Excellent points that highlight what Cal used to be. In the past several decades, the Southern Branch has been overtaking us while we have been resting on our laurels. They are better known, far more desirable to prospective students, and becoming more competitive in admissions. Without big time athletics (particularly football) will be the west coast version of the University of Chicago, well-known in academic circles but otherwise anonymous.CNHTH said:
What exactly are you referring to here buddy? Just trolling?
Starting undergrad salary? We're number 1 amongst publics and Privates
Median 10 year salary? We're number 1 as well
Number of atomic elements named after our university? Number 1 their as well in fact the only 1
Nobel laureates?
We invented the cyclotron; we created modern day quantum physics; we spurred the civil rights movement; we're the alma mater of the chief justice who brought in civil rights; we invented the bomb; we conceived built and manage(d) the two biggest energy and atomic weapons research facilities on the planet; we are the alma of general Doolittle; we brought you the polio vaccine; we brought you apple computers…
I'd keep going but I'm tired.
We are absolutely on par with Harvard and according to Forbes we're above them and everyone else besides MIT.
Run along
Putting today's news in perspective
16,415 Views |
107 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by concernedparent
You are deliberately making apples-to-oranges comparisons, or non sequitors.southseasbear said:Excellent points that highlight what Cal used to be. In the past several decades, the Southern Branch has been overtaking us while we have been resting on our laurels. They are better known, far more desirable to prospective students, and becoming more competitive in admissions. Without big time athletics (particularly football) will be the west coast version of the University of Chicago, well-known in academic circles but otherwise anonymous.CNHTH said:
What exactly are you referring to here buddy? Just trolling?
Starting undergrad salary? We're number 1 amongst publics and Privates
Median 10 year salary? We're number 1 as well
Number of atomic elements named after our university? Number 1 their as well in fact the only 1
Nobel laureates?
We invented the cyclotron; we created modern day quantum physics; we spurred the civil rights movement; we're the alma mater of the chief justice who brought in civil rights; we invented the bomb; we conceived built and manage(d) the two biggest energy and atomic weapons research facilities on the planet; we are the alma of general Doolittle; we brought you the polio vaccine; we brought you apple computers…
I'd keep going but I'm tired.
We are absolutely on par with Harvard and according to Forbes we're above them and everyone else besides MIT.
Run along
UCLA gets more applications from high school students (and thus has a lower admission percentage because they are filling about as many spots as UC Berkeley). Why do they have more applicants? They're in LA. It's warmer. There are 2.5x as many high school students in SoCal, and they think NorCal isn't warm enough. The area around UCLA's campus is nice. Santa Monica is 10-15 minutes away. UCLA guarantees four years of university housing for incoming freshmen and two years for incoming transfer students.
None of that has anything to do with the world-class achievements of UC Berkeley faculty mentioned in the comment that you replied to. Compared to UCLA, UC Berkeley has a far longer list of elite research accomplishments. I'll mention just one more: The Nobel-winning research of Prof. Doudna and team that developed CRISPR. And that is not ancient history, as you falsely claim.
I went to law school at Cal after undergrad at Santa Clara, lived at the I-House for a year next to the stadium and immediatley became a huge football fan. Santa Clara was a great, pleasant experience, I made lifelong friends and stay connected to the university primarily through them, not athletics. My lasting connection to Cal (24 years on) is due to almost entiely to football. Before I moved to the east coast I was a Cal football season ticekt holder for 20 years. Attending football games at university in a major conference as a student was a great experience that far exceeded anythint a small school with no football program could offer. It is a very rare privilege to be a student at a school in a P5 conference and have those experiences available to you. Giving up on top tier athletics would deprive future generations of students of the thing that I (and I'm sure many others) enjoyed about Cal the most. We should think about them before we even think about abandoning competition at this level.
southseasbear said:Excellent points that highlight what Cal used to be. In the past several decades, the Southern Branch has been overtaking us while we have been resting on our laurels. They are better known, far more desirable to prospective students, and becoming more competitive in admissions. Without big time athletics (particularly football) will be the west coast version of the University of Chicago, well-known in academic circles but otherwise anonymous.CNHTH said:
What exactly are you referring to here buddy? Just trolling?
Starting undergrad salary? We're number 1 amongst publics and Privates
Median 10 year salary? We're number 1 as well
Number of atomic elements named after our university? Number 1 their as well in fact the only 1
Nobel laureates?
We invented the cyclotron; we created modern day quantum physics; we spurred the civil rights movement; we're the alma mater of the chief justice who brought in civil rights; we invented the bomb; we conceived built and manage(d) the two biggest energy and atomic weapons research facilities on the planet; we are the alma of general Doolittle; we brought you the polio vaccine; we brought you apple computers…
I'd keep going but I'm tired.
We are absolutely on par with Harvard and according to Forbes we're above them and everyone else besides MIT.
Run along
From my own personal experience, everyone who has enquired about my education knows and highly respects Berkeley as a prestigious school. The vast majority of those people had no idea that Berkeley had athletics and was known as Cal. These were not academic snobs.
The point. Berkeley's reputation far exceeds its athletic reputation
The Southern Branch has had better weather since before it was established. Santa Monica has been 15 minutes away longer than it and Southern Branch have existed. Southern California has had a larger number of high school students for over 75 years. These facts do not explain why they have become a more popular destination. My point is that it's time for Cal and its administration to stop resting on their laurels (pun intended) and become more aggressive in holding on to its status as the flagship of the UC system. We need more student housing. We need to clean up the area around the campus. We need to hold on to and do a better job of promoting athletics and other student activities. That's my point.BearSD said:You are deliberately making apples-to-oranges comparisons, or non sequitors.southseasbear said:Excellent points that highlight what Cal used to be. In the past several decades, the Southern Branch has been overtaking us while we have been resting on our laurels. They are better known, far more desirable to prospective students, and becoming more competitive in admissions. Without big time athletics (particularly football) will be the west coast version of the University of Chicago, well-known in academic circles but otherwise anonymous.CNHTH said:
What exactly are you referring to here buddy? Just trolling?
Starting undergrad salary? We're number 1 amongst publics and Privates
Median 10 year salary? We're number 1 as well
Number of atomic elements named after our university? Number 1 their as well in fact the only 1
Nobel laureates?
We invented the cyclotron; we created modern day quantum physics; we spurred the civil rights movement; we're the alma mater of the chief justice who brought in civil rights; we invented the bomb; we conceived built and manage(d) the two biggest energy and atomic weapons research facilities on the planet; we are the alma of general Doolittle; we brought you the polio vaccine; we brought you apple computers…
I'd keep going but I'm tired.
We are absolutely on par with Harvard and according to Forbes we're above them and everyone else besides MIT.
Run along
UCLA gets more applications from high school students (and thus has a lower admission percentage because they are filling about as many spots as UC Berkeley). Why do they have more applicants? They're in LA. It's warmer. There are 2.5x as many high school students in SoCal, and they think NorCal isn't warm enough. The area around UCLA's campus is nice. Santa Monica is 10-15 minutes away. UCLA guarantees four years of university housing for incoming freshmen and two years for incoming transfer students.
None of that has anything to do with the world-class achievements of UC Berkeley faculty mentioned in the comment that you replied to. Compared to UCLA, UC Berkeley has a far longer list of elite research accomplishments. I'll mention just one more: The Nobel-winning research of Prof. Doudna and team that developed CRISPR. And that is not ancient history, as you falsely claim.
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
southseasbear said:The Southern Branch has had better weather since before it was established. Santa Monica has been 15 minutes away longer than it and Southern Branch have existed. Southern California has had a larger number of high school students for over 75 years. These facts do not explain why they have become a more popular destination. My point is that it's time for Cal and its administration to stop resting on their laurels (pun intended) and become more aggressive in holding on to its status as the flagship of the UC system. We need more student housing. We need to clean up the area around the campus. We need to hold on to and do a better job of promoting athletics and other student activities. That's my point.BearSD said:You are deliberately making apples-to-oranges comparisons, or non sequitors.southseasbear said:Excellent points that highlight what Cal used to be. In the past several decades, the Southern Branch has been overtaking us while we have been resting on our laurels. They are better known, far more desirable to prospective students, and becoming more competitive in admissions. Without big time athletics (particularly football) will be the west coast version of the University of Chicago, well-known in academic circles but otherwise anonymous.CNHTH said:
What exactly are you referring to here buddy? Just trolling?
Starting undergrad salary? We're number 1 amongst publics and Privates
Median 10 year salary? We're number 1 as well
Number of atomic elements named after our university? Number 1 their as well in fact the only 1
Nobel laureates?
We invented the cyclotron; we created modern day quantum physics; we spurred the civil rights movement; we're the alma mater of the chief justice who brought in civil rights; we invented the bomb; we conceived built and manage(d) the two biggest energy and atomic weapons research facilities on the planet; we are the alma of general Doolittle; we brought you the polio vaccine; we brought you apple computers…
I'd keep going but I'm tired.
