Cupcake Discussion

sakky · October 2, 2011, 2:28pm

As of 2004, Johnathan Wendel (aka “Fatal1ty”) is an American and at age 24 was already making well over $200k a year playing video games professionally. Granted, that’s not Peyton Manning money, but it’s still far more than what the overwhelming majority of Cal graduates will make when they’re 24 years old, or heck, at any time in their career. That’s more money than even most Cal football players will ever make in a year, as most of them will never make it to the NFL.

[“Fatality&#8221</a>; Makes Six Figure Salary Playing Games](<a href=“ComicBook.com”>ComicBook.com)

Well, if that is indeed what Berkeley and other universities are, then, frankly, they should abolish many of their lower-paying liberal arts majors.

It’s not just about legacy admissions, but also about ‘rich and privileged’ admissions. Let’s face it, Chelsea Clinton was admitted to HYPS despite being only a legacy at one of them (Yale) because she was the daughter of a President. The Gore children were legacy admits at Harvard, but I’m sure they could have gone to any other elite private school that they wanted. I’m sure all of us wish we had the same privileges.

And then of course you have rich people simply ‘buying’ seats for their children via donations. If you’re willing to donate an amount in, say, the 9 figures, I doubt that there’s a single school in the country who would reject your child. Heck, for that kind of money, they might just create an entirely new program within the school, and then admit your child to that program.

The upshot is that rich and privileged children enjoy advantages throughout life that the rest of us can only dream of ever having. The BCR’s point would have been more realistic (albeit muddled) had they sold cupcakes for different prices to different races, but also pointed out that some people are born with more money with which to buy said cupcakes than others are. Or maybe they could have sold an especially tasty cupcake for $1 million, and pointed out that only rich people will ever eat that cupcake.

The upshot is that rich and privileged children enjoy advantages that we can never dream of. The BCR’s cupcake sale would therefore have been more realistic (albeit more muddled) if they had sold cupcakes for different prices to different races, but then also conceded that some people are simply born with more money with which to buy said cupcakes than others are. Or they could have sold an especially tasty cupcake for $1million and pointed out that only rich people will ever be allowed to eat that cupcake.

But I understand that that was not that message of the BCR. The BCR’s agenda was to highlight a certain political issue, and they certainly did so. Good for them. Well played. That’s what a savvy politically-oriented student group is supposed to do. Maybe the Stanford College Republicans can now run a bakesale that highlights the issue of rich/privileged/legacy admissions.

caltanner · October 2, 2011, 7:24pm

That’s one guy. Estimates of the size of the sports industry in the US ranged from $44 to $73 billion in 2005.

No. Many of those liberal arts majors are funneled into graduate school for their respective fields, and academia is highly prestige-oriented. PhDs are “doctors” here, even if they don’t make too much. They become authorities on whatever it is they studied. That’s why I included prestige in addition to money.

sakky · October 2, 2011, 10:12pm

And what’s the estimate of the ‘size’ of the ‘industry’ of many liberal arts majors? See below.

The overwhelming majority of liberal arts majors, even at Cal, will not enter graduate school in their major, a point emphatically demonstrated in the career surveys. Let’s face it - most psychology majors are not going to become psychologists, most sociology majors are not going to be sociologists, most history majors are not going to be historians. Even those who might enter professional graduate school are in the distinct minority.

As a case in point, consider the outcome of the Cal English majors from 2003-2006. Most of them did not enter prestigious graduate programs or jobs. On the other hand, I do notice some of them becoming baristas at Starbucks, waitresses at local restaurants, front desk agents at the Hyatt, and even head cashiers at Barnes & Nobles (hey, at least it was a ‘head’ cashier, right?). I’m not entirely sure how they are compatible with the narrative that Cal attempts to funnel its graduate into prestigious positions - being a Starbucks barista doesn’t seem to be particularly prestigious. And let’s recall that this was during the time when the economy was actually strong.

<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/English.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major2006/English.stm</a>

What Cal could then do is institute impaction policies upon those liberal arts majors such that only the small fraction of students who is highly likely to continue to a top graduate school or a prestigious job will be admitted to the major. That would have the side-effect of eliminating many students from those majors, for, let’s face it - if you’re getting less than a 3.0 GPA, you’re not going to garner admission to a top graduate school or an offer for a high-end job.

