<p>Uh, no see above regarding my “Dad-landlord” example. I think that should make the situation clear. Cal is “paying” for those financial aid students no matter what, whether they choose to live in dorms or not. But Cal doesn’t “pay extra” for those students to live in dorms. Those students are not double-dipping. It’s not like you get extra financial aid just because you live in a dorm. Whatever aid you get is what you get, and you decide where you want to spend it. If you want to pay a landlord, you do so. If you want to pay it right back to Cal by living in a dorm, you can do that. But you don’t get two bites of the apple. </p>
<p>For YOUR situation to hold, those people who are on financial aid would have to be receiving extra subsidies just because they live in dorms. This does not happen. They are receiving nothing extra. Or, to follow my Dad-landlord example, Dad would have to be giving me $1000 a month AND letting me live in his apartment for free (or, at least, for less than some other tenant would pay). That would indeed be an extra subsidy, but that is not what is happening.</p>
<p>Where does my situation imply that? Okay since your still not getting what I have been trying to explain can you answer me this…How does Cal recoop the millions for buying new property like the other landowners in Berkeley do, or actually don’t because of the current real estate market?</p>
<p>I said it before, I’ll say it again, Cal always has an advantage over private landlords in that it can present a unified CARS bill to you and, if necessary, withhold student services and even prevent you from registering or even withhold your degree if you don’t pay your bills. Contrast that with what happens with a private landlord. If you’re a student who skips paying rent, you can still register for classes. You can still graduate. And if you do and then skip town, welshing on your bill, the landlord has no recourse. What is he going to do? You already got your diploma, so what do you care? </p>
<p>Hence, Cal faces a significantly lower risk of “foreclosure” simply because Cal has an additional hammer with which to extract unpaid rent. </p>
<p>Speaking of foreclosures, like I said, isn’t when numerous foreclosures are occurring precisely the time when you should purchase real estate? After all, that’s precisely the time when those properties are available at a discount. It’s certainly a heck of a lot better than purchasing those properties at the peak of a bull market.</p>
<p>Then you tell me how Cal loses more money by having financial-aided students living in dorms. Cal is going to lose money on those students no matter what. But it doesn’t lose more by having them live in dorms. </p>
<p>Now, what you seem to be implying is that Cal loses money on *all * of its dorm-resident students, whether those students are on financial aid or not. But that is an entirely different discussion. However, what is emphatically clear is that Cal doesn’t lose any additional money just by having financially-aided students living in dorms, as opposed to non-aided students living in dorms. </p>
<p>To extend my Dad-landlord analogy, maybe Dad is actually losing money on all his apartments. I.e. maybe he’s charging $1000 a month for an apartment that actually costs $1500 a month, hence, he’s losing $500 a month. But he would be losing that whether I live there, or whether somebody else lives there. Hence, the fact that he is giving me an allowance of $1000 a month to live wherever I want (whether in his apartment or elsewhere) doesn’t change the fact that he will always lose $500 a month on his apartment. But that is an entirely separate matter from where I choose to live. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above. Cal not only has a captive market of students, but can also force those students to settle unpaid bills in a way that private landlords never could. A private landlord can’t prevent you from registering for classes or from graduating. But Cal can.</p>
<p>And besides, I think it has been stated in various threads on CC that the dorm prices are probably significantly higher than comparable private room/board. I have heard many people state that they want to move out of the dorms and into private housing to save money, but I have never of anybody saying they want to move out of private housing and into a dorm in order to save money. What that means is that Cal is almost certainly not losing money on its dorms, if anything it is almost certainly making money, or at least, doing better than are private landlords. Now, again, certainly Cal is losing money on financial aid, but that’s a separate matter, just like how Dad giving me a $1000 monthly allowance is a separate matter from whether he is making or losing money on his apartments.</p>
<p>Come on now, all you used is a generalized view of how bureaucracies always expand…yet somehow Cambridge and Oxford “resist.” </p>
<p>
[
Yes impaction is not good, but its also a function of demand. You act as though the administration wanted to impact these majors. Do you think that Cal wouldn’t resolve this if it had the resources to expand these majors. Again I have been arguing the whole time Cal was pressured by the state to expand, the very little it did, because of the states leveredge regarding funding. If Berkeley were to build an endowment and not be dependent on the state what would its leveredge be? I said not much. You said property but that didn’t pan out because UC regents has the title, I have posted numerous bylaws showing UC is autonomous from the legislature and political influence, and shown that its structure is basically the same as stanfords, except with regards to appointment to the Board of Regents…and I’ve already spoken to that in a previous post. I also don’t understand your L&S/administration argument. Both probably decided on impaction although they probably didn’t wished they didn’t have to. It’s not Berkeley’s administration causing impaction/academic problems, it’s the state and its power through funding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With the overwhelming demand for property in the city and the limited supply, you really don’t think if Cal starts buying up properties in the city, making it even more limited which would further exclude low income, that the Berkeley city council won’t have anything to say about it. Berkeley can’t even build on land its own for decades how can you really expect the city council not make life a living hell. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would have no problem with Cal buying up properties and then selling them again for a profit. But you are saying Cal is going to buy properties and use them as dorms…which I have argued in not economical. Yes, right now where going through a bust, but no one knows when it will end and prices will stop falling. Even after the bust I the land in the bay area will go down from outrageously expensive to expensive. If buying up land was such a great idea, I’m sure those in charge of the endowment would do so…but only on a speculatory basis and not for student dorms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you think Berkeley/UCLA are any different from Cambridge/Oxford. Are there no people in Britain who wish there kids could attend those two universities. If your kid doesn’t qualify then they don’t qualify. I think most people in CA understand this. And again the argument has been what could the state do if it didn’t have leveredge through funding? I haven’t seen any other ways they can force Berkeley to expand.</p>