We are absolutely on par with Harvard and according to Forbes we're above them and everyone else besides MIT.
Run along
UCLA gets more applications from high school students (and thus has a lower admission percentage because they are filling about as many spots as UC Berkeley). Why do they have more applicants? They're in LA. It's warmer. There are 2.5x as many high school students in SoCal, and they think NorCal isn't warm enough. The area around UCLA's campus is nice. Santa Monica is 10-15 minutes away. UCLA guarantees four years of university housing for incoming freshmen and two years for incoming transfer students.
None of that has anything to do with the world-class achievements of UC Berkeley faculty mentioned in the comment that you replied to. Compared to UCLA, UC Berkeley has a far longer list of elite research accomplishments. I'll mention just one more: The Nobel-winning research of Prof. Doudna and team that developed CRISPR. And that is not ancient history, as you falsely claim.
Was just in Berkeley yesterday and the number of large multistory high rise private student oriented housing complexes along Shattuck stretching down to Ashby is almost staggering. Drove by Unit 2 and saw again they have increased their capacity by 50% by infilling with 2 additional towers.
It might be more accurate to state that the perceptions will evolve. In 2024, the newness of the B1G affiliation will draw big numbers down in LA, and the road numbers should be big. But in 2028 -- how big will the crowd be in the Rose Bowl (or wherever UCLA ends up playing) when Rutgers or Indiana show up? How many LA fans will road trip to see USC play in Minneapolis in early November (btw - I'd pay money to see thatEcon141 said:oski003 said:Econ141 said:socaltownie said:
I know this is a broken record to some of you. But CU needs football a LOT mroe than UCB.
Last year's its acceptance rate was 79.8%. Cal's was 14.4%. CU wants additional exposure and "buzz" from things like COach Prime to juice applications (which helps improve its current #97 ranking. Cal's is at #20 (and the highest public university in the rankings).
There is an institutional incentive for what CU is doing. There is not the same for Cal.
What does conference affiliation have to do with acceptance numbers? Is SDSU and SMU any better or worse?
If conference affiliation matters outside of just playing football, we should be even more horrified that we aren't hearing any rumors of Cal trying to get into the B1G.
He is saying that nobody outside of Colorado would know what CU was if they didn't have a football team. People all over the world know Berkeley is an outstanding university.
Got it .... Ok but perceptions change. UCLA and USC are affiliated now with Wisconsin, Michigan and Northwestern. Say UW, Oregon, and Stanford go to the B1G and we are left behind to be grouped with OSU, WSU, SDSU, and some other MWC teams. Doesn't the entire university's rep take a hit given the other grouping? What our students can't be as well-rounded as theirs -top notch smarts + top notch athletics?
). I think this looks good now, but I could see buyers remorse down the road. JMHO.
When I was teaching, the students that went to Berkeley were "different" from the students that went to UCLA. The way they communicated with me, their writing, their analytical skills, their maturity, and their willingness to take risks were different from the students that went to UCLA. During Christmas break, I was struck by how many students came to visit me and what they had to say about their experiences at UCLA vs Berkeley. Berkeley students told me me how difficult it was at CAL the dog eat dog atmosphere there. The students that were at UCLA said how easy it really was to get an A. What struck me the most was when some of my students visited UCLA and decided to sit in on an Econ lecture (I taught AP Econ) and how surprised they were to see that the students in class knew very little about what the professor was saying. One of my students actually went in front of the class and analyzed S/D. She was asked what year she was at UCLA and she answered she was visiting to decide between UCLA and Berkeley, that she was a senior at my high school. She ultimately decided on UCLA because her parents wanted her to stay close to home.
The housing supply has increased, but the demand far outstrips supply for students wanting to live in Berkeley. And then when "affordable" housing is sought (rent under $1500/month/including water, utilities/parking/ etc for their own room in a quality/safe location) it is extremely scarce. I provide fully furnished apt/housing to both students and student athletes(bed/frame/mattresss, dresser, desk, night stand, furnished kitchen etc and we have a waiting list due to the lack of housing options. One football player currently is commuting from San Mateo (could not afford Berkeley rents and stayed at home). Parts of Berkeley have ongoing crime issues (student athletes have had cars stolen, delivery packages constantly stolen etc). The reason I stepped up to help, was when asking the HC/assistants for football what meaningful way could the program be helped (past 2 years before the Key need for NIL monies) - the immediate answer was housing. 11 players were living in different cities - 20/25+ minutes away from the stadium and campus and that was creating significant issues from time Mgmt, accountability, team bonding, on time class issues etc. Just this summer, several players were forced to temporarily live in hotels, or teammates couches, until decent housing could be arranged. Basketball has been addressing this long term need originally starting 14 years ago and we (remaining property partners/Cal supporters) are building two additional ADU's which will allow (per NCAA regulations) the full team to live onsite close to campus (6 minute walk) in high quality/team bonding accommodations - along with fellow students as well. Basketball program when the current project is finished, will have the best Pac 10+- housing in the conference. Football housing remains an ongoing challenge, given the rental costs/affordability versus the competing schools who do offer quality/affordable housing. Candidly more houses in Berkeley/available to the football/student athletes are needed to meet the very real housing demand(large #'s of players totaling 110+- players between scholarship and walk on's) This also becomes a huge deal for recruiting and retention of the key players. The satisfaction comes from seeing the student athletes who are truly appreciative of their housing set up and how quality/affordable housing makes a positive difference in their demanding schedules/college experience. Bottom line, more quality/affordable housing is needed to support our Football team to effectively compete for/retain the sought after players.calumnus said:southseasbear said:The Southern Branch has had better weather since before it was established. Santa Monica has been 15 minutes away longer than it and Southern Branch have existed. Southern California has had a larger number of high school students for over 75 years. These facts do not explain why they have become a more popular destination. My point is that it's time for Cal and its administration to stop resting on their laurels (pun intended) and become more aggressive in holding on to its status as the flagship of the UC system. We need more student housing. We need to clean up the area around the campus. We need to hold on to and do a better job of promoting athletics and other student activities. That's my point.BearSD said:You are deliberately making apples-to-oranges comparisons, or non sequitors.southseasbear said:Excellent points that highlight what Cal used to be. In the past several decades, the Southern Branch has been overtaking us while we have been resting on our laurels. They are better known, far more desirable to prospective students, and becoming more competitive in admissions. Without big time athletics (particularly football) will be the west coast version of the University of Chicago, well-known in academic circles but otherwise anonymous.CNHTH said:
What exactly are you referring to here buddy? Just trolling?
Starting undergrad salary? We're number 1 amongst publics and Privates
Median 10 year salary? We're number 1 as well
Number of atomic elements named after our university? Number 1 their as well in fact the only 1
Nobel laureates?
We invented the cyclotron; we created modern day quantum physics; we spurred the civil rights movement; we're the alma mater of the chief justice who brought in civil rights; we invented the bomb; we conceived built and manage(d) the two biggest energy and atomic weapons research facilities on the planet; we are the alma of general Doolittle; we brought you the polio vaccine; we brought you apple computers…
I'd keep going but I'm tired.
We are absolutely on par with Harvard and according to Forbes we're above them and everyone else besides MIT.
Run along
UCLA gets more applications from high school students (and thus has a lower admission percentage because they are filling about as many spots as UC Berkeley). Why do they have more applicants? They're in LA. It's warmer. There are 2.5x as many high school students in SoCal, and they think NorCal isn't warm enough. The area around UCLA's campus is nice. Santa Monica is 10-15 minutes away. UCLA guarantees four years of university housing for incoming freshmen and two years for incoming transfer students.
None of that has anything to do with the world-class achievements of UC Berkeley faculty mentioned in the comment that you replied to. Compared to UCLA, UC Berkeley has a far longer list of elite research accomplishments. I'll mention just one more: The Nobel-winning research of Prof. Doudna and team that developed CRISPR. And that is not ancient history, as you falsely claim.
Was just in Berkeley yesterday and the number of large multistory high rise private student oriented housing complexes along Shattuck stretching down to Ashby is almost staggering. Drove by Unit 2 and saw again they have increased their capacity by 50% by infilling with 2 additional towers.