The truth of the matter is that many (probably most) students at Cal are not really going to obtain great jobs or graduate school placements. Many of them will find themselves stuck in mediocre positions. If Cal truly cared about prestige, then they would admit far fewer students than they do, and prepare the ones that they do admit to compete for strong careers: not unlike what HYPSM do now with their students.

caltanner · October 2, 2011, 10:47pm

Let’s face it - Cal doesn’t care about the English majors who becomes baristas, but only the ones that go on to prestigious PhD programs and/or who become famous. Cal never forgets to make sure people know that “the guy who caught the S&P budget error came from Cal”, etc.

Don’t look at where the students end up, but focus on what programs Cal and other schools offer, because we’re looking for intentions, not results. The programs offered happen to coincide with the money-making or prestige-earning sectors of society, regardless of how terribly some kids perform. The best kids in any sector (liberal arts, engineering, athletics…) will be “funneled” into the next step of the money/prestige game while carrying the name of their Alma Mater.

But big public school has to deal with a huge undergraduate population.
Cal has to meet the demands of their admissions goals (admit lots of people) while also keeping the school in the money/prestige game, as best they can. So some majors are allowed to remain lax. Let’s face it - if Cal impacted every major, some kids wouldn’t have anything left to choose. Cal is balancing two goals at once. Lots of people + resulting prestige successes.

Today, most colleges offer programs that coincide with the prestige and/or money circles of our society. That says a lot. Yes, elite colleges have the luxury of ultra selectivity. But, let’s face it - others maintain programs that tolerate deep lower-bounds to soak those they don’t particularly care about, but who they cater to nonetheless, to cope with what they’re forced to (practices of the admissions office), or because, let’s face it - they make money in the process (even though they’re “not for profit”).

caltanner · October 3, 2011, 12:19am

Wrong metric… For academia, we’re talking about prestige and clout, not money, remember? Berkeley is engaged in competing with other universities for academic bragging rights, because being highly regarded benefits the institution.

And what’s with the long-winded examples which bare little relevance to the topic we’re debating? You wrote four paragraphs about how many english majors from berkeley will not succeed. That has nothing to do with whether or not these “academic institutions” are actually just trying to funnel top kids into their respective prestige/money sectors of society with the school’s brand name attached. Your argument just showed that they’re not very good at it.

anon23806243 · October 3, 2011, 1:10pm

Caltanner, you can keep your debate going on, or you just admit to defeat to Sakky now instead of later. Whenever you get in a CC debate with Sakky the overwhelming odds are, you will lose the debate.

flutterfly_28 · October 3, 2011, 2:02pm

More like everyone will assume you lost the debate.

Might as well stop trying though. Sakky will have a 15 paragraph reply full of “evidence” no matter what you post so you’ll never get to have the last word anyway.

caltanner · October 3, 2011, 2:21pm

Well, hopefully readers will be astute enough to see through sakky’s 15 paragraph replies and recognize that “academic institutions” have become more than pure towers of learning for the good of mankind. They’re businesses where prestige and money matter, and those factors determine the programs they offer. I have no idea why we’re even debating this.

flutterfly_28 · October 3, 2011, 3:14pm

Yeah don’t worry, this happens pretty regularly.

Just kind of sucks to see threads with actual interesting discussions (affirmative action/cupcake sale in this case) being taken over by sakky and turned into irrelevant debates that no one really cares to read through or comment on.

anon23806243 · October 3, 2011, 7:19pm

This is actually not true. For-profit schools are businesses. Non-profit schools aren’t. Most legitimate schools are non-profit (e.g., the University of Phoenix is not legit)

ucbalumnus · October 3, 2011, 8:10pm

Non-profit organizations (schools or otherwise) still have to pay attention to finances, since they have to avoid losing money over the long term (they go bankrupt if they do). Non-profit universities that have made “profits” in the past (from tuition, donations, research grants, investment income, government funding for public universities, etc.) may have large endowments to show for it.

Both for-profit and non-profit organizations can, of course, fall victim to management that put its its own interests ahead of the organizations’ interests.

caltanner · October 3, 2011, 8:15pm

No, they’re definitely businesses.

