Because it is unfair to gatekeep the most reputable school in the UC system while California's population is growing?

I'm totally uninformed here, but why can't the other UC system members learn to replicate whatever is necessary in order to work towards having a reputation in the same league as UC Berkeley?

The reputation of a university takes decades to shape and is tied to the reputations of individual professors. For the other schools to "learn to replicate" Berkeley's success, all of their professors would have to become the top experts in their fields overnight. If the professors knew how to do that, they would have done it already, and then a lot of them would have tried to move Berkeley because it has a better reputation.

I'm not saying the other schools have no experts, just that it's a situation where talent tends to concentrate.

> why can't the other UC system members learn to replicate whatever is necessary in order to work towards having a reputation in the same league as UC Berkeley?

Well, they're not independent. You apply to the UC system and you get a decision back telling you which schools you've been admitted to. So the system is free to decide that one campus is better than another one and implement that decision by assigning better students to the favored campus and worse students to the disfavored one.

I believe that's how Berkeley ended up as the 'top' campus in the first place - it was the best one because it was supposed to be the best one. UCLA is different; it "worked its way up" via applicant preference, by having better weather and/or proximity to Hollywood.

It wasn't designed to be the best one, it was just the first one. So every great scientist who wanted to live in a nice area with nice weather and great state support (which UCB had in the old days) went to UCB. Then when the other UCs were established it took a long time for them to work their way up. (Yes UCLA is also great! And UCSD and Davis are really good too.)

That's not how the UC application process works. You apply to the UC system but each school reviews applications independently and without knowing which other schools you applied to.

It is quite possible (although unlikely) to apply to UC Berkley and UC Merced but only be accepted to UC Berkley.

> It is quite possible (although unlikely) to apply to UC Berkley and UC Merced but only be accepted to UC Berkley.

It’s theoretically possible, but given that UC Berkeley is impacted in lots of places and Merced is under capacity everywhere, not plausible (actually, given certain system-wide guarantees, its far more likely to apply to Berkeley but not Merced and still get offered admission to Merced than to apply to Berkeley and Merced and get offered Berkeley and not Merced.)

Why's that?

You're asking, so, per OP and with no more data (which you did not provide):

as population increases, more will seek a desirable good — UC Berkeley education.

The data you didn't provide might be, for example, a school which could suitably meet the increased demand.

outside1234 suggested (UC) Merced or (UC) Davis as schools more suited to expansion than Berkeley. Ostensibly, all UCs are high quality education destinations. I don't know that Merced has earned distinction yet, but UC Davis is distinguished and interested parties could discuss the relative level of distinguishment.

I think it's pretty safe to say that UCB has a much more "elite" reputation than Merced or Davis.

(Whether or not you actually get a higher-quality education at UCB isn't really relevant; the perception, rankings, etc. are what matter when people decide what school they want to go to.)

Because capitalism and private property and free will.

Berkley doesn't get to tell you to live in a cheaper appartement.

In return, you don't get to tell Berkley where they can open a new campus.

I get that in this case the Judge decided to stop the expansion.

I'm just responding to "Why are we expanding Berkeley" bit.

There's no "we" here. There's only UC Berkley and they get to decide how to conduct business.

Berkeley is a public university.

Just because something is public doesn't mean it has to be of poor quality.

It does however raise certain issues if you're arguing for arbitrary governance due to property rights as gp is.

Sure, but people shouldn't dismiss something bad happening to a public institution (as in this case) as inevitable, just because it's public.

Exactly. Quality of education has gone down. Let's make it smaller again (not just freeze).