<p>What bills are you referring to if Cal basically is giving these students free board through financial aid. Again how does Cal recoop the costs of buying all this new land? Tuition and fees?..Cal is having problems funding the school itself right now. It’s not going to use this the money generated from tuiton/fees to pay back the costs of buying land. How does Cal generate revenue from these new dorms to pay back the costs of buying the land?</p>
<p>I only remember one university you used…Harvard. I have proven to you that Harvard’s situation is very different from Berkeley’s. You have a tendency to take one situation, say Harvard’s expansion, and generalize it to Berkeley. I have provided numerous links to show you how Berkeley’s situation makes expansion highly improbable. Your example of the law school does not pan out. You never did answer why if its so beneficial for the law school to move to Oakland, why Harvard wouldn’t move its law school to Boston, a much larger legal hub than Oakland. There must be some benefit to having it on campus. The law school right now is close to libraries and the vast resources of the Berkeley campus. Plus your argument isn’t based on reality. Right now Berkeley is doing the exact opposite of what your hypothesizing… I have already provided links to prove this and that’s why I think its extremely improbable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never said Berkeley didn’t break the original master plan, and is breaking it today. What I have said is that once Berkeley gets the resources to not be dependent on the state for funding it would be able to be more autonomous and maybe able to decrease enrollment. You have said Berkeley will always expand…yet have provided no evidence showing that the state has any power over Berkeley except funding…which is why it expanded in the first place. In this post I was referring your belief of enormous politcal pressure on Berkeley to expand, but even when applications have increased 100% since 1990 and Berkeley is still very dependent on the state for funds, it has only increaed by 1600. I think this shows the school is at max capacity and cannot expand anymore. Wouldn’t you think Berkeley would expand at a rate closer to the rate of demand if it could? It’s not even close to the rate of demand and isn’t going to expand through 2020.</p>
<p>Have they? Really? Actually, Oxbridge are significantly larger universities than they were in the past. Both of them continue to add programs. For example, both of them have recently added business schools. </p>
<p>Consider this:</p>
<p>“In the academic year 2003-2004 the University [of Oxford] supported a student population of 17,664”</p>
<p>Hence, seems to me that Oxford has grown by nearly 1000 students in just 4 years. Tell me again how Oxford has resisted growth? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, that’s the point. Things happen whether the administration wants them to or not, whether the administration plans for them or not. Hence, even if the administration doesn’t “want” Cal to grow doesn’t mean that it won’t happen. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I have shown numerous times that you are wrong. Again, I ask, can the Regents just give away the title to Cal for free? After all, I can give away the title to my car for free. Since we know that the Regents can’t do that, then it is clear that the Regents don’t truly hold title, now do they? If they tried, there would be a gigantic course case surely to follow. But if I give away my car, nobody will care and certainly the state won’t try to block me. That’s the difference between true ownership and whatever you want to call the relationship between the Regents and Cal. Whatever it is, it isn’t ownership. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe that Cal will ever choose to forgo state money, regardless of how large its endowment is. Cal likes that money. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My argument of L&S and the administration simply demonstrates that things happen regardless of whether the administration wishes them to happen. In fact, it demonstrates the strength of the bureaucracy in defying the will of the top administrators. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? Like I said, I strongly suspect (as do others) that CAl actually overcharges for dorms, relative to private housing. Why, after all, do you never hear of people trying to get into the dorms in order to “save money”? If anything, the opposite occurs: people generally move to private apartments in order to save money. What that means is that Cal actually charges *more<a href=“for%20comparable%20rooms”>/i</a> than landlords do. Therefore, who is actually making more profit from housing: Cal, or landlords? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, right now where going through a bust, but no one knows when it will end and prices will stop falling. Even after the bust I the land in the bay area will go down from outrageously expensive to expensive. If buying up land was such a great idea, I’m sure those in charge of the endowment would do so…but only on a speculatory basis and not for student dorms. *</p>
<p>Are you referring to the same geniuses in charge of the endowment that have actually overseen endogenous investment growth that has actually lagged that of many other top universities? Note, I’m not talking about new contributions. I’m simply talking about the rate of return on the existing endowment. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And people in the UK complain vociferously about this also. Maybe you should read some of the British news, and in particular, some of former PM Blair’s higher educational reforms where he had to address precisely this issue. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, so many other ways. I have only named a few. The state could revoke research grants (just like how John Edwards once famously threatened to withhold Federal research funds to private universities like Harvard if they continued to implement legacy admissions) . The state could even potentially threaten to revoke Cal’s state-tax-exempt status. Believe me, the state has a lot of weapons in its arsenal.</p>
<p>Exactly - it is giving them free board in lieu of a check. In other words, these students are not getting free board and also extra money. They are just getting free board.</p>
