's make it for the University to build housing.
In fact, its quite mind-boggling.

DiabloWags said:

---

calpoly said:

---

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

---

Sadly, you have no clue how difficult COB and the NIMBY's make it for the University to build housing.
In fact, its quite mind-boggling.

---

Awwww...the internet know it all has to resort to petty name calling. How pathetic you are.

President Drake commented as much during a recent Regent's meeting about family student housing at the University Village. The prolonged legal fights to build around the campus are unusually prolonged and expensive.

NVBear78 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

I just received the same email. My daughter will be entering her Senior year at Cal in the Fall. This is crazy.

I really feel for applicants and incoming Freshmen. Now Cal will be even more of an impossible place to attend. And higher tuition to boot! (We got hit with notice from the kid's sorority - due to lower house occupancy numbers due to Covid, we got a surprise $2,000 bill for our daughter NOT living in the house this semester while studying abroad! Ouch.) Now a tuition increase. The good news just keeps on coming!

Ironically, I have a connection to Phil Bokovoy from my campus days.

Two issues: Isn't COB seriously pro-housing? But their NIMBY stance is directly in conflict with this position. More students is more density and more density is EXACTLY what COB should be embracing. The entire region needs to increase density to deal with both the homeless issue as well as projected increase in population. Two more million people expected in the upcoming decades. Or was it more? One KQED guest said 8 million, but that must have been in error.

The second issue also concerns housing. How will these Berkeley rental unit owners feel to know their units won't fetch as much rent with incoming Freshmen numbers cut by a third! Oops, might want to rethink!

And without The University of California at Berkeley, the COB would be a complete pile of trash. You think they'd be supporting a lucrative real estate market on Northside without all the highly-educated and trained professionals working in and around LBL, the University and associated industry? Nope.

Berkeley wants its cake and to eat it too. All the benefits of UC, but can obstruct the very economic engine feeding them. It was one thing with the stadium and the idiot Hill People (living in a total death trap, completely irrelevant of the stadium's location), but this is a direct attack. And again, counter to demographic pressures across the Bay Area and state. Head in the sand.

---

Let me try to answer your questions: 1) Why is it the COB job to house students. If you read the article the university has the lowest undergrad and grad student housing of ALL UC campuses. Sounds like the university has failed the students not the COB.

2) There is a housing crisis in Berkeley. Many staff and faculty members would love to live in Berkeley but cannot because there is not enough housing. This is another failure by the university not the COB.

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

---

Because the NIMBY's and the COB make it impossible (and impossibly expensive) to build additional housing for students. It's very simple and doesn't mean the Administration doesn't have its own faults.

---

I agree that building dorms in Berkeley is tough. Where the pressure needs to be applied is to the legislature to build more campuses rather than jam more students through the existing campuses.

I have zero sympathy for anyone who chooses to buy a house near a major university and then complains about there being too many college students nearby. This group should be railroaded at the nearest opportunity.

calpoly said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

I just received the same email. My daughter will be entering her Senior year at Cal in the Fall. This is crazy.

I really feel for applicants and incoming Freshmen. Now Cal will be even more of an impossible place to attend. And higher tuition to boot! (We got hit with notice from the kid's sorority - due to lower house occupancy numbers due to Covid, we got a surprise $2,000 bill for our daughter NOT living in the house this semester while studying abroad! Ouch.) Now a tuition increase. The good news just keeps on coming!

Ironically, I have a connection to Phil Bokovoy from my campus days.

Two issues: Isn't COB seriously pro-housing? But their NIMBY stance is directly in conflict with this position. More students is more density and more density is EXACTLY what COB should be embracing. The entire region needs to increase density to deal with both the homeless issue as well as projected increase in population. Two more million people expected in the upcoming decades. Or was it more? One KQED guest said 8 million, but that must have been in error.

The second issue also concerns housing. How will these Berkeley rental unit owners feel to know their units won't fetch as much rent with incoming Freshmen numbers cut by a third! Oops, might want to rethink!

