IDK about the legal appropriateness of the ruling, but from a common sense perspective, it does seem quite reasonable to prevent a university from enrolling students it has no way of housing....
IDK about the legal appropriateness of the ruling, but from a common sense perspective, it does seem quite reasonable to prevent a university from enrolling students it has no way of housing.
Article (especially the headline) seems to lean the other way, though.
Yeah, again, not sure on the legal specifics of it, but this just seems to me like Berkeley is trying to maximize profit for minimal effort by not even bothering with the basics and foisting that...
Yeah, again, not sure on the legal specifics of it, but this just seems to me like Berkeley is trying to maximize profit for minimal effort by not even bothering with the basics and foisting that on somebody else. I mean, if the numbers are matching to the actual lack of housing, that's 2500+ people who would be injected into the community with no plans for housing. That's... A lot. A LOT. 2500 spare people who need a place to stay could have serious impact on the place, and if Berkeley isn't going to take responsibility for the additional stresses on the local housing situation and plan accordingly, maybe it just... Shouldn't. And based on the tone of the article- which, as you said, seems to be on Berkeley's side here somehow- you'd think they'd point out the reasons better if there were any good ones.
Edit: Another commenter added an extremely relevant detail as I was writing this. According to them, local NIMBY efforts prevented the attempt at creating affordable housing options in the first place, AND are behind this case. At the same time. In which case, Berkeley, while still doing the wrong thing by continuing with efforts to expand the population without getting that construction done in the first place, isn't entirely in the wrong here- it is, as is so often the case, freaking NIMBYs.
I'm not sure how this is in other countries or for other people in the US, but for me, college was the first time I moved away from home at least semi permanently. Especially for well known...
I'm not sure how this is in other countries or for other people in the US, but for me, college was the first time I moved away from home at least semi permanently. Especially for well known institutions like UC Berkeley, most new students will be moving from somewhere, possibly even internationally, to the physical location of the university.
Most places at least have the option of living in university run housing your first year, which provides extra support that can be helpful for everyone from kids whose parents weren't around to teach them life skills to kids who never learned life skills because they had house staff. Regardless, any new students will need somewhere to live, and with so many places in California already suffering from ultra difficult housing and rental markets, if the university can't assure housing then that new demand is going to be a problem. Maybe not for the students, who if they're paying for UC Berkeley may also have a way to pay inflated rents, but certainly people in the local community working a low wage job would be at risk of being forced out of their homes by rising rents.
Just for some perspective ... I went to UW Madison in the '80s. At the time, the student pop (40-45k, compared to the pop of Madison at ~150k), if it were a separate city, would have been the 7th...
Just for some perspective ...
I went to UW Madison in the '80s. At the time, the student pop (40-45k, compared to the pop of Madison at ~150k), if it were a separate city, would have been the 7th largest city in Wisconsin.
Every year, there were chronic "everything" shortages ... housing, parking, public transport, school supplies (textbooks!), both available slots and literal, actual available space in classes, etc. You know how at the end of hallways, there's often a 6-10ft section of hallway beyond the last door? They were hanging curtains and renting out those ends of the hall. In the 1980s, I paid $420/month for one-half of one room.
Universities are definitely too large. Unfortunately, they suffer from both diseconomies of scale in the most important aspects, and economies of scale in the least important, but most expensive,...
Universities are definitely too large. Unfortunately, they suffer from both diseconomies of scale in the most important aspects, and economies of scale in the least important, but most expensive, areas.
For example: Bon Appetite, the biggest school meal provider contractor in the Midwest, offers significant volume discounts on staff, facilities construction and maintenance, and ingredients; I know, because I was part of trying to negotiate with BA to give the various celiac and lactose-intolerant students at [redacted] tiny college, Wisconsin, more options. We simply didn't have enough students to have them bring in, say, a selection of non-dairy options for every meal at a price the admin was willing to pay (read: free).
I visited another SLAC, Oberlin, which also contracts with BA. They have about twice as many students, and operate on similar margins (with, admittedly, a larger endowment), but have nearly three times as many kitchen staff, an extra kitchen, and, you guessed it, ample gluten- and dairy-free options at every meal.
