BearGoggles said:
OaktownBear said:
Cal84 said:
concernedparent said:
GrandpaBear said:
This is one of those things that drives me crazy. The State of California keeps reducing its support of the University but gets upset when an alum gives support and wants some recognition. I've given several thousand dollars to Cal, both academic and athletic, but when my qualified sons who bleed Blue and Gold applied they were turned down and ended up at U of Arizona. It's one thing to let in unqualified applicants solely because they have money, but giving a few extra "bonus points" to children of supportive parents in the admission process should be OK. I support giving underprivileged or minority applicants the opportunity to attend the greatest University in the world, but why does that have to mean turning it's back on loyal alumni?
So you're saying you don't want to fully buy admission, just partially buy it.
Therein lies the problem. There are thousands of affluent families in CA that would be more than willing to throw in a few grand to move their kid over the tipping point to admission to Berkeley. Letting all those kids in would basically move your chance to admission to zero for working class families.
This is why I am only in favor of allow donations to influence admission if it harms no other applicants. In other words the donation must be enough for Berkeley to increase its undergraduate student body by 1 for say 5 years. In other words out of state tuition x5, plus say a 25% gratuity. And such admits then get the lowest possible priority for freshman housing. Also need to have a prerequisite of admission to another UC campus to avoid overly diluting the competitive level of incoming freshman. This is the only way Berkeley can
1) fully benefit from alumni donations
2) allow the building of long term (intergenerational) loyalty
3) not harm those unable to make sizeable donations
IMO, what you say is a reasonable way of going about doing an unreasonable thing. There are plenty of private schools people can buy their way into.
I think it is a travesty that the state funding has been cut so much. However, it is still a public university. If Cal wants to stop accepting state money AND buy all the land and assets from the state needed to run the university, they can start selling to the highest bidder.
And some of you need to consider the fact that many of Cal's donations are based on the fact that it is a public school that isn't supposed to cater to the uber wealthy and that those donations will take a hit if Cal decides to act like a private school.
Try donating because it is a good cause. Donate because you believe in Cal's mission. Donate because of the experience you had. Not quid pro quo. I don't expect any more than fairness for my kids. I got into Cal on merit. My kids can too. And if they have to go somewhere else, they will be fine. They can make their own way. I'm sorry, but a lot of our alums need to come to grips with the fact that college admissions is a lot more competitive now, and for many of you, what you achieved in high School wouldn't get you into UCSD, let alone Cal. If you are going into the college admissions process with your heart set on any one school, no matter what your metrics are, you are likely to be disappointed.
You're describing the world as you want it to be, not as it is. At this point, Cal is arguably a public university in name only. The lack of state funding makes this so.
At the same time, Cal has (and has historically had) one of the lowest alumni donor participating rates of top 20 ranked major university. Many schools have rates in the 40-50% range. Cal is around 8%. We can debate why this is - but ultimately it doesn't matter. Again - this is just the reality.
https://www.academia.org/cal-berkeley-misreported-alumni-donation-data-to-u-s-news-for-annual-rankings/
I agree with your "donate because its a good cause" mantra. Most people on this board probably do as well. However, its is very clear that only 8% of our fellow alumni feel that way. Are you going to keep pissing in the wind and expect the other 92% to change?
Either Cal adapts to the reality of its situation - that it needs to find a better way to fundraise - or the so called "public" university will continue to raise tuition to the point that the costs are beyond most students reach - thereby defeating the public mission. Arguably that's already happened - the in-state annual cost of attendance at Cal is around $40,000.
Already Cal (and other UC and Cal State schools) are a questionable value proposition when you consider the current costs and the fact that many public school students have a hard time getting classes and graduating in 4 years (e.g., impacted majors).
Michigan has a model where alumni/donor history is one relatively small factor taken into account in their application process. They are open about it - just like they (and Cal) are open about giving preferences to students who would be the first in their family to attend college, etc.
I think we would agree that Cal's ultimate mission is to remain accessible to the "public." That mission is potentially best served by offering admissions preference to alumni on a limited basis like the Michigan model and by reserving 25-50 admissions per year for VIP donors.
I have to respond to a couple of points.
1. There is no metric where a UC education is close to a questionable value. And this is a different question, but UC in state tuition is not out of line with comparable institutions.
2. I am very upset with the state's lack of funding. But the argument that gives us an excuse to act like a private School doesn't wash or that the state should have limited say. It is a great talking point for alums to grumble about, but it ignores the assets owned by the state. Add the cost of leasing those assets, and no the state contribution is not minimal and we aren't close to private.
3. So it is great to say we sell off a few slots and then we can add more slots for less affluent kids or that we can use the money for scholarships. Only that isn't what happens. Under the scheme the other poster devised, (Out of state tuition + 25%, I assume multiplied by 4) which sounds great and reasonable the way he presents it, and then taking the ridiculously high number of selling 50 slots that way, you earn a whopping $17 million dollars. That is a rounding error on a budget of several billion dollars. Seriously? That is what we are going to ***** ourselves out for? Not to mention, some of that money was going to be donated anyway. We are not talking about money that will improve the lot of the universities.
How about we lobby the state for a tiny increase in fees to cover this. Or, recognize that this discovery actually burns good will in Sacramento and threatens funding cuts easily more than it is bringing in.
4. The assumption that other schools do this because it brings in loads of money ignores another, more obvious possibility. Powerful people get what they want. Harvard has an endowment that can fund tuition for every student several times over on the interest. They don't do legacies because they need the money. The numbers public schools are earning on this are absolute chump change.
5. You guys keep ignoring the fact that this was not just for donors. In one case it was a favor to a regent. In many cases it was favors to staff on behalf of their kids or their friends. No value to the university whatsoever. These are people using their position to get special treatment. This isn't even as good as a quid pro quo. Ain't getting no quo for the quid. Each one should be fired. The regent, who specifically broke the rules should be removed. It should be made very clear to those would help such people in the future, whether it was out of expectation of reciprocity, fear of a boss, or because they liked them that doing this means instant termination.
But that is the thing. We act like these cases are a guy builds a library and so this process is benefiting everyone. That's all good. I might agree at that point even if I don't like it. But that guy is rare. Most of these cases are not that. This is just the same old people with connections shmoozing the right people and others not wanting to tick off a regent or a dean or a powerful administrator or a rich friend of somebody important who you know might go all Karen on the situation.
And besides, whatever programs other schools have, they are transparent. Cal lied and did this under the table. And by doing so, they are being covered by every news organization. Whatever money we got for this, if we got any, was it worth the hit to our reputation?
Edit to add: I want to be clear on this. I assume that if a Haas or a Witter or a Hearst is up for admission, we find a way. I would say non story for that. We do not have 25-50 donors a year with kids trying to get in worthy of handing those admissions out. More like 1 or 2 every few years. Top ten donor, sure. A couple hundred grand, pass. STAFF?!?!?! Hard pass. You get a pink slip for even asking and that includes up to Christ.
. 