And without The University of California at Berkeley, the COB would be a complete pile of trash. You think they'd be supporting a lucrative real estate market on Northside without all the highly-educated and trained professionals working in and around LBL, the University and associated industry? Nope.

Berkeley wants its cake and to eat it too. All the benefits of UC, but can obstruct the very economic engine feeding them. It was one thing with the stadium and the idiot Hill People (living in a total death trap, completely irrelevant of the stadium's location), but this is a direct attack. And again, counter to demographic pressures across the Bay Area and state. Head in the sand.

---

Let me try to answer your questions: 1) Why is it the COB job to house students. If you read the article the university has the lowest undergrad and grad student housing of ALL UC campuses. Sounds like the university has failed the students not the COB.

2) There is a housing crisis in Berkeley. Many staff and faculty members would love to live in Berkeley but cannot because there is not enough housing. This is another failure by the university not the COB.

I really have a hard time understanding all the outrage against the COB and not the university. The university had enrollment caps and they went over them. Students that get rejected this year can always go to other UC campuses, it is not the end of the world.

---

Because the NIMBY's and the COB make it impossible (and impossibly expensive) to build additional housing for students. It's very simple and doesn't mean the Administration doesn't have its own faults.

---

I agree that building dorms in Berkeley is tough. Where the pressure needs to be applied is to the legislature to build more campuses rather than jam more students through the existing campuses.

---

Sounds like a purely NIMBY attitude: "Someone solve these problems, as long as it doesn't happen near me!"

ColoradoBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Is anyone concerned about the increasing enrollment in the past 25 years? It doesn't seem like the goal is to educate Californians. It seems as if the goal is to get more paying out of state students to offset the lack of state and federal support. Can Berkeley expand the student body this rapidly without sacrificing quality of education and student body?

---

The math on tuition $$ actually works the opposite way - because an out-of-state student funds the subsidy on 2-3 in-state students, the question should be can the top UC schools maintain the same quality of education without that extra tuition money.

Schools like Michigan and Virginia actually go 30-40% out-of-state and are far less broke that Cal. Oregon and Colorado are up there too, but no one would mistake their student body for that of a top school.

The interesting thing from a donor and athletics perspective is that UC admits probably 2x as many international students as out of state US based students - curious how that affects donor rates.

In all this discussion, people also seem to miss the fact education is not just something that is a reward for doing well in high school, but something that creates more productive citizens in the future that will drive the economy, increase knowledge, and help society... And pay more taxes (which justifies spending more on education not the bare minimum). So getting top out of state students into California is a way to really help increase future tax rolls and not stagnate. But that only works is they stay in state.

---

Governor Pat Brown (Jerry's father) had the philosophy of supporting public universities since that would increase the tax base overtime by ((1) increasing earning power of Ca residents (2) foster economic development via new businesses and technology and (3) bring in new prospective residents from outside of California

His philosophy worked wonderfully
Unfortunately the CA taxpayers decided that they did not want to pay for the engine that had been driving the CA economy-CA higher public education. They thought they could get something for nothing.
Public funding fell from approximately 90% in the 1950s and 1960s to 12% today.
Higher education has survived by cutting overhead and salaries across the board, increasing tuition, bringing more out of state students who are charged more and increasing fund raising

calpoly said:

---

Awwww...the internet know it all has to resort to petty name calling. How pathetic you are.

---

It's not my fault that you repeatedly have your head stuck in the sand on some of the most basic issues.
I cant imagine what you do for a living.

TandemBear said:

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

---

LOL re tax-cut mania. California has the highest state income tax AND the highest state sales tax in the Country.