<p>Look, I know several students who got a lot of financial aid. When they lived in the dorms, they didn’t get any of that money directly. Instead, that money was simply deducted from their CARS (dorm) bill. But when they moved out of the dorms, NOW they received periodic checks. But they were also responsible for paying their entire rent. But at the end of the day, the cost is the same to Cal.</p>
<p>Again, whether Dad gives me $1000 a month, or just gives me a free apartment, the cost is the same to him. But Dad is not giving me $1000 a month AND a free apartment. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you like more? How about MIT? MIT actually once moved its entire main campus from Boston to Cambridge. MIT even used to be called “Boston Tech”. Even so, it didn’t move everything: some properties still remained in Boston. But why did MIT make that move? Simple. Because it was expanding. It had outgrown its Boston location, so it decided to move to someplace where it could grow. </p>
<p>How about Stanford, specifically the School of Medicine? That actually used to be in San Francisco, and was there for the *entire first half of its history. *</p>
<p>How about Columbia University? You think it was always in Morningside Heights? Au contraire: in fact, Columbia used to be at several other locations in NYC previous to its present location, including in Park Place for many decades. Moving around in NYC ain’t no joke - not only was the city absolutely packed (even in those earlier days, it was by far the most populous city in the US) but Manhattan real estate prices are obscenely expensive. But Columbia managed to relocate itself several times. </p>
<p>How about Duke? Duke actually has three separate campuses scattered around Durham. The main campus is not even the original campus. Many (probably most) students get around the various campuses via shuttle.</p>
<p>Hence, you now have numerous examples of individual schools or even entire universities being moved around in order to expand, or universities creating multiple campuses. If that can happen, why is it so outrageous that Cal could one day do the same? Is that really completely outside of the realm of possibility? As a point of reference, I never thought it would be possible that Mass Communications would actually be an impacted major. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, because HLS is extremely well connected to Boston by subway. The Porter Square T stop is right there next to the law school. </p>
<p>But more importantly, Harvard is not under the pressure to continually expand in the way that Cal evidently is. Hence, Harvard doesn’t need to think creatively in terms of moving programs out of the city in the way that Cal does. What is driving Cal is the *constant pressure to expand the student population *that you discussed in post #1 of this thread. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this is like gaining 5 pounds when you had originally promised to lose 10. That indeed shows that there is indeed enormous political pressure to expand Cal and certainly for Cal to not decrease its population, in direct contradiction to what the Master Plan stipulates. </p>
<p>In other words, the voters don’t care about the Master Plan. They just want Cal to expand. Never mind that Cal is already violating the Master Plan and needs to shrink in order to conform to the Master Plan. They still want Cal to expand anyway, Master Plan be damned. Expand expand expand, ad-infinitum. That is, sadly, the pressure that Cal faces. I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true.</p>
<p>Wikipedia is never a good source, but either way you just stated they added business schools, we are talking about increase UG. In response to me stating this earlier you yourself said some institutions are able to resist. Again oxford and Cambridges combined UG equals Berkeley’s while they are in a country with a population of over 60 million compared to CA’s 37 million. It appears to me that they have been able to resist quite effectively. Why do you feel Berkeley can’t do the same, especially with all the logistical problems I have provided proving Berkeley can’t expand?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>how can you say that if Berkeley’s endowment grows making it not dependent on state funding. Berkeley increased to appease the state and avoid threat of state funds being taken away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, no you haven’t. You’ve molded your own definition of ownership based on something that would never happen at any university. You never answered my question do you think Stanford or Harvard can give away land…why wouldn’t there be the same legal stipulations for them? Do those universities according to your definition not own their respective campuses because they can’t give away land. If you find proof that they can please inform me. You clearly had no clue how UC is set up which is why you assumed the state had legal title…but it doesn’t. I can do nothing more to convince you that UC owns the land other than what I have already done… looked up the BYLAWS of UC. You then said UC Regents are nothing more than trustees, but what do you think of the Stanford Board of Trustees. How is UC’s organization any different than Stanford except for the fact it is state funded and UC Regents are picked differently. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The state will never cut total funding to Cal as long as it is the state’s top public university, is 80 plus percent California resident, and provides research that shapes the states economy. But what I have been arguing the whole time that maybe the state says we’ll cut 20 million a year because you decreased in size, if Berkeley has an endowment that easily covers that how can else can the state influence Berkeley. Plus right now the state only provides around 35% of the budget and has been decreasing that amount for years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly my point. Cal right now has to charge 11,000 a year to stay in the dorms, do you think they would charge less if they have to spend millions buying land or apartments and then building/renovation? It just won’t happen. Plus a large portion don’t end up paying 11,000 a year, Cal basically subsidizes them, thus Cal will recoop even less of the costs they spent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with my point, you can attack Berkeley’s investment team, I agree with you there, but you didn’t disprove my point that Berkeley won’t buy land/apartments to house students then sell it eventually to make a profit. It just isn’t going to be profitable right now or even in the next 20 years, especially if they are losing money becase they aren’t recooping the costs they spent on buying the land through those students living there. Berkeley’s difference in cost for dorms actually confirms my point Berkeley is not in the same position as the landowners in Berkeley.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never heard of major outcry over these two universities enrollments. It appears to me that even when these two universities are dependent on the British gov’t for funds that they have kept their UG populations stable at half the size of Berkeley’s UG. Honestly, I really think your exaggerating the public outcry regarding these universities in both CA and UK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, most of the research funds come from federal sources. Second, you use Harvard, but again that is a private institution with outrageous wealth, and John Edwards threatened, but did it actually occur? Cutting research from Berkeley will not be easy at the federal level because of the importance of the research that goes on at Berkeley on the national scale. The state will never be able to cut Berkeley’s tax exempt status if it is 80% California residents. There will be more of a public outcry regarding that than any possible outcry due to Berkeley not expanding or decreasing. Last, you provide no proof that the state could actually do such a thing.</p>