4thGenCal said:The housing supply has increased, but the demand far outstrips supply for students wanting to live in Berkeley. And then when "affordable" housing is sought (rent under $1500/month/including water, utilities/parking/ etc for their own room in a quality/safe location) it is extremely scarce. I provide fully furnished apt/housing to both students and student athletes(bed/frame/mattresss, dresser, desk, night stand, furnished kitchen etc and we have a waiting list due to the lack of housing options. One football player currently is commuting from San Mateo (could not afford Berkeley rents and stayed at home). Parts of Berkeley have ongoing crime issues (student athletes have had cars stolen, delivery packages constantly stolen etc). The reason I stepped up to help, was when asking the HC/assistants for football what meaningful way could the program be helped (past 2 years before the Key need for NIL monies) - the immediate answer was housing. 11 players were living in different cities - 20/25+ minutes away from the stadium and campus and that was creating significant issues from time Mgmt, accountability, team bonding, on time class issues etc. Just this summer, several players were forced to temporarily live in hotels, or teammates couches, until decent housing could be arranged. Basketball has been addressing this long term need originally starting 14 years ago and we (remaining property partners/Cal supporters) are building two additional ADU's which will allow (per NCAA regulations) the full team to live onsite close to campus (6 minute walk) in high quality/team bonding accommodations - along with fellow students as well. Basketball program when the current project is finished, will have the best Pac 10+- housing in the conference. Football housing remains an ongoing challenge, given the rental costs/affordability versus the competing schools who do offer quality/affordable housing. Candidly more houses in Berkeley/available to the football/student athletes are needed to meet the very real housing demand(large #'s of players totaling 110+- players between scholarship and walk on's) This also becomes a huge deal for recruiting and retention of the key players. The satisfaction comes from seeing the student athletes who are truly appreciative of their housing set up and how quality/affordable housing makes a positive difference in their demanding schedules/college experience. Bottom line, more quality/affordable housing is needed to support our Football team to effectively compete for/retain the sought after players.calumnus said:southseasbear said:The Southern Branch has had better weather since before it was established. Santa Monica has been 15 minutes away longer than it and Southern Branch have existed. Southern California has had a larger number of high school students for over 75 years. These facts do not explain why they have become a more popular destination. My point is that it's time for Cal and its administration to stop resting on their laurels (pun intended) and become more aggressive in holding on to its status as the flagship of the UC system. We need more student housing. We need to clean up the area around the campus. We need to hold on to and do a better job of promoting athletics and other student activities. That's my point.BearSD said:You are deliberately making apples-to-oranges comparisons, or non sequitors.southseasbear said:Excellent points that highlight what Cal used to be. In the past several decades, the Southern Branch has been overtaking us while we have been resting on our laurels. They are better known, far more desirable to prospective students, and becoming more competitive in admissions. Without big time athletics (particularly football) will be the west coast version of the University of Chicago, well-known in academic circles but otherwise anonymous.CNHTH said:
What exactly are you referring to here buddy? Just trolling?
Starting undergrad salary? We're number 1 amongst publics and Privates
Median 10 year salary? We're number 1 as well
Number of atomic elements named after our university? Number 1 their as well in fact the only 1
Nobel laureates?
We invented the cyclotron; we created modern day quantum physics; we spurred the civil rights movement; we're the alma mater of the chief justice who brought in civil rights; we invented the bomb; we conceived built and manage(d) the two biggest energy and atomic weapons research facilities on the planet; we are the alma of general Doolittle; we brought you the polio vaccine; we brought you apple computers…
I'd keep going but I'm tired.
We are absolutely on par with Harvard and according to Forbes we're above them and everyone else besides MIT.
Run along
UCLA gets more applications from high school students (and thus has a lower admission percentage because they are filling about as many spots as UC Berkeley). Why do they have more applicants? They're in LA. It's warmer. There are 2.5x as many high school students in SoCal, and they think NorCal isn't warm enough. The area around UCLA's campus is nice. Santa Monica is 10-15 minutes away. UCLA guarantees four years of university housing for incoming freshmen and two years for incoming transfer students.
None of that has anything to do with the world-class achievements of UC Berkeley faculty mentioned in the comment that you replied to. Compared to UCLA, UC Berkeley has a far longer list of elite research accomplishments. I'll mention just one more: The Nobel-winning research of Prof. Doudna and team that developed CRISPR. And that is not ancient history, as you falsely claim.
Was just in Berkeley yesterday and the number of large multistory high rise private student oriented housing complexes along Shattuck stretching down to Ashby is almost staggering. Drove by Unit 2 and saw again they have increased their capacity by 50% by infilling with 2 additional towers.
That's awful. Big time athletics shouldn't have this issue. Does Oregon, where Wilcox almost bolted to (and used to get a raise), have this issue?
badger said:
There are many who see the value that big time football brings a university. Michigan and Wisconsin are two examples, they are relatively close to the academic tier of Cal, but both have great game day atmospheres and on the field success. Rankings and Nobel Prizes are important but students who work hard can be very successful going to schools that are perceived to be less prestigious. Many students want a holistic experience; highly thought of programs alongside an atmosphere that promotes spirit and pride in your school. We want a reason to come back to campus and football is very often that reason.
For most who don't go the PhD route, ten years post-graduation, if you are looking for a new job, is anyone going to really care if you went to Cal or Alabama? It will be about your work history and performance. That first job, sure being a Cal grad will make a difference, but thereafter, not so much. So, if I am a top student who wants fun football Saturdays, do I go to Cal, great school, bad football, or do I go to Michigan (and BTW I hate Michigan) and have nearly the same great education, yet also a great football team. Take it the next level, is it really that far a drop to Alabama, (Alabama is a Carnegie R1, the same as Cal); maybe, but maybe not. We are not talking about the difference between Cal and say Fresno State.
Commitment is what needs to be looked at. I think Cal's problem is leadership can't commit to one direction or the other, does the Cal leadership want to make a commitment to sports or do they want to go the U of Chicago way and give them up and go D3? They seem to be in that middle ground, not committing to having great football, but also refusing to give it up. To me a choice needs to be made, are you in or are you out?
I would prefer they make that commitment, perhaps the new chancellor will go the way Donna Shalala did when she became chancellor at Wisconsin in 1988. She saw the potential value of big time football and made a commitment, without negatively impacting the academics of the school. Prior to her taking over UW was much like Cal, a good season every once in a while, but for the most part the on the field performances in football and basketball were mediocre. That is now very different.
Even for those seeking to pursue higher education beyond the BA/BS, attending Cal as an undergraduate can have negative consequences. For instance, it's commonly mentioned (at least in law schools and legal circles) that Cal tends to decline applicants who graduated from Cal with a BA/BS whose applications are otherwise competitive with applicants who graduated from other universities.
If anything, this suggests that those seeking to go to Cal for law school (or really any graduate program) would be better served by going to another undergraduate program. In the long run, this means the quality of Cal undergraduates will diminish as those who wish to earn a graduate degree from Cal will opt to matriculate at other undergraduate universities. This, in turn, would make Cal less selective, further diminishing its standing in those rankings that take rejection rate and high school GPA into account*.
Beyond the fact that Cal graduate programs tend to reject otherwise qualified Cal alumni, there's also the level of competition amongst Cal undergraduates, which can negatively impact a Cal student's graduate school applications. Simply put, a Cal student who might otherwise be at the top of his class in a less challenging academic institution could find himself in the middle of the pack at Cal. While there are undoubtedly some truly big fish at Cal (even in the undergraduate ranks), most Cal students are no more than just biggish fish. Given that Cal professors grade on curves with (more or less) set numbers of As, Bs, and Cs, all those biggish fish students are competing with one another for the few A grades. Whereas, if the same biggish fish students attended a less challenging institution, they may more easily snap up the As needed to attend a competitive graduate school/program.
While it is a common truism that steel sharpens steel, most people use rocks to sharpen knives and other blades. It makes more sense for those with (for instance) medical school aspirations not to struggle at Cal for an A when it's easier to get the same grade at a school where there aren't as many equally bright and hard-working students fighting for a limited number of As. In other words, instead of sharpening oneself against other steel-level students, a long-term planning and ambitious student would seek to sharpen him/herself against rock-level students. All of this suggests that the years of Cal's undergraduate student body being the best and brightest may well be coming to an end, if it's not already over.
Anecdotally, I spoke with a younger cousin who is not interested in attending Cal, despite how much I tried to promote it to him. He's smart enough to know that he'd have to work harder to achieve the same grades at Cal as he would achieve at a less challenging school. While I tried to play up the first job angle, he also (rightly) pointed out that he won't be pursuing a job as a junior investment banker or any other such job immediately out of undergrad. Moreover, he plans to find a job in the local area, so it's not like he needs his undergrad university to carry the Cal cachet. Finally, it's undeniable that graduates of universities with prestigious academic reputations have also found great success in their chosen fields. So really, there's little incentive for him to matriculate at, let alone graduate from, Cal.
Based on this one datum point, even among some of those who do not seek a graduate degree, the potential rewards are simply not worth competing against other hard working and bright students. If this belief becomes widespread, it may not be long before the caliber of undergraduate students Cal attracts will be far below anything any of us alumni would ever have imagined.
*I would've included standardized test scores, but I'm unsure if they're even used in any rankings given the move from significant numbers of universities (including prestigious Cal) from requiring standardized test scores.
I went to cal undergrad and for law school. There were a lot of students from cal at Berkeley law. Probably more than any other school.
Rtkbear said:
I went to cal undergrad and for law school. There were a lot of students from cal at Berkeley law. Probably more than any other school.