On the other hand, faculty - you know, the actual point of higher education? - suffer from significant diseconomies of scale. When your computer science department, like mine, has 3 professors total, of whom one is part-time, you don't need to have faculty meetings; they just chat about next year's curriculum in the hallway or over lunch. When someone violates academic integrity ("cheats", in other words), you don't convene a committee, you just go to the dean. When a student is having a difficult year (like, when her grandmother dies, ask me how I know), you don't have to clear her incomplete with two levels of bureaucracy, you just issue it and move on. You don't have an academic freedom committee, because if the administration curtails your faculty's academic freedom, they'll be banging the President's door down en masse. You don't have a Title IX committee because the DEI officer and the two deans just decide every case.* Et cetera.
So, in other words, the peripheral (but important, and expensive!) parts of running an institution of higher education get easier and cheaper as you scale up, but the core of the institution gets harder to run, more expensive, and more bogged down in bureaucracy. Another way to say this is that scaling up is good for the administration and the bottom line, but bad (on the whole) for the students and professors. And, uh, guess who gets to decide whether or not we scale up? It's sure as hell not the professors, I'll tell you that; I've yet to meet one person who actually enjoys lecturing to 300 students at once, let alone grading 300 papers - even if they get a teaching assistant!
*(this is not optimal, but it is an example of a diseconomy of scale.)
It makes me wonder what the parking situation looks like as well. I know this was a huge problem with my university before COVID hit. Enrollment increased by leaps and bounds every semester, and...
It makes me wonder what the parking situation looks like as well. I know this was a huge problem with my university before COVID hit. Enrollment increased by leaps and bounds every semester, and while parking was never great in the past, it wasn't the apocalyptic mess that it turned into either. Honestly I have a hard time siding with schools that can't adequately accommodate students who are already there. New applicants can go to dozens of different well respected colleges, and their life is not suddenly going to fall into the gutter because they had to go to some other esteemed college.
But you can definitely adversely affect the performance and emotions of enrolled students who can't reliably find parking or housing. And I think it's important to remember that the betterment of future generations is not the only goal of a college. Colleges, and especially UCs make a lot of money per student, and those 3,000 students represent 10s of millions of future income for UCB.
I actually went to UC Berkeley, although it's been a while, so AMA about conditions there. In terms of long-term on campus parking, it's pretty limited to non-existent, although I'd say that...
I actually went to UC Berkeley, although it's been a while, so AMA about conditions there.
In terms of long-term on campus parking, it's pretty limited to non-existent, although I'd say that wasn't really much of a problem as a student. The reality is that there was never much of a commuter community - pretty much everyone lived in walking distance, and commuted to their classes by foot. The campus is also fairly small and there is a decent amount of street parking around it for visiters, especially on northside, which is sleepier.
In terms of housing, it's pretty bad. Pretty much all freshman live in dorms (very expensive dorms), but after that, there's a very limited selection of University housing after that (and mostly limited to scholarship students). You get booted to the wolves of off campus landlords. On a sidenote, I would never say it's like a great situation, but this did teach me how to apartment hunt and how not to get scammed.
However, I wouldn't have much sympathy for that as an argument given who is making the suit - it's the same NIMBY's that constantly block the university's ongoing attempts to build more housing.
Ah, that last detail is a pretty critical component here- if it's NIMBY BS causing both problems at the same time, then I may have to re-evaluate that. Honestly, NIMBYs suck so much...
Ah, that last detail is a pretty critical component here- if it's NIMBY BS causing both problems at the same time, then I may have to re-evaluate that. Honestly, NIMBYs suck so much...
Sometimes it helps to look one step deeper. As already said, the reason why there is no student housing is the local NIMBY assholes. Yes, assholes in Tildes sense—those who make others...
Sometimes it helps to look one step deeper.
As already said, the reason why there is no student housing is the local NIMBY assholes. Yes, assholes in Tildes sense—those who make others uncomfortable.
san francisco bay area as a whole will be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students.
California will be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students.
The United States will be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students.
The world will be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students.
Only a bunch of NIMBY assholes will seemingly not be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students (are they sure?).
As for parking, I have to note that the main UC-Berkeley campus sits on a BART station.
I don't think that's a given. It's unclear that the students or anyone else benefit from overcrowding? Maybe the university should start a satellite campus.
I don't think that's a given. It's unclear that the students or anyone else benefit from overcrowding? Maybe the university should start a satellite campus.
I don't think that this will meaningfully help in any symptoms of overcrowding, and indeed in the areas where students are experiencing overcrowding academically, may make it worse. For one, some...
I don't think that this will meaningfully help in any symptoms of overcrowding, and indeed in the areas where students are experiencing overcrowding academically, may make it worse. For one, some useful context is that while it's presented as an enrollment increase in the suit, that's only the case because there was a dramatic enrollment cut during the pandemic due to budget shortfalls anticipated - the enrollment bump was a return to pre-pandemic levels rather than a true increase.