<p>Yesterday, 10:48 PM #129 </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand how any of this relates to my original statement that you disagreed with. My point again is that it isn’t economical for Cal to buy up land if it can’t recoop the costs through student housing if they are also subsidizing these students. Again how will Cal recoop the costs of buying Bay Area land at premium prices like local landowners do, or don’t right now in this real estate market. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL! MIT has been at its current location for almost 100 years… how can you use MIT’s move to demonstrate how Berkeley expand today? Things are quite different today than back then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t this the opposite of what you are suggesting Berkeley could do. Stanford consolidated versus branching out. Also hasn’t the school, which is on Stanford property, been there for fifty years. The bay area wasn’t quite as expensive back then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you provide me some dates on when these movements occurred because I like using the realities of 2008 when I look at whether it is possible for Berkeley to expand, which I have provided evidence it can’t. Duke’s campuses are not scattered around durham, there right next to one another and adjoin each other.</p>
<p>You say HLS is very well connected to Boston and it is, so why wouldn’t that be more of an incentive to move to downtown Boston if being in a legal center is as beneficial as you act. </p>
<p>Also Cal’s only reason to be pressured is the fact it depends on state funding, my original point is that with an endowment the state will have little leveredge over the university. You still haven’t provided any factual evidence to prove me wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It appears to me that whatever pressure Cal has, even when dependent on state funding, it is no longer expanding because it is at max capacity. Plus I just don’t see this public outcry you talk about. The legislature and the voters have no direct influence over UC. The state has funding leveredge but once Cal is not dependent on state funds what could the state do. Please provide evidence showing me what the state could do. Even with the pressure by the state now, which I agree there might be, and Cal’s dependence on the state, Cal has only expanded 10% in the past twenty years and won’t be growing any more till 2020. How can you tell me that Cal will still feel pressure to expand when it is no longer dependent on the state for funds?</p>
<p>This is very strange argument you are making here. On the one hand, you decried * in your very first post* that Cal continues to expand its undergraduate program. Now, you are apparently expressing confidence that Cal won’t expand its undergrad program. </p>
<p>Sofla, history is on my side. I wish it wasn’t on my side, but it is. Like it or not, Cal has never been able to resist the pressure to expand before, so what makes you so confident that they will do so now? You keep saying that, well, Cal will be able to resist once it has more money, but again, what is the proof of that? It’s like watching an alcoholic promise that one more drink will be his last because tomorrow he will have money and hence tomorrow, he will be able to afford to check himself into rehab. Do you really believe it? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I am not convinced that the two are connected. For example, I am not convinced that Cal will actually use its endowment to cut ties to the state. What is more likely to happen is (unfortunately) that Cal will continue to grow its endowment, and still take state funding anyway. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Cal has actually grown its endowment quite significantly in the last decade or so, which ostensibly would mean that Cal could have become less dependent on the state during that time. But has that endowment growth stopped the growth of the UG population? Not really. You said it yourself: Cal has recently agreed to bring in yet another 1600 undergrads. In other words, as Cal has grown its endowment it has ALSO increased its undergrad population. Now, what makes you think that that won’t continue? A growing endowment has never stopped Cal’s population growth before, so why would it stop the population growth now? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, I never compared Cal to Stanford or Harvard in this respect. </p>
<p>But that’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether the UC Regents are truly free to do whatever they want with Cal. If the answer is no, then the only conclusion we can draw is that the Regents do not truly OWN Cal because ownership by definition means the right to dispose of the property in any way you want, even if it means giving it away. Whatever governance mechanisms other universities use does not take away from the fact that the Regents do not own Cal. </p>
<p>Again, I can sell my car for $1, because I truly own my car. My parents can sell their house for $1 because they truly own the house. But the Regents cannot sell Cal for $1. Hence, the Regents do not truly own Cal. This is an open-and-shut case, one which I don’t think you can seriously dispute. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See above. Cal’s endowment has been growing for years, yet Cal still had to bring in another 1600 undergrads anyway? How is that consistent with your thesis? Seems to me that both Cal’s endowment AND its population have been growing at the same time. So what makes you think that this won’t continue in the future? Like I said, history is on my side, not yours. You can only point to speculations about what Cal MIGHT do. I can point to what Cal has ACTUALLY done. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>John Edwards wasn’t elected President. But the point is, he wasn’t making an idle threat. It shows that government could indeed threaten universities in a variety of ways. Harvard has a larger total research budget than Cal does, yet that didn’t stop Presidential contenders from threatening to pull that funding. </p>