I'm not saying Boalt (I refuse to call Cal's law school by any other name) won't accept Cal undergrad alumni whatsoever. Rather the bar is much higher for applicants who graduated from Cal's undergraduate programs than it is for applicants from other schools. In other words, if you went to Cal as an undergraduate and applied to Boalt but had the same GPA and LSAT scores as an applicant from another school (and assuming you're both otherwise qualified fir admissions at Boalt), the other applicant would be preferred over you. Of course, if you scored 180 on the LSAT and had a 4.0 GPA, Boalt would likely admit you (as would just about any other law school in the US). But if you're a borderline candidate (keep in mind, borderline candidates at Boalt still meet the stringent admissions requirements), a Cal undergraduate degree hurts your admissions chances at Boalt more than it helps. At least that's the understanding I have (and I've heard the same from many others in the legal field over the course of my career).*
*Actually, even dating back to when I applied for law school admissions.
01Bear said:badger said:
There are many who see the value that big time football brings a university. Michigan and Wisconsin are two examples, they are relatively close to the academic tier of Cal, but both have great game day atmospheres and on the field success. Rankings and Nobel Prizes are important but students who work hard can be very successful going to schools that are perceived to be less prestigious. Many students want a holistic experience; highly thought of programs alongside an atmosphere that promotes spirit and pride in your school. We want a reason to come back to campus and football is very often that reason.
For most who don't go the PhD route, ten years post-graduation, if you are looking for a new job, is anyone going to really care if you went to Cal or Alabama? It will be about your work history and performance. That first job, sure being a Cal grad will make a difference, but thereafter, not so much. So, if I am a top student who wants fun football Saturdays, do I go to Cal, great school, bad football, or do I go to Michigan (and BTW I hate Michigan) and have nearly the same great education, yet also a great football team. Take it the next level, is it really that far a drop to Alabama, (Alabama is a Carnegie R1, the same as Cal); maybe, but maybe not. We are not talking about the difference between Cal and say Fresno State.
Commitment is what needs to be looked at. I think Cal's problem is leadership can't commit to one direction or the other, does the Cal leadership want to make a commitment to sports or do they want to go the U of Chicago way and give them up and go D3? They seem to be in that middle ground, not committing to having great football, but also refusing to give it up. To me a choice needs to be made, are you in or are you out?
I would prefer they make that commitment, perhaps the new chancellor will go the way Donna Shalala did when she became chancellor at Wisconsin in 1988. She saw the potential value of big time football and made a commitment, without negatively impacting the academics of the school. Prior to her taking over UW was much like Cal, a good season every once in a while, but for the most part the on the field performances in football and basketball were mediocre. That is now very different.
Even for those seeking to pursue higher education beyond the BA/BS, attending Cal as an undergraduate can have negative consequences. For instance, it's commonly mentioned (at least in law schools and legal circles) that Cal tends to decline applicants who graduated from Cal with a BA/BS whose applications are otherwise competitive with applicants who graduated from other universities.
If anything, this suggests that those seeking to go to Cal for law school (or really any graduate program) would be better served by going to another undergraduate program. In the long run, this means the quality of Cal undergraduates will diminish as those who wish to earn a graduate degree from Cal will opt to matriculate at other undergraduate universities. This, in turn, would make Cal less selective, further diminishing its standing in those rankings that take rejection rate and high school GPA into account*.
Beyond the fact that Cal graduate programs tend to reject otherwise qualified Cal alumni, there's also the level of competition amongst Cal undergraduates, which can negatively impact a Cal student's graduate school applications. Simply put, a Cal student who might otherwise be at the top of his class in a less challenging academic institution could find himself in the middle of the pack at Cal. While there are undoubtedly some truly big fish at Cal (even in the undergraduate ranks), most Cal students are no more than just biggish fish. Given that Cal professors grade on curves with (more or less) set numbers of As, Bs, and Cs, all those biggish fish students are competing with one another for the few A grades. Whereas, if the same biggish fish students attended a less challenging institution, they may more easily snap up the As needed to attend a competitive graduate school/program.
While it is a common truism that steel sharpens steel, most people use rocks to sharpen knives and other blades. It makes more sense for those with (for instance) medical school aspirations not to struggle at Cal for an A when it's easier to get the same grade at a school where there aren't as many equally bright and hard-working students fighting for a limited number of As. In other words, instead of sharpening oneself against other steel-level students, a long-term planning and ambitious student would seek to sharpen him/herself against rock-level students. All of this suggests that the years of Cal's undergraduate student body being the best and brightest may well be coming to an end, if it's not already over.
Anecdotally, I spoke with a younger cousin who is not interested in attending Cal, despite how much I tried to promote it to him. He's smart enough to know that he'd have to work harder to achieve the same grades at Cal as he would achieve at a less challenging school. While I tried to play up the first job angle, he also (rightly) pointed out that he won't be pursuing a job as a junior investment banker or any other such job immediately out of undergrad. Moreover, he plans to find a job in the local area, so it's not like he needs his undergrad university to carry the Cal cachet. Finally, it's undeniable that graduates of universities with prestigious academic reputations have also found great success in their chosen fields. So really, there's little incentive for him to matriculate at, let alone graduate from, Cal.
Based on this one datum point, even among some of those who do not seek a graduate degree, the potential rewards are simply not worth competing against other hard working and bright students. If this belief becomes widespread, it may not be long before the caliber of undergraduate students Cal attracts will be far below anything any of us alumni would ever have imagined.
*I would've included standardized test scores, but I'm unsure if they're even used in any rankings given the move from significant numbers of universities (including prestigious Cal) from requiring standardized test scores.
My niece is a senior in high school in San Diego. She has a 4.8 gpa and is set on being premed. She has visited most of the UC campuses, Stanford and privates back east and Cal is far and away her favorite. However, when she told her guidance councilor and a private "pre-med coach" that Cal was her favorite, both said "Absolutely not." They are telling her to forget about Cal and to not even apply even though it is just $75 and an extra checked box. Their belief is It is harder at Cal to get the grades you need to get into med school. I would think med schools know Cal is tough and take it into account, but I'm not pushing Cal because they are the experts and I don't want it to be my fault if she goes to Cal and doesn't get into med school. I think she may apply anyway.
This was absolutely the right call. Going to Cal for pre-med will kill our chances of getting into med school unless you're the best of the best. I know of countless people who would get a 3.6+ in MCB or some similarly crazy major that couldn't get in. Most abandoned the idea of becoming a doctor, others went to Grenada or some offshore school.calumnus said:
My niece is a senior in high school in San Diego. She has a 4.8 gpa and is set on being premed. She has visited most of the UC campuses, Stanford and privates back east and Cal is far and away her favorite. However, when she told her guidance councilor and a private "pre-med coach" that Cal was her favorite, both said "Absolutely not." They are telling her to forget about Cal and to not even apply even though it is just $75 and an extra checked box. Their belief is It is harder at Cal to get the grades you need to get into med school. I would think med schools know Cal is tough and take it into account, but I'm not pushing Cal because they are the experts and I don't want it to be my fault if she goes to Cal and doesn't get into med school. I think she may apply anyway.
95bears said:This was absolutely the right call. Going to Cal for pre-med will kill our chances of getting into med school unless you're the best of the best. I know of countless people who would get a 3.6+ in MCB or some similarly crazy major that couldn't get in. Most abandoned the idea of becoming a doctor, others went to Grenada or some offshore school.calumnus said:
My niece is a senior in high school in San Diego. She has a 4.8 gpa and is set on being premed. She has visited most of the UC campuses, Stanford and privates back east and Cal is far and away her favorite. However, when she told her guidance councilor and a private "pre-med coach" that Cal was her favorite, both said "Absolutely not." They are telling her to forget about Cal and to not even apply even though it is just $75 and an extra checked box. Their belief is It is harder at Cal to get the grades you need to get into med school. I would think med schools know Cal is tough and take it into account, but I'm not pushing Cal because they are the experts and I don't want it to be my fault if she goes to Cal and doesn't get into med school. I think she may apply anyway.