I acknowledged earlier that these institutions are non-profit, and money is reinvested into the institution. But the essence of a “business” is the incentive to make money, and there’s lots of that in these non-profit businesses. Realize that professors at reputable institutions are paid lots of money for their advice, especially if they work at ultra-elite schools. Wealthy alumni will also donate money to the school, benefiting the students who spend a few years there, but especially those who remain (administrators, professors, etc) with new facilities, mowed lawns, and higher salaries. Academics and professors coming from the “best” schools are always able to secure high-profile and/or high-paying jobs because their University was rich and powerful. Why would schools like Harvard and Stanford need endowments of over $15 billion dollars each, along with investments in Hedge Funds and Goldman Sachs. Don’t be so naive; there are plenty of money incentives. They’re structured differently and it’s a bit indirect but in the end, the goal is to run your University like a business, and to strengthen the brand. It’s not necessarily a bad thing at all.

entomom · October 4, 2011, 2:00am

Michel Martin says “Berkeley Bakes Cupcakes But No Fresh Ideas”:

[Berkeley</a> Bakes Cupcakes But No Fresh Ideas : NPR](<a href=“Berkeley Bakes Cupcakes But No Fresh Ideas : NPR”>Berkeley Bakes Cupcakes But No Fresh Ideas : NPR)

flutterfly_28 · October 5, 2011, 10:10pm

[The</a> unfree speech movement - Race - Salon.com](<a href=“http://news.salon.com/2011/10/05/the_unfree_speech_movement/]The”>http://news.salon.com/2011/10/05/the_unfree_speech_movement/)

KeelyMK · October 6, 2011, 12:49am

Oh btw there will be a discussion/debate tmw night (Thursday 10/6) in VLSB 2040 from 7-830 to talk about SB 185. Come if you can make it!

sakky · October 7, 2011, 5:25pm

How is it the wrong metric? Having your graduates end up at Starbucks is not exactly helping your prestige ‘brand’, no matter how you slice it. As an example, Burberry as a fashion brand was rightfully horrified when they became associated with underclass British teens.

Um, seems to me that the discussion is entirely relevant, because ‘trying’ to do something ought to inherently mean that you should be striving to do it well. Otherwise, you’re not really trying. For example, I could say that I am ‘trying’ to win the Nobel Peace Prize, I’m just not doing it well.

The bottom line is that if Berkeley was truly ‘trying’ to enhance its prestige and brand, then they would presumably be trying to help more of their graduates attain high-status jobs. Not becoming cashiers or waitresses. {Note, I have nothing against people working as cashiers or waitresses, I am simply stating the ineluctable fact that such jobs are unprestigious.}

I said it before and I’ll say it again, if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them. If you don’t want to discuss any of the points I made, then don’t. Nobody has a gun to your head.

What I find deeply ironic is that people will read through and comment upon my posts, by saying that they are not worth reading through and commenting upon. Um, what’s wrong with this picture? Seems to me that if you really thought that my posts weren’t worth reading and commenting upon, then you wouldn’t do so.

sakky · October 7, 2011, 5:29pm

I don’t think anybody is debating this, at least with regards to the broad outlines.

But since we now agree (and in fact, never disagreed) that universities are not pure bastions of learning, then it should not be surprising that they might choose to run admissions in a purely academically meritocratic manner and therefore might indeed implement race-based admissions policies…along with admissions policies that favor athletes of certain sports as well as legacies and rich privileged families. That obviously doesn’t make it ‘right’, but it does mean that we can then understand the motivations of the university.

m3csl1994 · October 7, 2011, 10:47pm

Comparing the BCR guy to Vishali Loomba on NPR, the obvious edge goes to the cupcake guys.

The lack of diversity of thought at Berkeley is reprehensible. It’s too bad the administration leans so far left, actively. Turns off many, many people who could otherwise be helping the school financially.

adfddasfgad · October 9, 2011, 8:29pm

It’s over. And now it’s time to move on.

[SB</a> 185 Vetoed: Jerry Brown Vetoes Affirmative Action-Like Bill](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>SB 185 Vetoed: Jerry Brown Vetoes Affirmative Action-Like Bill | HuffPost San Francisco)

Cupcake Discussion

CONNECT WITH US