<p>Furthermore, Edwards wasn’t threatening only Harvard. He was only using Harvard as an example: he was actually threatening ALL universities who continued to use legacy admissions (which actually comprises almost all private universities and even many public universities). </p>
<p>Now, sure, I agree, it may have been an idle threat. But that’s the point. The fact that he can even make that threat at all only demonstrates the power of the government. Similarly, the state of California contributes significant research funding to Cal, and could threaten to pull it if Cal does something the state does not like. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, why? My former roommate works at a company that is owned by Californians, employs all Californians, and serves Californians - yet doesn’t have tax-exempt status. </p>
<p>If there is a law that states that Cal enjoys tax exempt status, then that law can be changed. Why not? Governments change laws all the time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, I could similarly ask you for “proof” that Cal is indeed guaranteed to shrink its student population once it has a larger endowment. There certainly is no “proof” that such a thing will happen. So why do you ask me for proof? Why do I have to prove things, but not you? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How different are they? Boston is one of the oldest cities in the country, and arguably THE oldest (depending on how you define “city”). Cambridge is also similarly extremely old. Hence, MIT was moving from one extremely old city to another extremely old city. Hence, it’s not like MIT was moving into wide-open spaces in which nobody had settled. MIT had to deal with former residents that had already been in the area for centuries. Cal and the city of Berkeley, on the other hand, are comparatively young. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It simply shows that universities move around all the time. Hence, I fail to see why it is so outrageous that Cal couldn’t also move around. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, so what? What does that have to do with anything? The fact that the Bay Area is expensive does not affect the accounting books, because it simply means converting cash into real estate. After all, when you buy real estate in the Bay Area, you don’t LOSE anything, because presumably you could sell that real estate at some future time and recoup that cash. Hence, there is no net loss. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Look at the map of Durham. Or, better yet, go to Durham. And look around the campuses. Notice how they are intersected by a bunch of quite busy streets, many of which aren’t exactly “pedestrian friendly”. Now, ask yourself how you would honestly get from one campus to another. Probably by the myriad shuttles they have, right? Exactly. </p>
<p>As for Cal’s expansion in 2008, well, didn’t unlimitedx just point out that Cal has yet again bought land to expand westward? Tell me again how you have shown that Cal can’t expand? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HLS doesn’t NEED to - as the transportation connections are already there.</p>
<p>But Cal’s law school probably DOES need to, or at least would benefit more from doing so, because Boalt is not located near to BART (whereas HLS is located near to the Porter Square T-stop). </p>
<p>But you’re missing the point entirely. Harvard doesn’t NEED to move departments out of Cambridge because it already has Allston with which to expand. But Cal MAY need to expand outside of the city of Berkeley because of problems it is having with the city. THAT is the point. Sure, if a university isn’t under pressure, then it doesn’t need to do anything creative. Harvard is not under pressure. * But Cal is under pressure*. Similarly, MIT didn’t even consider moving to Cambridge until they were placed under pressure to expand. If they didn’t want to expand, I’m sure they’d still be in Boston today. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really? No longer expanding because it is at max capacity? </p>
<p>Here is what you said in post #1:</p>
<p>“By 1990, UC Berkeley had over 31,000 students, violating the enrollment cap. Under its 1990 agreement with the city of Berkeley, UC Berkeley agreed to lower its enrollment to no more than 29,450. But the university violated that agreement, too, with a current enrollment of about 32,000. It now intends to violate the Master Plan further, with an enrollment of 33,450 under its 2020 plan. And none of these figures includes the ever-expanding, for-profit University Extension activities.”</p>
<p>Sofla, maybe you should have an argument with yourself to determine whether Cal is really at max capacity or not. If it is really at max capacity, then why is it increasing the student population even further? </p>
<p>Like I said, you are taking a most bizarre stance. On the one hand, you freely admit that Cal has increased its student population in the past, despite promises to actually decrease the student population. On the other hand, you somehow “trust” that Cal won’t increase the population in the future. Why do you trust Cal, when they have broken their promises in the past? If somebody lies to you again and again, eventually you should catch on.</p>
<p>I never decried Berkeley expanding… I said it was against the master plan but I do understand how the state’s leverdege in funding would cause Berkeley to squeeze in another 1600. The point I have been making this whole time is that if Berkeley wasn’t dependent on the state for funding it would not have to bow down to the state. Also I said it’s not possible for Berkeley to expand anymore because its at max capacity. All you’ve tried to do is come up with hypothetical ways in which Berkeley can expand even if they aren’t economical or based in reality. I have provided much evidence to show you that Berkeley is not expanding, and can’t. Again you fail to realize that within the past 20 years Cal has only expanded by less than ten percent. You say there is immense “political pressure” to expand Cal, yet even though demand has increased at least 50% since 2000 alone, by 2020 Cal will have only increased by 1600 from 1990, even now when its dependent on state funding. I think that gives, along with the other evidence I’ve used, a found basis to believe that Cal is at max capacity and can’t expand. I have also shown that the logistics of expanding Cal make it not possible…I can’t force you to believe me but I have provided evidence why it can’t expand…what have you provided?? You have never provided a valid way the state can control Berkeley besides funding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand how you can think the two aren’t connected. Do you think the administration likes adding students- putting strain on already stretched resources?? Again if Cal is so