If the difference in rates of applications were due to the numbers of Hispanic students living in Southern California who desire to stay close to home, this might make sense, though all anyone needs to do is check a box to apply to another UC, and Cal still gets more applications than other UCs that would be close to home, i.e., Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The fact is, I know many White students who chose Southern Branch over Cal because they saw it as a more welcoming environment. A guarantee of housing for 4 years as opposed to only 1 at Cal is big factor. So is the high level of crime and filth in the area surrounding our campus. We can look to USC, which has done very well in attracting top students since the 1980's after cleaning up its surroundings and buying property to convert to student housing. There is a lot Cal can do to make itself more attractive, but the administration and faculty choose to live with an early 20th Century mindset. Quality of student life is an important factor when students (and families) choose among schools when applying and then again when selecting from those that offered admission. The presence of a competitive football team is one of those factors. I fear there is a good chance we may see the demise of football at Cal (other than intramurals) as we left with the unaffordable choice of MWC or independent. We will see applications and enrollment drop because the University of Chicago model is not attractive to everyone.socaltownie said:
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
Uggh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?southseasbear said:If the difference in rates of applications were due to the numbers of Hispanic students living in Southern California who desire to stay close to home, this might make sense, though all anyone needs to do is check a box to apply to another UC, and Cal still gets more applications than other UCs that would be close to home, i.e., Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The fact is, I know many White students who chose Southern Branch over Cal because they saw it as a more welcoming environment. A guarantee of housing for 4 years as opposed to only 1 at Cal is big factor. So is the high level of crime and filth in the area surrounding our campus. We can look to USC, which has done very well in attracting top students since the 1980's after cleaning up its surroundings and buying property to convert to student housing. There is a lot Cal can do to make itself more attractive, but the administration and faculty choose to live with an early 20th Century mindset. Quality of student life is an important factor when students (and families) choose among schools when applying and then again when selecting from those that offered admission. The presence of a competitive football team is one of those factors. I fear there is a good chance we may see the demise of football at Cal (other than intramurals) as we left with the unaffordable choice of MWC or independent. We will see applications and enrollment drop because the University of Chicago model is not attractive to everyone.socaltownie said:
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
1) FOr ALL students (white, brown, purple) 70% of them live south of the grapevine. UCLA is simply shooting in a target rich environment.
2) ON TOP OF THAT, hispanic students, which represent the fastest growing segment of the state's college aged population, have a proclivity to find colleges within a 1/2 day drive (or in some cases commuting distance) from their parents house.
These two factors, IMHO, have lead UCLA to be in higher demand for Cal. Nothing really more complicated than that. And it also helps explain why, for example, the CSUs north of about Fresno are in a world of hurt, missing enrollment targets while most in SoCal (with a couple of odd exceptions like Channel Island) are not.
Housing is a huge factor, and the UCs need a lot more student housing in Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Irvine, and San Diego, in addition to Berkeley.southseasbear said:If the difference in rates of applications were due to the numbers of Hispanic students living in Southern California who desire to stay close to home, this might make sense, though all anyone needs to do is check a box to apply to another UC, and Cal still gets more applications than other UCs that would be close to home, i.e., Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The fact is, I know many White students who chose Southern Branch over Cal because they saw it as a more welcoming environment. A guarantee of housing for 4 years as opposed to only 1 at Cal is big factor. So is the high level of crime and filth in the area surrounding our campus. We can look to USC, which has done very well in attracting top students since the 1980's after cleaning up its surroundings and buying property to convert to student housing. There is a lot Cal can do to make itself more attractive, but the administration and faculty choose to live with an early 20th Century mindset. Quality of student life is an important factor when students (and families) choose among schools when applying and then again when selecting from those that offered admission. The presence of a competitive football team is one of those factors. I fear there is a good chance we may see the demise of football at Cal (other than intramurals) as we left with the unaffordable choice of MWC or independent. We will see applications and enrollment drop because the University of Chicago model is not attractive to everyone.socaltownie said:
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
And yes, UC Berkeley should be much more assertive in redeveloping southside.
As for football, it's a factor for some prospective students, but if you think it's a primary factor in student decisions between UCLA and UC Berkeley, then you are vastly overestimating the average 17-18 year old kid's interest in college football.
That could be true - I don't know the GPAs and LSATs of my fellow Berkeley grads at Berkeley Law (it was known as Boalt when I was there). There were a lot of them, however, which makes sense because back then, the tuition was the same as undergraduate tuition. I ended up at Boalt because I couldn't justify paying many multiples more in tuition to attend a similarly ranked or slightly better ranked Ivy law school.
Rtkbear said:
That could be true - I don't know the GPAs and LSATs of my fellow Berkeley grads at Berkeley Law (it was known as Boalt when I was there). There were a lot of them, however, which makes sense because back then, the tuition was the same as undergraduate tuition. I ended up at Boalt because I couldn't justify paying many multiples more in tuition to attend a similarly ranked or slightly better ranked Ivy law school.
By the time I applied to law school, tuition at Boalt was considerably more expensive than tuition for a Cal undergraduate degree. IIRC, the difference in in-state and out-of-state tuition wasn't really significant, though it did exist. That said, Boalt was my first choice (heck, I fantasized about going to Boalt since my first or second year at Cal, which was before I was seriously considering pursuing a career in law). Unfortunately, I was not Boalt's choice for any of its spots when I applied. Still, I managed to be admitted to another top-10 law school. That said, I am envious of you folks who graduated from Cal with both a BA/S and a JD!
Sorry, but it seems as if you are relying on conjecture and fabricated statistics.socaltownie said:Uggh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?southseasbear said:If the difference in rates of applications were due to the numbers of Hispanic students living in Southern California who desire to stay close to home, this might make sense, though all anyone needs to do is check a box to apply to another UC, and Cal still gets more applications than other UCs that would be close to home, i.e., Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The fact is, I know many White students who chose Southern Branch over Cal because they saw it as a more welcoming environment. A guarantee of housing for 4 years as opposed to only 1 at Cal is big factor. So is the high level of crime and filth in the area surrounding our campus. We can look to USC, which has done very well in attracting top students since the 1980's after cleaning up its surroundings and buying property to convert to student housing. There is a lot Cal can do to make itself more attractive, but the administration and faculty choose to live with an early 20th Century mindset. Quality of student life is an important factor when students (and families) choose among schools when applying and then again when selecting from those that offered admission. The presence of a competitive football team is one of those factors. I fear there is a good chance we may see the demise of football at Cal (other than intramurals) as we left with the unaffordable choice of MWC or independent. We will see applications and enrollment drop because the University of Chicago model is not attractive to everyone.socaltownie said:
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
1) FOr ALL students (white, brown, purple) 70% of them live south of the grapevine. UCLA is simply shooting in a target rich environment.
2) ON TOP OF THAT, hispanic students, which represent the fastest growing segment of the state's college aged population, have a proclivity to find colleges within a 1/2 day drive (or in some cases commuting distance) from their parents house.
These two factors, IMHO, have lead UCLA to be in higher demand for Cal. Nothing really more complicated than that. And it also helps explain why, for example, the CSUs north of about Fresno are in a world of hurt, missing enrollment targets while most in SoCal (with a couple of odd exceptions like Channel Island) are not.
Southern Branch undergraduates comprise 21% Hispanic, less than whites (26%) and Asian-Pacific Islander (35%). https://www.ucla.edu/about/facts-and-figures
Cal undergraduates comprise 23.8% Hispanic (higher than Southern Branch), compared to 23.8% white and 36% Asian. https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-california-berkeley/student-life/diversity/
southseasbear said:Sorry, but it seems as if you are relying on conjecture and fabricated statistics.socaltownie said:Uggh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?southseasbear said:If the difference in rates of applications were due to the numbers of Hispanic students living in Southern California who desire to stay close to home, this might make sense, though all anyone needs to do is check a box to apply to another UC, and Cal still gets more applications than other UCs that would be close to home, i.e., Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The fact is, I know many White students who chose Southern Branch over Cal because they saw it as a more welcoming environment. A guarantee of housing for 4 years as opposed to only 1 at Cal is big factor. So is the high level of crime and filth in the area surrounding our campus. We can look to USC, which has done very well in attracting top students since the 1980's after cleaning up its surroundings and buying property to convert to student housing. There is a lot Cal can do to make itself more attractive, but the administration and faculty choose to live with an early 20th Century mindset. Quality of student life is an important factor when students (and families) choose among schools when applying and then again when selecting from those that offered admission. The presence of a competitive football team is one of those factors. I fear there is a good chance we may see the demise of football at Cal (other than intramurals) as we left with the unaffordable choice of MWC or independent. We will see applications and enrollment drop because the University of Chicago model is not attractive to everyone.socaltownie said:
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
1) FOr ALL students (white, brown, purple) 70% of them live south of the grapevine. UCLA is simply shooting in a target rich environment.
2) ON TOP OF THAT, hispanic students, which represent the fastest growing segment of the state's college aged population, have a proclivity to find colleges within a 1/2 day drive (or in some cases commuting distance) from their parents house.
These two factors, IMHO, have lead UCLA to be in higher demand for Cal. Nothing really more complicated than that. And it also helps explain why, for example, the CSUs north of about Fresno are in a world of hurt, missing enrollment targets while most in SoCal (with a couple of odd exceptions like Channel Island) are not.