For the housing market as a whole, freshman all do live in dorms (for which there is enough for the uncut freshman population, as shown by years prior), whereas no sophomores and above do, so this will have no immediate effect there, and a net decrease of 2-3k students in future years will not have much of a dent on the quite competitive housing market even outside of students.
As to how it can make things worse, it's due to how budgets are allocated to individual departments. By far the department with the worst overcrowding issues is computer science - unlike peer universities, Berkeley has not put any hard caps on the CS population, and indeed both transfers and the unique major declaration style of the college of letters and science still applies, and incredible demand due to high wage outcomes has caused that department to balloon in size to an absurd degree.
This cut in enrollment will cause a proportional cut in all departments, but the EECS department takes on a disproportionate amount of the incoming student base. Now, this is in many ways a self-inflicted wound due to inner university politics, but is it likely regardless that the CS department will have a budget shortfall greater than the amount of students they will no longer have to teach.
IMNSHO, the entire San Francisco Bay Area is undercrowded (maybe except the CBDs of San Francisco and San Jose[Santa Clara county, California, United States]). As for a “satellite campus,” this...
overcrowding
IMNSHO, the entire San Francisco Bay Area is undercrowded (maybe except the CBDs of San Francisco and San Jose[Santa Clara county, California, United States]).
As for a “satellite campus,” this would not be a bad idea to build it near another BART station on the Orange BART line, yet I am absolutely sure that NIMBY assholes would not allow that.
I meant that since there is not enough housing for students (which could be changed, but not that quickly) more students doesn’t necessarily mean people are better off right now. The students, at...
I meant that since there is not enough housing for students (which could be changed, but not that quickly) more students doesn’t necessarily mean people are better off right now. The students, at least, aren’t better off.
So maybe the judge made a good decision even though the people bringing the lawsuit are hypocrites?
People often think that showing someone to be a hypocrite settles an argument. I don’t think a judge should do that.
It's my understanding that UC Berkeley has run into stiff local resistance when it tries to build student housing. The attempt to develop People's Park into student housing is a notable recent...
It's my understanding that UC Berkeley has run into stiff local resistance when it tries to build student housing. The attempt to develop People's Park into student housing is a notable recent example.
But indeed, admitting more students without planning how to house those students is irresponsible and should probably be stopped.
At the same time, the NIMBYs who are leading these efforts to block the university should be confronted. For the greater good of society, the university should be allowed to expand to provide high-quality education to more people.
I agree that there should be more housing built but I think the other problem in this scenario is larger class sizes, worse faculty/student ratios, and amenity crowding. I am a UC alumni and...
I agree that there should be more housing built but I think the other problem in this scenario is larger class sizes, worse faculty/student ratios, and amenity crowding. I am a UC alumni and getting into impacted classes was a feat back then, I can't imagine what it would be like now. Combo that with expanded class sizes, and individualized help is likely a thing of the past. Intandem with extra housing, expanded facilities/professors are a must. And not the usual UC solution of sicking more TAs in a class for sub-minimum wage salaries. (see the wildcat strikes of 2019/20)
I agree more students is a good idea, but with how the UC handles it's current student issues I'd also like to hold them culpable for this.
IDK about the legal appropriateness of the ruling, but from a common sense perspective, it does seem quite reasonable to prevent a university from enrolling students it has no way of housing.
Article (especially the headline) seems to lean the other way, though.
Yeah, again, not sure on the legal specifics of it, but this just seems to me like Berkeley is trying to maximize profit for minimal effort by not even bothering with the basics and foisting that on somebody else. I mean, if the numbers are matching to the actual lack of housing, that's 2500+ people who would be injected into the community with no plans for housing. That's... A lot. A LOT. 2500 spare people who need a place to stay could have serious impact on the place, and if Berkeley isn't going to take responsibility for the additional stresses on the local housing situation and plan accordingly, maybe it just... Shouldn't. And based on the tone of the article- which, as you said, seems to be on Berkeley's side here somehow- you'd think they'd point out the reasons better if there were any good ones.
Edit: Another commenter added an extremely relevant detail as I was writing this. According to them, local NIMBY efforts prevented the attempt at creating affordable housing options in the first place, AND are behind this case. At the same time. In which case, Berkeley, while still doing the wrong thing by continuing with efforts to expand the population without getting that construction done in the first place, isn't entirely in the wrong here- it is, as is so often the case, freaking NIMBYs.