eager to expand and appease the “political pressure” of the state why is it only expanding by a mere 1600 over a period of 30 years? Again Berkeley had to expand because it still depends on the state. I am not condoning this expansion, but again right now the state has leveredge over Berkeley. I agree that the state will probably cut funding if Berkeley becomes wealthy but at the moment it only provides 35 percent of the budget- and that amount has been decreasing every couple of years. Again if the state funding is one day below 20%, and if Berkeley has an endowment that can cover most of that, then what would be the state’s leveredge over Berkeley?? Please provide a valid way with evidence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can dispute you because your example is not based on reality. First off, no school in the country can sell itself for $1. Stanford and Harvard can’t, neither can Cal. Cal’s organization is structured just like Stanford. Why must UC be held to a different definition of ownership than those two schools?? UC has legal title and has full control over the sale and use of property…that’s really the end of the discussion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again a 10% increase over 30 years, although I disagree with it, isn’t that much considering the overwhelming increase in demand. You say Cal’s endowment has grown over the past years but that growth is quite small considering the size of the school. It hasn’t grown nearly enough to compensate for state funding. Why do you think there is a major frenzy to get donations and raise money. I could understand your point if Cal was wealthy and wasn’t dependent on the state for funds and had expanded by 10%, but it isn’t very wealthy yet and even with being dependent on state funds it has expanded by only 10%. Sakky you fail to look at the full context of Cal’s situation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it was an idle threat that never happened… it was also due to Harvard’s legacies which Berkeley doesn’t do. Berkeley’s not expanding is more defensible than Harvard’s legacies. How can you say it demonstrates that power of government when nothing happened. People make threats in government all the time, and most the time they have no real power.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am getting tired arguing your absurd analogies. Come on, your comparing your friend’s company to Berkeley, which provides billions to CA economy, provides thousand of CA residents with discounted educations, and brings the most brillant minds and research to the state?? Honestly is this the example your providing? Also you don’t think there would be a public outcry over this…that the state is pulling the tax exempt status of Berkeley, thus making it unaffordable to 90% of Californians. Give me a break. You also again provide no evidence that shows the state could do this, let alone would.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t provided any proof Berkeley would shrink because it hasn’t been in a position where the school could do that. Yet I have provided evidence showing your assertion Cal will always expand is wrong and contrary to what Cal is currently doing. I think that you have to prove at least one of your assumptions. Every one you’ve made so far has been wrong or only hypothetical. Come on, I think I’ve provided much more evidence than you have, if you’re argument that the state could remove Berkeley’s tax exempt status is so plausible, why can’t you come up with any proof? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t care how you try and word it, the logistics of today versus 100 years ago are completely different. Cambridge and Boston are old compared to Berkeley, but what does that really mean? Because Berkeley is younger than Cambridge it should be easier to move? I don’t have time to look up all the logistics of MIT’s move to Cambridge because I have a life, but I think any rational person would agree that you can’t compare any move or expansion of Berkeley today to MIT relocating across the Charles river 100 years ago. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is outrageous because you can’t compare that Berkeley’s situation today to Stanford’s situation fifty years ago. Can you provide me one example of a major university of Berkeley’s stature relocating grad schools miles away from campus, not including medical schools because Berkeley doesn’t have one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You stated “presumably” you could sell that real estate in the future, but really looking at today’s market and the current prices for Bay Area real estate you can’t assure that. Berkeley’s not going to risk its credit and millions of dollars to buy property for undegrads that don’t bring income to offset the cost of buying the land. Its just not economical. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But they stilll adjoin each other. No matter how difficult you try and make crossing a street sound, its not that difficult. My family was just at Duke and they said it was very confined and easy to get around, and they took a whole private tour because my brother was a baseball recruit. As for the expanding westward, I’m pretty sure that land was GIVEN by the state. Also they are building research facilities there. You again can’t use it as an example of how Cal can expand UG. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Give me a break Cal students can take the 51, 52 and numerous buses for free that come less than every ten minutes that take you right to Berkeley BART in less five minutes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve already shown you how Harvard’s move to Allston is completely different than any move of Berkeley to Oakland. Also Havard and MIT aren’t increasing UG. Again I also don’t understand how Cal is under so much pressure since it’s enrollment is capped to 33,500 at least until 2020 because of an agreement with the city. Also if Cal is under so much pressure to expand its not going to expand for UG, it would worry solely on expanding facilities for reasearch and maybe teach, which is what Berkeley is doing with the land it owns across the street west of campus. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Listen I don’t understand why you don’t understand my argument. I said that if Berkeley wasn’t dependent on state funds the state would have no leveredge over Berkeley. You have yet to prove me wrong. You also state that in the past Cal hasn’t been decreased, but you don’t realize that Cal has always been dependent on state funding. If that’s gone, what does that state have?? You haven’t given me anything. Please, Sakky, tell me why Berkeley in a 30 year time frame would only increase by less than 10%, if as you act, Berkeley will always expand whenever and as much as it wants. why less than 10% over thirty years? With demand for for Berkeley going up by 50% the past seven years alone, and probably much more by 2020, why only less than 10%.