Southern Branch undergraduates comprise 21% Hispanic, less than whites (26%) and Asian-Pacific Islander (35%). https://www.ucla.edu/about/facts-and-figures
Cal undergraduates comprise 23.8% Hispanic (higher than Southern Branch), compared to 23.8% white and 36% Asian. https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-california-berkeley/student-life/diversity/
Applicants god damm it. And read the first point about _all_ college age students. Can you read??
southseasbear said:socaltownie said:Uggh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?southseasbear said:If the difference in rates of applications were due to the numbers of Hispanic students living in Southern California who desire to stay close to home, this might make sense, though all anyone needs to do is check a box to apply to another UC, and Cal still gets more applications than other UCs that would be close to home, i.e., Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The fact is, I know many White students who chose Southern Branch over Cal because they saw it as a more welcoming environment. A guarantee of housing for 4 years as opposed to only 1 at Cal is big factor. So is the high level of crime and filth in the area surrounding our campus. We can look to USC, which has done very well in attracting top students since the 1980's after cleaning up its surroundings and buying property to convert to student housing. There is a lot Cal can do to make itself more attractive, but the administration and faculty choose to live with an early 20th Century mindset. Quality of student life is an important factor when students (and families) choose among schools when applying and then again when selecting from those that offered admission. The presence of a competitive football team is one of those factors. I fear there is a good chance we may see the demise of football at Cal (other than intramurals) as we left with the unaffordable choice of MWC or independent. We will see applications and enrollment drop because the University of Chicago model is not attractive to everyone.socaltownie said:
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
1) FOr ALL students (white, brown, purple) 70% of them live south of the grapevine. UCLA is simply shooting in a target rich environment.
2) ON TOP OF THAT, hispanic students, which represent the fastest growing segment of the state's college aged population, have a proclivity to find colleges within a 1/2 day drive (or in some cases commuting distance) from their parents house.
These two factors, IMHO, have lead UCLA to be in higher demand for Cal. Nothing really more complicated than that. And it also helps explain why, for example, the CSUs north of about Fresno are in a world of hurt, missing enrollment targets while most in SoCal (with a couple of odd exceptions like Channel Island) are not.
Southern Branch undergraduates comprise 21% Hispanic, less than whites (26%) and Asian-Pacific Islander (35%). https://www.ucla.edu/about/facts-and-figures
Wow, does UCLA really have 60% female and 39% male undergrads? That's incredible odds - a threesome for 1 out of 2 guys!
Does any of this make sense? For what reasons would the law school disfavor applicants from its own (well-regarded) undergrad?01Bear said:Rtkbear said:
I went to cal undergrad and for law school. There were a lot of students from cal at Berkeley law. Probably more than any other school.
I'm not saying Boalt (I refuse to call Cal's law school by any other name) won't accept Cal undergrad alumni whatsoever. Rather the bar is much higher for applicants who graduated from Cal's undergraduate programs than it is for applicants from other schools. In other words, if you went to Cal as an undergraduate and applied to Boalt but had the same GPA and LSAT scores as an applicant from another school (and assuming you're both otherwise qualified fir admissions at Boalt), the other applicant would be preferred over you. Of course, if you scored 180 on the LSAT and had a 4.0 GPA, Boalt would likely admit you (as would just about any other law school in the US). But if you're a borderline candidate (keep in mind, borderline candidates at Boalt still meet the stringent admissions requirements), a Cal undergraduate degree hurts your admissions chances at Boalt more than it helps. At least that's the understanding I have (and I've heard the same from many others in the legal field over the course of my career).*
*Actually, even dating back to when I applied for law school admissions.
Second, you sure have a strong opinion about the name of a school you didn't attend.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I did not go to grad school. But a very good friend did go to law school after Cal.concernedparent said:Does any of this make sense? For what reasons would the law school disfavor applicants from its own (well-regarded) undergrad?01Bear said:Rtkbear said:
I went to cal undergrad and for law school. There were a lot of students from cal at Berkeley law. Probably more than any other school.
I'm not saying Boalt (I refuse to call Cal's law school by any other name) won't accept Cal undergrad alumni whatsoever. Rather the bar is much higher for applicants who graduated from Cal's undergraduate programs than it is for applicants from other schools. In other words, if you went to Cal as an undergraduate and applied to Boalt but had the same GPA and LSAT scores as an applicant from another school (and assuming you're both otherwise qualified fir admissions at Boalt), the other applicant would be preferred over you. Of course, if you scored 180 on the LSAT and had a 4.0 GPA, Boalt would likely admit you (as would just about any other law school in the US). But if you're a borderline candidate (keep in mind, borderline candidates at Boalt still meet the stringent admissions requirements), a Cal undergraduate degree hurts your admissions chances at Boalt more than it helps. At least that's the understanding I have (and I've heard the same from many others in the legal field over the course of my career).*
*Actually, even dating back to when I applied for law school admissions.
Second, you sure have a strong opinion about the name of a school you didn't attend.
I can't offer any kind of official, written reasoning; however, when I went to Cal (I Graduated in '87) it was a widely held belief among the students that if you went to Cal for your undergrad work, the University wanted you to do your graduate work in whatever field you were pursuing somewhere else. The best answer I could get was something along the lines of cross-pollination - Cal wanted to send its very bright BS and BA students off to shine in other school's grad programs and they wanted other schools to send Cal their best and brightest BA/BS students to be further educated.
A very good friend with far better grades than mine as a Cal undergrad and great LSAT scores was unable to get into BerkeleyLaw, which was then called Boalt. However, this friend went to law school at UC Davis, and then - after a year - transferred into Boalt.
Good choice.SoFlaBear said:A very good friend with far better grades than mine as a Cal undergrad and great LSAT scores was unable to get into BerkeleyLaw, which was then called Boalt. However, this friend went to law school at UC Davis, and then - after a year - transferred into Boalt.concernedparent said:Does any of this make sense? For what reasons would the law school disfavor applicants from its own (well-regarded) undergrad?01Bear said:Rtkbear said:
I went to cal undergrad and for law school. There were a lot of students from cal at Berkeley law. Probably more than any other school.
I'm not saying Boalt (I refuse to call Cal's law school by any other name) won't accept Cal undergrad alumni whatsoever. Rather the bar is much higher for applicants who graduated from Cal's undergraduate programs than it is for applicants from other schools. In other words, if you went to Cal as an undergraduate and applied to Boalt but had the same GPA and LSAT scores as an applicant from another school (and assuming you're both otherwise qualified fir admissions at Boalt), the other applicant would be preferred over you. Of course, if you scored 180 on the LSAT and had a 4.0 GPA, Boalt would likely admit you (as would just about any other law school in the US). But if you're a borderline candidate (keep in mind, borderline candidates at Boalt still meet the stringent admissions requirements), a Cal undergraduate degree hurts your admissions chances at Boalt more than it helps. At least that's the understanding I have (and I've heard the same from many others in the legal field over the course of my career).*
*Actually, even dating back to when I applied for law school admissions.
Second, you sure have a strong opinion about the name of a school you didn't attend.
socaltownie said:southseasbear said:Sorry, but it seems as if you are relying on conjecture and fabricated statistics.socaltownie said:Uggh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?southseasbear said:If the difference in rates of applications were due to the numbers of Hispanic students living in Southern California who desire to stay close to home, this might make sense, though all anyone needs to do is check a box to apply to another UC, and Cal still gets more applications than other UCs that would be close to home, i.e., Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The fact is, I know many White students who chose Southern Branch over Cal because they saw it as a more welcoming environment. A guarantee of housing for 4 years as opposed to only 1 at Cal is big factor. So is the high level of crime and filth in the area surrounding our campus. We can look to USC, which has done very well in attracting top students since the 1980's after cleaning up its surroundings and buying property to convert to student housing. There is a lot Cal can do to make itself more attractive, but the administration and faculty choose to live with an early 20th Century mindset. Quality of student life is an important factor when students (and families) choose among schools when applying and then again when selecting from those that offered admission. The presence of a competitive football team is one of those factors. I fear there is a good chance we may see the demise of football at Cal (other than intramurals) as we left with the unaffordable choice of MWC or independent. We will see applications and enrollment drop because the University of Chicago model is not attractive to everyone.socaltownie said:
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
1) FOr ALL students (white, brown, purple) 70% of them live south of the grapevine. UCLA is simply shooting in a target rich environment.
2) ON TOP OF THAT, hispanic students, which represent the fastest growing segment of the state's college aged population, have a proclivity to find colleges within a 1/2 day drive (or in some cases commuting distance) from their parents house.
These two factors, IMHO, have lead UCLA to be in higher demand for Cal. Nothing really more complicated than that. And it also helps explain why, for example, the CSUs north of about Fresno are in a world of hurt, missing enrollment targets while most in SoCal (with a couple of odd exceptions like Channel Island) are not.
Southern Branch undergraduates comprise 21% Hispanic, less than whites (26%) and Asian-Pacific Islander (35%). https://www.ucla.edu/about/facts-and-figures
Cal undergraduates comprise 23.8% Hispanic (higher than Southern Branch), compared to 23.8% white and 36% Asian. https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-california-berkeley/student-life/diversity/
Applicants god damm it. And read the first point about _all_ college age students. Can you read??
Your argument was Hispanics are in greater numbers in SoCal and want to stay closer to home, yet a higher percentage actually attend Cal over UCLA.
