The University of California has long been a major source of socioeconomic mobility in California. Data from the University of California’s Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) indicates that more than half the undergraduate students in the UC system have at least one parent that is an immigrant. The ratio is even higher at UC Berkeley. What do such a high percentage of students with recent immigrant backgrounds tell us about the University of California and socioeconomic mobility? How is it influencing the academy and academic and civic experience of undergraduates who are largely first or second-generation immigrants?

Utilizing UCUES data on the University of California, and specifically the Berkeley campus as a case example, this brief provides an initial exploration of the dynamics of race and ethnicity, major, and the differing socioeconomic backgrounds of immigrant students, and in comparison to “native” students. Among the major conclusions offered in this study: there are a complex set of differences between various “generations” of immigrant students that fit earlier historical waves of immigrant groups to the United States; that the startling number and range of students from different ethnic, racial, cultural, and economic backgrounds points to the need for an expanded notion of diversity beyond older racial and ethnic paradigms; and while there are growing numbers of immigrant students at Berkeley from different parts of the world, and often from lower income families, there is a high correlation with their socioeconomic capital, described as a variety of factors, but most prominently the education level of their parents and family. Further, students at Berkeley who come from lower income families and have relatively low socioeconomic capital (in particular Chicano/Latinos) do well academically, if only marginally less so than those with higher rates of educational capital. At the same time, they also spend more time in paid employment, spend approximately the same amount of time as Euro-Americans studying and going to class, and have relatively high rates of overall satisfaction with their social and academic experience.

We explore in this paper the design of optimal share contracts when there is a double moral hazard, one on inputs exclusively provided by the agent (such as effort) and the other in reporting the level of output to be shared with the principal, and when there is a social efficiency cost to under-reporting. The optimal contract is second best in that it allows for residual moral hazard in both effort and output reporting. The model predicts that contract terms will vary with the value to the tenant of unreported output as well as with any capacity of the principal to directly supervise the agent. The model is written for a landlord-tenant share contract but applies as well for tax collection and franchising.

Some fifty years ago, researchers based at Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education launched a series of innovative studies on the character and disposition of undergraduate students in America’s colleges and universities. It was part of a wave of interest in the student experience and views, bolstered by the surge in university enrollment and a national commitment to mass higher education. Paul Heist, T.R. McConnell, Martin Trow, and Burton Clark, all affiliates of the Center, pioneered studies on student culture, and incorporated surveys as one method of analysis.

Confident witnesses are deemed more credible than unconfident ones, and accurate witnesses are deemed more credible than inaccurate ones. But are those effects independent? Two experiments show that errors in testimony damage the overall credibility of witnesses who were confident about the erroneous testimony more than that of witnesses who were not confident about it. Furthermore, after making an error, less confident witnesses may appear more credible than more confident ones. Our interpretation of these results is that people make inferences about source calibration when evaluating testimony and other social communication.

This paper examines the relationship between area-level social capital and non-specific psychological distress. It demonstrates that not controlling for non-time-varying omitted variables can seriously bias research findings. We use data from three cross-sections of the US National Health Interview Survey (1999, 2000, and 2001): 37,172 observations nested within 58 Metropolitan Statistical Areas. We also add data from the Area Resource File and County Business Patterns. We use a validated measure of social capital, the Petris Social Capital Index (PSCI), which measures structural social capital.

We estimate a two-level multilevel linear model with a random intercept. Non-specific psychological distress is measured using a valid and reliable indicator, the K6. Individual-level variables include sex, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, family income, smoking status, exercise status, and number of visits to a health professional. Area-level covariates include the PSCI, the unemployment rate, psychiatrists per 1000 population, non-psychiatric physicians per 1000 population, and area-level indicators to account for non-time-varying area-level omitted variable bias. Time dummies are also included.

We find that lagged area-level social capital is negatively related to non-specific psychological distress among individuals whose family income is less than the median. These associations are much larger when we control for non-time-varying area-level omitted variables.