Less than 10% when its still dependent on the state and stretched for money to pay faculty salaries. Please provide me a reason. Does this really appear to you that Berkeley wants to expand? </p>
<p>Lastly, I am done arguing because I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. No matter what evidence I provide to the contrary, you are set in your views of Berkeley and its administration. I can’t argue with someone who provides no evidence and only ridiculous analogies and outrageous hypothetical possiblities.</p>
<p>Uh, except for that 1600 student increase, right? I see. </p>
<p>Ultimately, that’s the source of my greatest confusion. On the one hand, you say that Cal can’t expand. On the other hand, you yourself admitted that Cal has announced plans for expansion. Which is it? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, except for that 1600 student expansion, right? </p>
<p>And who’s to say that another “expansion” won’t come down the pike? It’s happened before, why wouldn’t it happen again? If you are correct, and the state could force Cal to take another 1600, why couldn’t the state force Cal to take even more later? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, I provided your own words. You yourself have admitted that Cal is expanding by 1600. That, all by itself, proves that Cal can expand. </p>
<p>Maybe next time you can have an argument with yourself. Sofla #1 can explain to Sofla #1 that Cal can’t expand, and Sofla #2 can explain to Sofla #1 that Cal is somehow expanding anyway. I’ll just grab popcorn and watch the two Soflas debate away. How about that? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you yourself admitted that Cal was actually supposed to decline in population, according to the Master Plan. Yet not only has that not happened, Cal is actually increasing in population. </p>
<p>Once again, I will use my dieting analogy. Should we give somebody credit for “only” gaining 5 pounds, when he was actually supposed to lose 10 pounds? I think not. Hence, the political pressure has not only caused Cal to disregard its Master Plan as far as actually reducing students, it has actually caused Cal to gain students. Hence, Cal will actually be even further from its original Master Plan goals. Sounds like pretty darn strong political pressure to me. Just like how somebody’s strong appetite might not only block them from losing weight, but actually make them gain weight. </p>
<p>Any way you cut it, Cal is retreating further and further from its Master Plan numbers. How is that a cause for celebration? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similarly, the Harvard Corporation doesn’t truly own Harvard. None of these organizations can be said to own their universities. </p>
<p>But that’s neither here nor there. At the end of the day, what is indisputable is that the Regents do not truly own Cal. On the other hand, if I own a company and I want to sell it for $1, I am completely free to do so. For example, if I bought up each and every share of Microsoft, such that I own 100% of Microsoft, and then I decide I want to sell the entire company -including the entire Redmond campus - for $1, I could do so. That’s because I actually own Microsoft. The UC Regents cannot sell UC for $1 because they don’t truly own it. QED. End of discussion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you are giving credit to a fat guy for gaining “only” 5 pounds when he was actually supposed to lose 10. Cal is supposed to be on a diet, yet clearly is not. I hardly see that as a point of pride. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, the full context is quite simple - both the endowment and the student population have grown, whereas you have contended that the opposite should occur. </p>
<p>Sure, Cal isn’t rich now, on a per-capita basis. But Cal is still significantly richer than it was in the past. Nevertheless, Cal’s student population continues to grow anyway. You would think that, if anything, Cal’s growing endowment would at least cause a little bit of shrinkage in order to get just a little bit closer to the tenets of the Master Plan. Not only has that not happened, it is actually retreating further from the Master Plan. </p>
<p>So why would anybody believe that an even greater endowment would actually cause the student population to shrink. It’s never happened before, so why would we expect it to happen now? Santayana once said that a fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim. I am not aware of any information that would demonstrate that a growing Cal endowment is correlated with a shrinking student body. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because every once in awhile, those threats become deadly serious. Bush made quite a few threats about invading Iraq to the shock and disbelief of numerous pundits…yet look what transpired. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? I could argue that numerous Silicon Valley tech companies also similarly provide billions to the state economy, also bring some of the most brilliant minds to the state to perform cutting-edge research, and also provide thousands upon thousands of high-paying jobs and provide excellent training and career development, yet those companies still have to pay taxes anyway. After all, I would argue that a given person might learn more by working for 4 years at Google than by spending 4 years studying at Cal - and that guy would also be earning a salary to boot - yet Google still has to pay taxes to the state. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but wait a minute now. I thought you said that Cal would have the strength to resist public pressure if they had enough money. If that’s true, then why would Cal care if there was a public outcry? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, why wouldn’t they be able to? The state passes and rescinds laws all the time. At the end of the day, they are the state. States are tremendously powerful beasts. Remember, this is a state that has recently signed a sweeping greenhouse gas into law (in fact, the only one in the country at the time). This is a state that banned race-based affirmative action in all public institutions in the entire state (I believe it was the first state to do so), despite numerous attempts to maintain the status quo. Heck, I distinctly recall Robert Berdahl and numerous Cal faculty members battling to maintain AA, but the state successfully banned it anyway. The point is, states are tremendously powerful institutions when they want to be powerful. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what exactly is Cal currently doing? Oh yeah, it’s expanding. Hmm. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, all of my arguments have been just as correct as yours. Let me turn your question around: why can’t YOU come up with any proof that Cal will actually shrink? Not that they CAN shrink, but that they actually WILL shrink? The entire history of Cal demonstrates that Cal will expand. You’re fighting history. </p>