As I've said before, most top students who apply to Cal also apply to UCLA, knowing it is a bit of a crap shoot for both hoping to get into at least one, but there are many kids in SoCal of all races and ethnicities that apply to UCLA as their stretch school and don't even bother applying to Cal or Cal is not on their radar. The result is UCLA get more applications including from kids that end up at UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UCR, Cal State Long Beach, Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Dominguez Hills, Cal State Northridge, San Diego State, etc.
I agree that to some extent applicants avoid Cal because they think they will not be admitted. Harvard is likely the most prestigious university in the country but many highly qualified high school students who would love to attend don't bother to apply.calumnus said:socaltownie said:southseasbear said:Sorry, but it seems as if you are relying on conjecture and fabricated statistics.socaltownie said:Uggh. Are you being obtuse on purpose?southseasbear said:If the difference in rates of applications were due to the numbers of Hispanic students living in Southern California who desire to stay close to home, this might make sense, though all anyone needs to do is check a box to apply to another UC, and Cal still gets more applications than other UCs that would be close to home, i.e., Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. The fact is, I know many White students who chose Southern Branch over Cal because they saw it as a more welcoming environment. A guarantee of housing for 4 years as opposed to only 1 at Cal is big factor. So is the high level of crime and filth in the area surrounding our campus. We can look to USC, which has done very well in attracting top students since the 1980's after cleaning up its surroundings and buying property to convert to student housing. There is a lot Cal can do to make itself more attractive, but the administration and faculty choose to live with an early 20th Century mindset. Quality of student life is an important factor when students (and families) choose among schools when applying and then again when selecting from those that offered admission. The presence of a competitive football team is one of those factors. I fear there is a good chance we may see the demise of football at Cal (other than intramurals) as we left with the unaffordable choice of MWC or independent. We will see applications and enrollment drop because the University of Chicago model is not attractive to everyone.socaltownie said:
It was answered. Because of changes to the states demographics nearly 70 percent of college age adults live south of the grapevine and Hispanic college students are more likely to express a preference for living closer to family than no Hispanic students. This is extremely well documented and researched among college admission officers. This is neither rocket science nor football
1) FOr ALL students (white, brown, purple) 70% of them live south of the grapevine. UCLA is simply shooting in a target rich environment.
2) ON TOP OF THAT, hispanic students, which represent the fastest growing segment of the state's college aged population, have a proclivity to find colleges within a 1/2 day drive (or in some cases commuting distance) from their parents house.
These two factors, IMHO, have lead UCLA to be in higher demand for Cal. Nothing really more complicated than that. And it also helps explain why, for example, the CSUs north of about Fresno are in a world of hurt, missing enrollment targets while most in SoCal (with a couple of odd exceptions like Channel Island) are not.
Southern Branch undergraduates comprise 21% Hispanic, less than whites (26%) and Asian-Pacific Islander (35%). https://www.ucla.edu/about/facts-and-figures
Cal undergraduates comprise 23.8% Hispanic (higher than Southern Branch), compared to 23.8% white and 36% Asian. https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-california-berkeley/student-life/diversity/
Applicants god damm it. And read the first point about _all_ college age students. Can you read??
Your argument was Hispanics are in greater numbers in SoCal and want to stay closer to home, yet a higher percentage actually attend Cal over UCLA.
As I've said before, most top students who apply to Cal also apply to UCLA, knowing it is a bit of a crap shoot for both hoping to get into at least one, but there are many kids in SoCal of all races and ethnicities that apply to UCLA as their stretch school and don't even bother applying to Cal or Cal is not on their radar. The result is UCLA get more applications including from kids that end up at UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UCR, Cal State Long Beach, Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Dominguez Hills, Cal State Northridge, San Diego State, etc.
I've known many high school students over the past years from teaching in LAUSD, coaching youth sports, and knowing friends of my own children. Most cast a wide net in applying since all that is required is to check a box and pay $75 (which in many cases is reduced or waived).
I honestly do not understand the point that socaltownie is trying to make. If he didn't throw out insults but stuck to his points he message would be more comprehensible. I know there are students who prefer to stay close to home, but there are many (my own kids were an example) who desire the opposite. Saying that Hispanics prefer to stay close to home (without any cited authority) comes across as racist.
I didn't say socaltownie is racist. I don't know him. What I said that his generalization about Hispanic high school students wanting to stay close to home, without any documentation to support it, "comes across as racist."Bobodeluxe said:
concernedparent said:Does any of this make sense? For what reasons would the law school disfavor applicants from its own (well-regarded) undergrad?01Bear said:Rtkbear said:
I went to cal undergrad and for law school. There were a lot of students from cal at Berkeley law. Probably more than any other school.
I'm not saying Boalt (I refuse to call Cal's law school by any other name) won't accept Cal undergrad alumni whatsoever. Rather the bar is much higher for applicants who graduated from Cal's undergraduate programs than it is for applicants from other schools. In other words, if you went to Cal as an undergraduate and applied to Boalt but had the same GPA and LSAT scores as an applicant from another school (and assuming you're both otherwise qualified fir admissions at Boalt), the other applicant would be preferred over you. Of course, if you scored 180 on the LSAT and had a 4.0 GPA, Boalt would likely admit you (as would just about any other law school in the US). But if you're a borderline candidate (keep in mind, borderline candidates at Boalt still meet the stringent admissions requirements), a Cal undergraduate degree hurts your admissions chances at Boalt more than it helps. At least that's the understanding I have (and I've heard the same from many others in the legal field over the course of my career).*
*Actually, even dating back to when I applied for law school admissions.
Second, you sure have a strong opinion about the name of a school you didn't attend.
I don't pretend to understand the reasoning behind law school admissions. Similarly, I don't pretend to understand the reasoning behind undergraduate admissions. Based on my own admissions process, I know it's not just based on a review of applicants' GPAs and LSAT scores for the law schools. I also know that for undergraduate to admissions, there's more than just GPAs and standardized test scores. I'm merely repeating what I've heard and what I suspect to be true about Boalt and its admissions policies re Cal undergraduate alumni.
As for why I insist on applying the name Boalt, it's mainly a matter of preference. When Inwas an undergraduate, it was Boalt Hall. That's where I fantasized about attending. Berkeley Law isn't quite the same as Boalt Hall, much like how Cal isn't quite the same as Berkeley.
FWIW, I know why the name was changed from Boalt to Berkeley Law. As someone from the group John Boalt hated and oppressed, I would've lived even more to have been a Boalt alumnus specifically because of that. It'd be kind of like dancing on his grave, in a sense.
Even aside from that, whitewashing history by removing reminders of misdeeds by historical figures does no one any good. If anything, it might lead some people to romanticize or mythologize the "lost cause" of these great people, which could lead others into believing them because they don't know better. The upshot is future generations may end up repeating the same horrors. (Here's where I'd normally quote Santayana, but since this is a Cal board, I'm sure we're all familiar with that cliched quote.)
calumnus said:01Bear said:badger said:
There are many who see the value that big time football brings a university. Michigan and Wisconsin are two examples, they are relatively close to the academic tier of Cal, but both have great game day atmospheres and on the field success. Rankings and Nobel Prizes are important but students who work hard can be very successful going to schools that are perceived to be less prestigious. Many students want a holistic experience; highly thought of programs alongside an atmosphere that promotes spirit and pride in your school. We want a reason to come back to campus and football is very often that reason.
For most who don't go the PhD route, ten years post-graduation, if you are looking for a new job, is anyone going to really care if you went to Cal or Alabama? It will be about your work history and performance. That first job, sure being a Cal grad will make a difference, but thereafter, not so much. So, if I am a top student who wants fun football Saturdays, do I go to Cal, great school, bad football, or do I go to Michigan (and BTW I hate Michigan) and have nearly the same great education, yet also a great football team. Take it the next level, is it really that far a drop to Alabama, (Alabama is a Carnegie R1, the same as Cal); maybe, but maybe not. We are not talking about the difference between Cal and say Fresno State.
Commitment is what needs to be looked at. I think Cal's problem is leadership can't commit to one direction or the other, does the Cal leadership want to make a commitment to sports or do they want to go the U of Chicago way and give them up and go D3? They seem to be in that middle ground, not committing to having great football, but also refusing to give it up. To me a choice needs to be made, are you in or are you out?
I would prefer they make that commitment, perhaps the new chancellor will go the way Donna Shalala did when she became chancellor at Wisconsin in 1988. She saw the potential value of big time football and made a commitment, without negatively impacting the academics of the school. Prior to her taking over UW was much like Cal, a good season every once in a while, but for the most part the on the field performances in football and basketball were mediocre. That is now very different.
Even for those seeking to pursue higher education beyond the BA/BS, attending Cal as an undergraduate can have negative consequences. For instance, it's commonly mentioned (at least in law schools and legal circles) that Cal tends to decline applicants who graduated from Cal with a BA/BS whose applications are otherwise competitive with applicants who graduated from other universities.
