<p>^true if my in-state universities was top ranked in engineering I would have taken my local Boise State or Idaho State university scholarship where I got a full ride plus cash, but it obviously isn’t as well ranked, and I technically got an amazing academic scholarship offer plus good govt. loans and work study from Cal where I’m essentially paying what I would have paid at Boise State if I went there without any scholarship, so in the end, I would have picked Cal since it means I get to leave the state of Idaho and be away from my parents.</p>
<p>Just like how other state schools accept OOS, Berkeley has no reason not to accept more OOS.</p>
<p>^does ticking off the State populous count as a reason? I don’t know if this is possible but if that State populous was mad enough could someone create an initiative (enables citizens to draft laws and constitutional amendments and place them on the ballot for a popular vote) to make a law limiting the amount of in state admits or are the Regents of UC treated like some private company and thus have the final say in their rules despite public opinion? Even then if it’s state law and that’s a public university, wouldn’t UC still have to obey, costs for in state would probably go up though if such a law was passed.</p>
<p>UC Regents would love to continue enrolling mad in staters but it is a STATE FUNDED School. The state effed up, it’s in a huge crisis. Berkeley, one of the best institution in the world, should not be dragged down into the hole with the entire state which was poorly goverened. By further raising the tuition, it will inhibit even more students, instate and oos alike from attending the school. So instead of raising tuition and devastating the whole student body, just accept few less mediocre candidates and accept more oustanding oos. </p>
<p>This might sound crazy, but the residents of California are also responsible for the economic mess, and this is the consequence for electing idiots to power.</p>
<p>I might receive some severe backlash with a statement like this but, although I disagree with many of the social views of conservatives, a lot of their economic views, particularly having a balanced budget even if it means screwing the poorer residents over by having them fend for themselves instead of giving them the help they need to keep their families together might help California out. And perhaps another solution would be to make it easier for small business owners, Steve Jobs (it may have been someone else) said somewhere in an interview that if he were to try and start Apple in his garage in California like he did in the old days, he wouldn’t be able to do it with the current intense regulation and taxes that California has to deal it. Obviously I don’t know if any of this is true but if Jobs is right, why doesn’t California go back to the type of Bureaucracy it had in the 80s and 90s (the time where Silicon Valley thrived), where there was a skinner state government and it was easier for an innovator or entrepreneur to start a business?</p>
<p>^I was being somewhat sarcastic here since I think that if you leave poorer families to fend for themselves, they might start doing illegal things to keep their families alive due to the whole survival do w/e it takes to live thing that is programmed into the mind of all animals, even humans. So helping them out is technically a good thing since if they do not receive aid to make ends meet, what conservatives fail to understand is they might turn to illegal methods of finding resources to survive, so I honestly don’t know how California will fix this mess.</p>
<p>If you are a really good high school student, this kind of shift shouldn’t matter to you at all. I’m not going to judge whether this is a good move or not, but I totally understand 14 billion dollar deficit is not a good situation and you need more out-of-state students to earn some extra revenue. Just be glad that this is not as bad as UVA (University of Virginia) where out-of-state students are accepted MORE than the in-state ones.</p>
<p>^^Well yes that is statistically true about UVA, but the higher admission rate is due to the much lower yield, i.e., folks change their mind about paying OOS rates. Also, the OOS stats are much higher than they are for instate residents, unlike at Cal where there are similar.</p>
<p>It’s just good business if you can pick between 2 students-student A is in state and his/her parents have already (or not) contributed to the state’s economy or student B-an OOS student that will bring extra revenue to the college by paying double fees and cash for spending while attending. I don’t agree with it-as a longtime tax payer I’m appalled that my child can get displaced that way. I’m also appalled that my child will have to pay and recieve no financial aid whatsoever so guess what-we pay twice. No we don’t make over 100,000-but we do make too much to receive aid. Bottom line-lifes not fair. The state has to do something to make ends meet. Maybe instead of OOS we take people who have figured out how to pay their own way. I was once the poor kid first generation and I had to work and go to CC before a prestigious 4 year. And I graduated with loans I paid by myself. No more free rides for anyone. All loans for all students. Period.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly! It would have been just as easy to crank up the tuition/fees by xx dollars while at the same time increasing grants/scholarships for the poor. That way the rich instaters would be paying more to attend UC, instead of OOS’ers. That would be more ‘fair’ to instate residents, but would require leadership by the Regents and State Legislature.</p>
<p>3down:
The problem is that no in-state students are really paying their own way 100%, even if they receive no financial aid. In-state students pay less than OOS because they are subsidized by the state. Would you suggest that in-state students get an admissions boost if they opt to pay OOS tuition?</p>
<p>Negative. What I have suggested is to boost Cal’s & UCLA’s tuition a lot, say $10k per year. Match that with grants for lower income students. Offer Merced & Riverside tuition-free; or better yet, CLOSE Merced. Offer a heavily discounted tuition at all others for anyone who is admitted but chooses to attend to juco for two years. There are ALL kinds of creative ways to lower expenses.</p>
<p>At the rate the tuitioin hikes are projecting I’d be surprised to say if Berkeley’s tuition does not rise to $20k over the next decade. As a pragmatist I would imagine the private sector offering to step in if California can not solve the budget crisis.</p>
<p><quote>No we don’t make over 100,000-but we do make too much to receive aid.</quote></p>
<p>That’s horrible and doesn’t make sense. My parents tax return said our household family income was around 75,000 and I got 100% of my financial aid need met, and 40% of that $50,000 Aid was scholarships/grants/work study that I don’t have to pay back. I’m also OOS so I don’t see how the state makes money, since 30K a year is equal to the 30K an In state without any scholarships has to pay. Can someone explain how the state makes more money on this but don’t get me wrong I’m glad and thankful I was given such an aid package to attend such a wonderful university.</p>
<p>If you guys were under 100K, and California has a way higher cost of living, how can they not give you aid. That seems so unfair.</p>
<p>Like I said before, public university lives up to financing for low-income students to attend college but at the expense of tuition hikes. If not for increasing tuition I don’t see how Berkeley can survive on depleting state funding.</p>
<p>^I see that makes sense, even though it’s sad I guess. Lol thankfully my dad didn’t have any bonuses the year I applied. So if my dad got a bonus this year and is salary went up to 85-90K which is where it normally is, does that mean my next year’s financial aid would be less?</p>
<p>“85-90K which is where it normally is, does that mean my next year’s financial aid would be less?”</p>
<p>If not, you can bet a bunch of us are on our way to Alpha Centauri. </p>
<p>But seriously, I bet yours is a pretty unusual situation. One of your posts say your parents are a physician and an engineer? Wow!</p>
<p>Yes because you apply for FAFSA annually and your EFC is adjusted based on you and your parents annual income.</p>
<p>^My mom is a physician but she doesn’t work since she wants to take care of my littlest siblings, so only my dad’s income is taxed. But sigh so I might get less money next year. Well hopefully I’ll find a cheap apartment.</p>
<p>^Also wages in Idaho in all occupations are usually lower than then national average I think but things are pretty cheap here so my dad said earning 75K here could earn you the same standard of living as someone living in LA with 100K a year. I don’t know if that’s true though but it makes sense since I heard things are really expensive in California.</p>