State Income Tax Rankings

State Sales Tax Rankings

https://www.berkeleyside.org/2019/02/21/uc-berkeleys-student-enrollment-projected-to-reach-44735-in-next-3-years

https://www.ceqadevelopments.com/2020/07/02/first-district-holds-u-c-berkeley-campuss-decision-to-increase-student-enrollment-above-maximum-projected-level-analyzed-in-eir-for-long-range-development-plan-is-a-project/

1997: expected undergrad freshman enrollment 3,500
2022: expected is 9000? Petitioners want to cut it to 6,000?
https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/admit.html

https://pages.github.berkeley.edu/OPA/our-berkeley/enroll-history.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-14/uc-berkeley-may-be-forced-to-cut-3-000-freshman-seats-under-court-order-to-halt-growth%3f_amp=true

Civil Bear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

If we care about UC, we need to address the out-of-state baloney! It should be prohibited. We didn't create a world-class PUBLIC education system to farm it out to the highest bidders. UC is for California kids, plain and simple. Too bad we've allowed tax-cut mania to usurp UC's main goal - to provide excellent, affordable public education for its kids. Without UC and the CA State Universities, BOTH of my parents wouldn't have been able to come from VERY modest means and become successful professionals in health care.

UC should have its state funding restored so it can return to its roots and fulfill its original mandate.

---

LOL re tax-cut mania. California has the highest state income tax AND the highest state sales tax in the Country.

State Income Tax Rankings

State Sales Tax Rankings

---

You are correct Civil Bear!

Our income tax rates here are so progressive, that anyone making over $59,000 is already at a 9.3% marginal income tax rate, which is over double of Arizona's top rate.

And for those that claim that the "rich" in the Golden State dont pay their "fair" share, the fact that the State enjoyed a RECORD $75 Billion Dollar Budget Surplus during a pandemic, would offer strong evidence that tax rates are way too high to begin with.

Per 2016 data, the Top 1% in California pay 46% of all income taxes.
Per 2018 data, the Top 5% in the United States pay 60.3% of all income taxes.

While I would agree that enrollment should not be capped. And for purely selfish reasons, I feel that it is unfair because my son also received the email so he feels like he is not going to get in now.

But if one reads the article fully, the Save Berkeley's Neighborhood's folks have a good point about the enrollment cap. All UC would have to do is cut enrollment of out of state and international students to meet the enrollment cap:

"UC's own data show that UC can easily accommodate the court-ordered enrollment cap without harming in-state student prospects by limiting offers to out-of-state, international, and certificate program students," Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods said in a press release. "In 2021, UCB enrolled 3,429 additional students for whom UC has no obligation to serve under the California Master Plan for Higher Education."

If the short-term solution would be to cut enrollment of out-of-state and international students in order to accommodate California student applicants who have the grades to get in - then it should do that! As the SBN people say, there is no obligation from the UC to serve those applicant types and they are not in the Master Plan. In tough times and in good, UC should be first and foremost, for California students.

philly1121 said:

---

While I would agree that enrollment should not be capped. And for purely selfish reasons, I feel that it is unfair because my son also received the email so he feels like he is not going to get in now.

But if one reads the article fully, the Save Berkeley's Neighborhood's folks have a good point about the enrollment cap. All UC would have to do is cut enrollment of out of state and international students to meet the enrollment cap:

"UC's own data show that UC can easily accommodate the court-ordered enrollment cap without harming in-state student prospects by limiting offers to out-of-state, international, and certificate program students," Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods said in a press release. "In 2021, UCB enrolled 3,429 additional students for whom UC has no obligation to serve under the California Master Plan for Higher Education."

If the short-term solution would be to cut enrollment of out-of-state and international students in order to accommodate California student applicants who have the grades to get in - then it should do that! As the SBN people say, there is no obligation from the UC to serve those applicant types and they are not in the Master Plan. In tough times and in good, UC should be first and foremost, for California students.

---

They don't have a good point, because that would not be a solution. Berkeley admits more international and out-of-state students because they pay more in tuition, which in turn helps subsidize the whole UC system. Get rid of those and you can't pay to educate the local students either.

The Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods people fully know this and are being disingenuous. They don't care about California students. They care about stopping UC expansion and development, full stop.