If anything, this suggests that those seeking to go to Cal for law school (or really any graduate program) would be better served by going to another undergraduate program. In the long run, this means the quality of Cal undergraduates will diminish as those who wish to earn a graduate degree from Cal will opt to matriculate at other undergraduate universities. This, in turn, would make Cal less selective, further diminishing its standing in those rankings that take rejection rate and high school GPA into account*.
Beyond the fact that Cal graduate programs tend to reject otherwise qualified Cal alumni, there's also the level of competition amongst Cal undergraduates, which can negatively impact a Cal student's graduate school applications. Simply put, a Cal student who might otherwise be at the top of his class in a less challenging academic institution could find himself in the middle of the pack at Cal. While there are undoubtedly some truly big fish at Cal (even in the undergraduate ranks), most Cal students are no more than just biggish fish. Given that Cal professors grade on curves with (more or less) set numbers of As, Bs, and Cs, all those biggish fish students are competing with one another for the few A grades. Whereas, if the same biggish fish students attended a less challenging institution, they may more easily snap up the As needed to attend a competitive graduate school/program.
While it is a common truism that steel sharpens steel, most people use rocks to sharpen knives and other blades. It makes more sense for those with (for instance) medical school aspirations not to struggle at Cal for an A when it's easier to get the same grade at a school where there aren't as many equally bright and hard-working students fighting for a limited number of As. In other words, instead of sharpening oneself against other steel-level students, a long-term planning and ambitious student would seek to sharpen him/herself against rock-level students. All of this suggests that the years of Cal's undergraduate student body being the best and brightest may well be coming to an end, if it's not already over.
Anecdotally, I spoke with a younger cousin who is not interested in attending Cal, despite how much I tried to promote it to him. He's smart enough to know that he'd have to work harder to achieve the same grades at Cal as he would achieve at a less challenging school. While I tried to play up the first job angle, he also (rightly) pointed out that he won't be pursuing a job as a junior investment banker or any other such job immediately out of undergrad. Moreover, he plans to find a job in the local area, so it's not like he needs his undergrad university to carry the Cal cachet. Finally, it's undeniable that graduates of universities with prestigious academic reputations have also found great success in their chosen fields. So really, there's little incentive for him to matriculate at, let alone graduate from, Cal.
Based on this one datum point, even among some of those who do not seek a graduate degree, the potential rewards are simply not worth competing against other hard working and bright students. If this belief becomes widespread, it may not be long before the caliber of undergraduate students Cal attracts will be far below anything any of us alumni would ever have imagined.
*I would've included standardized test scores, but I'm unsure if they're even used in any rankings given the move from significant numbers of universities (including prestigious Cal) from requiring standardized test scores.
My niece is a senior in high school in San Diego. She has a 4.8 gpa and is set on being premed. She has visited most of the UC campuses, Stanford and privates back east and Cal is far and away her favorite. However, when she told her guidance councilor and a private "pre-med coach" that Cal was her favorite, both said "Absolutely not." They are telling her to forget about Cal and to not even apply even though it is just $75 and an extra checked box. Their belief is It is harder at Cal to get the grades you need to get into med school. I would think med schools know Cal is tough and take it into account, but I'm not pushing Cal because they are the experts and I don't want it to be my fault if she goes to Cal and doesn't get into med school. I think she may apply anyway.
I gave my brother the same advice (he was pre-law).
He ended up going to an Ivy and then HLS, so it worked out well for him.
I was pre-med, until I wasn't because I was getting smoked by the competition. Had high school friends at Davis who shared their exams with me and they were much easier with a nicer curve. Sometimes, it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than average at Cal.
I can offer some insight. I went to Berkeley Law and worked with the admissions office as part of recruiting. Law school admissions, at least in the last 10+ years when I attended, is largely driven by perceived prestige and reputation (US News rankings a good proxy for this) of the entering class. GPA/LSAT can affect rankings, or affect how firms recruit at schools, which in return affect job placements, which feed back into GPA/LSAT, and so on. At least with the top 14 law schools you can pretty closely predict which schools you will get into and the ballpark range of your merit scholarship just by GPA/LSAT alone. There is tons of data out there on this. Berkeley is one of the few (along with Yale and Stanford) that have the reputation of being a little bit more unpredictable and soft factor heavy, but by and large, you have the numbers, you have enough on your resume, you don't have any red flags, you get in.01Bear said:concernedparent said:Does any of this make sense? For what reasons would the law school disfavor applicants from its own (well-regarded) undergrad?01Bear said:Rtkbear said:
I went to cal undergrad and for law school. There were a lot of students from cal at Berkeley law. Probably more than any other school.
I'm not saying Boalt (I refuse to call Cal's law school by any other name) won't accept Cal undergrad alumni whatsoever. Rather the bar is much higher for applicants who graduated from Cal's undergraduate programs than it is for applicants from other schools. In other words, if you went to Cal as an undergraduate and applied to Boalt but had the same GPA and LSAT scores as an applicant from another school (and assuming you're both otherwise qualified fir admissions at Boalt), the other applicant would be preferred over you. Of course, if you scored 180 on the LSAT and had a 4.0 GPA, Boalt would likely admit you (as would just about any other law school in the US). But if you're a borderline candidate (keep in mind, borderline candidates at Boalt still meet the stringent admissions requirements), a Cal undergraduate degree hurts your admissions chances at Boalt more than it helps. At least that's the understanding I have (and I've heard the same from many others in the legal field over the course of my career).*
*Actually, even dating back to when I applied for law school admissions.
Second, you sure have a strong opinion about the name of a school you didn't attend.
I don't pretend to understand the reasoning behind law school admissions. Similarly, I don't pretend to understand the reasoning behind undergraduate admissions. Based on my own admissions process, I know it's not just based on a review of applicants' GPAs and LSAT scores for the law schools. I also know that for undergraduate to admissions, there's more than just GPAs and standardized test scores. I'm merely repeating what I've heard and what I suspect to be true about Boalt and its admissions policies re Cal undergraduate alumni.
As for why I insist on applying the name Boalt, it's mainly a matter of preference. When Inwas an undergraduate, it was Boalt Hall. That's where I fantasized about attending. Berkeley Law isn't quite the same as Boalt Hall, much like how Cal isn't quite the same as Berkeley.
FWIW, I know why the name was changed from Boalt to Berkeley Law. As someone from the group John Boalt hated and oppressed, I would've lived even more to have been a Boalt alumnus specifically because of that. It'd be kind of like dancing on his grave, in a sense.
Even aside from that, whitewashing history by removing reminders of misdeeds by historical figures does no one any good. If anything, it might lead some people to romanticize or mythologize the "lost cause" of these great people, which could lead others into believing them because they don't know better. The upshot is future generations may end up repeating the same horrors. (Here's where I'd normally quote Santayana, but since this is a Cal board, I'm sure we're all familiar with that cliched quote.)
Having exceptional "soft" factors such as impressive job or life experience can help because it increases the employability of the student (and the "potential" that that future alum might make a name for themselves, reflecting positively on the school). All stats and resumes being equal, an Ivy (or similar, such as Berkeley) undergrad carries more weight than say, a Cal State Long Beach degree.
Second, Berkeley Law has lagged behind its most immediate peers (Penn, UVA, and Michigan) in LSAT/GPA stats. The stats are often even lower than some of the schools generally grouped below it (Northwestern, Duke and Cornell). This in my opinion, is due largely to two factors: 1. Berkeley Law is not as generous with merit aid as other schools, 2. east coast bias of the profession... Berkeley Law students tend to self-select into CA jobs, and most of the "prestigious" jobs (top big law firms, DOJ, big non-profits) are NYC or DC based. If you're Eager Beaver student from Michigan with great stats and want to work in NYC, you'd likely favor the schools that have a stronger track record of placing students into NYC positions. I suspect point 2 is part of the reason Berkeley (and maybe Stanford) have the reputation of being more holistic in their review. They can fill a class that is still very appealing to employers despite having slightly lower numbers than their peers.
Now because GPA/LSAT is so closely tied to perceived reputation, the competition for students with high stats is fierce. It doesn't make sense to restrict your ability to compete for those applicants when you're already working with some disadvantages.
I've actually asked someone in admissions point blank if they disfavor Berkeley undergrads (because I was one) because I had also heard the rumor. Now maybe take their response with a grain of salt, but given the "logic" that drives law school admissions it makes sense. They said they don't hold a Cal degree against the applicant, but that undergrad institution does matter to some degree. Given where Berkeley sits versus all other schools in the nation, I'm inclined to think it helps more than most schools.
Re: The John Boalt thing, I'm not going to get into it, but majority of API students and alum don't share your view, and the only "Boalties" who I've come across who feel strongly about it have been White and over 50. Take that as you will.
Featured Stories
See All
Saturday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Establishes Dedicated Basketball Practice Facility
by Cal Athletics
Friday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
From Physicality to Bagels: Meet Cal's inside linebacker room
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Football Spring Game Set For April 18
by Cal Athletics