Why is higher education necessarily coupled with housing in the US?
I'm not sure how this is in other countries or for other people in the US, but for me, college was the first time I moved away from home at least semi permanently. Especially for well known institutions like UC Berkeley, most new students will be moving from somewhere, possibly even internationally, to the physical location of the university.
Most places at least have the option of living in university run housing your first year, which provides extra support that can be helpful for everyone from kids whose parents weren't around to teach them life skills to kids who never learned life skills because they had house staff. Regardless, any new students will need somewhere to live, and with so many places in California already suffering from ultra difficult housing and rental markets, if the university can't assure housing then that new demand is going to be a problem. Maybe not for the students, who if they're paying for UC Berkeley may also have a way to pay inflated rents, but certainly people in the local community working a low wage job would be at risk of being forced out of their homes by rising rents.
Just for some perspective ...
I went to UW Madison in the '80s. At the time, the student pop (40-45k, compared to the pop of Madison at ~150k), if it were a separate city, would have been the 7th largest city in Wisconsin.
Every year, there were chronic "everything" shortages ... housing, parking, public transport, school supplies (textbooks!), both available slots and literal, actual available space in classes, etc. You know how at the end of hallways, there's often a 6-10ft section of hallway beyond the last door? They were hanging curtains and renting out those ends of the hall. In the 1980s, I paid $420/month for one-half of one room.
Maybe universities are too large.
Universities are definitely too large. Unfortunately, they suffer from both diseconomies of scale in the most important aspects, and economies of scale in the least important, but most expensive, areas.
For example: Bon Appetite, the biggest school meal provider contractor in the Midwest, offers significant volume discounts on staff, facilities construction and maintenance, and ingredients; I know, because I was part of trying to negotiate with BA to give the various celiac and lactose-intolerant students at [redacted] tiny college, Wisconsin, more options. We simply didn't have enough students to have them bring in, say, a selection of non-dairy options for every meal at a price the admin was willing to pay (read: free).
I visited another SLAC, Oberlin, which also contracts with BA. They have about twice as many students, and operate on similar margins (with, admittedly, a larger endowment), but have nearly three times as many kitchen staff, an extra kitchen, and, you guessed it, ample gluten- and dairy-free options at every meal.
On the other hand, faculty - you know, the actual point of higher education? - suffer from significant diseconomies of scale. When your computer science department, like mine, has 3 professors total, of whom one is part-time, you don't need to have faculty meetings; they just chat about next year's curriculum in the hallway or over lunch. When someone violates academic integrity ("cheats", in other words), you don't convene a committee, you just go to the dean. When a student is having a difficult year (like, when her grandmother dies, ask me how I know), you don't have to clear her incomplete with two levels of bureaucracy, you just issue it and move on. You don't have an academic freedom committee, because if the administration curtails your faculty's academic freedom, they'll be banging the President's door down en masse. You don't have a Title IX committee because the DEI officer and the two deans just decide every case.* Et cetera.
So, in other words, the peripheral (but important, and expensive!) parts of running an institution of higher education get easier and cheaper as you scale up, but the core of the institution gets harder to run, more expensive, and more bogged down in bureaucracy. Another way to say this is that scaling up is good for the administration and the bottom line, but bad (on the whole) for the students and professors. And, uh, guess who gets to decide whether or not we scale up? It's sure as hell not the professors, I'll tell you that; I've yet to meet one person who actually enjoys lecturing to 300 students at once, let alone grading 300 papers - even if they get a teaching assistant!
*(this is not optimal, but it is an example of a diseconomy of scale.)
It makes me wonder what the parking situation looks like as well. I know this was a huge problem with my university before COVID hit. Enrollment increased by leaps and bounds every semester, and while parking was never great in the past, it wasn't the apocalyptic mess that it turned into either. Honestly I have a hard time siding with schools that can't adequately accommodate students who are already there. New applicants can go to dozens of different well respected colleges, and their life is not suddenly going to fall into the gutter because they had to go to some other esteemed college.
But you can definitely adversely affect the performance and emotions of enrolled students who can't reliably find parking or housing. And I think it's important to remember that the betterment of future generations is not the only goal of a college. Colleges, and especially UCs make a lot of money per student, and those 3,000 students represent 10s of millions of future income for UCB.
I actually went to UC Berkeley, although it's been a while, so AMA about conditions there.