<p>Now, I grant you that perhaps Cal could perhaps be in a position where they might be able to shrink. But the question is WILL they shrink, even when they’re in that position where they could. Just like a fat guy might be able to plausibly argue that once he has more money and therefore can afford healthier food and a gym membership, he’ll be able to lose weight. But that’s not really the point. The real point is whether that fat guy really will lose weight, that is, once he has the money, is he really going to go to the gym? Is he really going to buy healthier food? Or is he just going to get fatter and fatter? History unfortunately indicates the latter. If the guy has never successfully lost weight before, why would we believe him now? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And neither am I contemplating a wholesale move of the entire Cal campus, the way that MIT moved its entire campus (save a few buildings still left in Boston). Cal could just simply move some of the campus. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, if MIT can actually move its entire self, then I hardly see why it is so implausible that Cal couldn’t move a part of itself. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really? They took a tour of East Campus also? The tours rarely go there (because, frankly, there isn’t much to see). Most of the tours occur only around the West Campus, which is where the Duke Chapel and Gardens and Cameron and other “touristy” things are. </p>
<p>I remember going from West Campus to East Campus. And how did I do it? I took a car. And it took me about 20 minutes (with traffic). Tell me again how the campuses are “close”? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, why shouldn’t we include med schools? What makes med schools so darn special? </p>
<p>Secondly, like I said, I don’t even have to point to entire grad schools being moved away. They just have to move away a part of the grad school. For an example of that, I need only point to the example of Wharton West, based in San Francisco. </p>
<p>Would you like another? How about INSEAD, the top ranked business school in Europe. Their original campus is in Fountainebleau, near Paris. They just recently built a second campus in Singapore. INSEAD now positions itself as a global school of 2 campuses. </p>
<p>Would you like another? How about the SAIS of Johns Hopkins University, which I would argue is something analogous to Cal’s Goldman School of Public Policy. Where is JHU’s main campus? Baltimore. Where exactly is SAIS? Oh yeah, it’s in Washington DC, about an hour away from Baltimore. </p>
<p>Would you like another? How about JHU’s Carey Business School? Where is Carey? It’s difficult to say, because Carey actually has 5 different campuses, only 1 of which is in the Homewood main campus that comprises the bulk of JHU. The other 4 are scattered throughout various cities in Maryland and DC. </p>
<p>Would you like another? Pop quiz. Where is Georgetown University’s main campus? It’s in the Georgetown neighborhood (ha ha, so I guess the pop quiz wasn’t that hard). Now, where is Georgetown’s Law School? It’s not in the Georgetown district, is it? Exactly. It’s actually near Union Station, in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Even more interestingly, Georgetown’s Law School used to be on the main campus. Not anymore. Hmmm. </p>
<p>Would you like another? Where is Northwestern University’s main campus? Allright, now where is Northwestern’s law school. I see. Not just a simple matter of crossing a few streets, now is it? </p>
<p>I could go on and on, but I think I emphatically proved my point. Plenty of universities successfully run split campuses, or run split graduate programs, or even have entire graduate programs run out of entirely different campuses from their undergrad program. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, what did I say before? It does bring income: and plenty of it. Cal dorm residents are almost certainly paying a premium to live in the dorms. Have you ever heard of anybody saying they want to move *into * the dorms to save money? If anything, the precise opposite occurs: people move out of the dorms to save money. </p>
<p>Besides, if Cal is really so strapped for cash, then how did they ever manage to expand westwards, as unlimitedx said? I guess they’re not THAT strapped. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have to use it as an example of how Cal can expand UG: that 1600 student expansion is proof enough.</p>
<p>However, that westward expansion simply proves that Cal can apparently obtain additional land to expand something, even if not for more undergrad space necessarily. Even if you are right and Cal didn’t pay anything for that new land, so what? Cal could have immediately sold it back to the open market and boosted its endowment, right? That is, unless you are now finally agreeing with me that Cal may not actually “own” the land. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Give me a break. Sure, I agree that is Cal wasn’t under any pressure, then Cal wouldn’t have to do a thing. Harvard isn’t under pressure, because, like you pointed out, Harvard can use Allston to expand. But Cal is under pressure. You said it yourself: Cal somehow has to find room for another 1600 undergrads. Desperate times call for desperate measures. For example, oh I don’t know, impaction. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I have shown you how they are similar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly - and Cal is. That makes all the difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, would that be similar to Cal’s population ‘caps’ in accordance with the Master Plan? Whoops. </p>
<p>No, I have always understood your argument just fine. I just disagree with it. It’s not really my job to prove you wrong, it’s your job to prove yourself right. After all, like I said, history is on my side, not yours. </p>
<p>Again, the analogy would be a fat man promising that once people give him money, he will go to the gym and lose weight. The question is whether we should believe him or not. I am inclined to say no, and I have history on my side. This is a guy who has never kept promises before, so why should we believe him now? He’s liable to take the money and still not go to the gym. </p>
<p>Look, I grant you that once Cal has money, they could shrink the student population. But the question is not whether they could, the question is whether they would. I frankly don’t see any reason to believe they would. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me turn the question around, sofla. Why, when the Master Plan specifically states that Cal is supposed to shrink, that Cal never does? Why does Cal keep breaking its agreements time and time again to reduce its population? You said it yourself: Cal is supposed to be getting smaller. It is actually getting bigger. I give Cal no credit for not growing by a lot when it is actually supposed to be shrinking. A fat man that is supposed to lose weight yet actually gains deserves no congratulations. The Master Plan specifically states what Cal is supposed to be doing, and not only is Cal not reaching those goals, Cal is actually going backwards. Tell me why. And more importantly, tell me why I should believe that things will be better in the future. Cal has never kept its promises regarding population before, so why should I believe them now? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! If you don’t want to argue, then why did you do just that? You could have stopped at any time. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s funny coming from you. I would argue it is YOU that has provided no evidence and that is discussing an outrageous hypothetical possibility: which is that Cal will actually shrink in the future. That is purely hypothetical, of which there is no proof, and something history does not support. Exactly what evidence have you presented that Cal actually will shrink in the future - not whether they could, but that they will? You have presented nothing but speculation, yet you apparently have a problem when I speculate.</p>