In terms of long-term on campus parking, it's pretty limited to non-existent, although I'd say that wasn't really much of a problem as a student. The reality is that there was never much of a commuter community - pretty much everyone lived in walking distance, and commuted to their classes by foot. The campus is also fairly small and there is a decent amount of street parking around it for visiters, especially on northside, which is sleepier.
In terms of housing, it's pretty bad. Pretty much all freshman live in dorms (very expensive dorms), but after that, there's a very limited selection of University housing after that (and mostly limited to scholarship students). You get booted to the wolves of off campus landlords. On a sidenote, I would never say it's like a great situation, but this did teach me how to apartment hunt and how not to get scammed.
However, I wouldn't have much sympathy for that as an argument given who is making the suit - it's the same NIMBY's that constantly block the university's ongoing attempts to build more housing.
Ah, that last detail is a pretty critical component here- if it's NIMBY BS causing both problems at the same time, then I may have to re-evaluate that. Honestly, NIMBYs suck so much...
Sometimes it helps to look one step deeper.
As already said, the reason why there is no student housing is the local NIMBY assholes. Yes, assholes in Tildes sense—those who make others uncomfortable.
san francisco bay area as a whole will be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students.
California will be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students.
The United States will be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students.
The world will be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students.
Only a bunch of NIMBY assholes will seemingly not be better off if UC-Berkeley has more students (are they sure?).
As for parking, I have to note that the main UC-Berkeley campus sits on a BART station.
I don't think that's a given. It's unclear that the students or anyone else benefit from overcrowding? Maybe the university should start a satellite campus.
I don't think that this will meaningfully help in any symptoms of overcrowding, and indeed in the areas where students are experiencing overcrowding academically, may make it worse. For one, some useful context is that while it's presented as an enrollment increase in the suit, that's only the case because there was a dramatic enrollment cut during the pandemic due to budget shortfalls anticipated - the enrollment bump was a return to pre-pandemic levels rather than a true increase.
For the housing market as a whole, freshman all do live in dorms (for which there is enough for the uncut freshman population, as shown by years prior), whereas no sophomores and above do, so this will have no immediate effect there, and a net decrease of 2-3k students in future years will not have much of a dent on the quite competitive housing market even outside of students.
As to how it can make things worse, it's due to how budgets are allocated to individual departments. By far the department with the worst overcrowding issues is computer science - unlike peer universities, Berkeley has not put any hard caps on the CS population, and indeed both transfers and the unique major declaration style of the college of letters and science still applies, and incredible demand due to high wage outcomes has caused that department to balloon in size to an absurd degree.
This cut in enrollment will cause a proportional cut in all departments, but the EECS department takes on a disproportionate amount of the incoming student base. Now, this is in many ways a self-inflicted wound due to inner university politics, but is it likely regardless that the CS department will have a budget shortfall greater than the amount of students they will no longer have to teach.
IMNSHO, the entire San Francisco Bay Area is undercrowded (maybe except the CBDs of San Francisco and San Jose[Santa Clara county, California, United States]).
As for a “satellite campus,” this would not be a bad idea to build it near another BART station on the Orange BART line, yet I am absolutely sure that NIMBY assholes would not allow that.
I meant that since there is not enough housing for students (which could be changed, but not that quickly) more students doesn’t necessarily mean people are better off right now. The students, at least, aren’t better off.
So maybe the judge made a good decision even though the people bringing the lawsuit are hypocrites?
People often think that showing someone to be a hypocrite settles an argument. I don’t think a judge should do that.
It's my understanding that UC Berkeley has run into stiff local resistance when it tries to build student housing. The attempt to develop People's Park into student housing is a notable recent example.
But indeed, admitting more students without planning how to house those students is irresponsible and should probably be stopped.
At the same time, the NIMBYs who are leading these efforts to block the university should be confronted. For the greater good of society, the university should be allowed to expand to provide high-quality education to more people.
I agree that there should be more housing built but I think the other problem in this scenario is larger class sizes, worse faculty/student ratios, and amenity crowding. I am a UC alumni and getting into impacted classes was a feat back then, I can't imagine what it would be like now. Combo that with expanded class sizes, and individualized help is likely a thing of the past. Intandem with extra housing, expanded facilities/professors are a must. And not the usual UC solution of sicking more TAs in a class for sub-minimum wage salaries. (see the wildcat strikes of 2019/20)
I agree more students is a good idea, but with how the UC handles it's current student issues I'd also like to hold them culpable for this.