Talk:University of California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject University of California (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Ready to start a section on Controversies[edit]

Friends,

I am preparing an item called ==Controversies involving the University of California== and would like to think there won't be a howl of protest and a delete war when I post it. the list is extensive and verifiable and includes such issues as the 1950s loyalty oath, free speech at Berkeley, the bomb, the BP deal etc. We can quibble over what defines a controversy, but i would like to post my list and discuss it rather than fight for its existence.Hank chapot 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to list them and their sources :) Be warned though, don't confuse controversial events with "notable" events. --BirdKr 08:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Did this proposal disappear without a trace or was there an edit war? I'm looking for info on the executive pay controversy, and not finding it on Wikipedia, except in spots (Denice Denton, etc., but not Greenwood, e.g.). Am I missing something? Andyvphil (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the "old" controversies (e.g., the FSM, loyalty oaths, etc.) can be legitimately used to beef up the history section; there's no need to present a straight listing, in any case. I would like to see some mention of the pay scandal there, but it should be brief, keeping WP:RECENT in mind. MRC Greenwood is probably notable enough to warrant an article of her own. I might write one if I have time. I find the dearth of information on the pay scandal odd also, especially its lack of mention at the Robert C. Dynes article. --Dynaflow babble 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this page needs a controversies section, in the light of the recent events that have been taking place at UC Berkeley and UC Davis, especially police brutality. They seem have way enough notability, as some of the events that took place on campus have even been reported overseas (see a video report on the n°1 french TV channel http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/amerique/indignes-americains-la-video-qui-choque-6832058.html ). It seems to me that this page needs more information about these extremely famous events and the violent law enforcement practises used on the different campuses (which is extremely different from the common practises in other universties abroad).--69.143.212.140 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Berkeley Campus[edit]

Would it be too much to ask to add the Berkeley link back to the top of the page??

Because the above is indeed true (the Berkeley campus was the University of California and is still often referred to as such by many people), and Berkeley's athletics and student groups still go by this name ([University of] California Golden Bears, University of California Marching Band, University of California Rally Committee, etc) I believe restoring the above link would help alleviate confusion. --CASportsFan (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite any references for this? I have not once heard anyone refer to the campus as the University of California. Jay Gatsby(talk) 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly true historically.[1] There was only "University of California" until UCLA was founded in 1914, so sources older than that will almost certainly be referring to Berkeley. Growing up in the Bay Area in the 50s and 60s, and attending UCSC in the late 60s, the use of "UC" or the "University of California" in print ususally meant "UC Berkeley" unless the context made clear that the discussion was about the whole UC system, as in a "The University of California and the California State Colleges ..." or in University publications. "UC," "University of California," "California," and "Cal" always meant the Berkeley campus with regard to sports coverage, whether "Bears" or "Golden Bears" was included or not.[2][3][4][5].--Hjal (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Modern usage is different from that used more than half a century ago. Nevertheless, I can see how having the navigation link would be helpful. --Jay Gatsby(talk) 00:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that you agree. It would have been hard to think of Jay Gatsby as a recentist.--Hjal (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
He is anything but! It's my favorite book, by the way. Thank you for all the information and for taking the time to write about your experience. --Jay Gatsby(talk) 19:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Try going to their website: calbears.com:"California Golden Bears - The University of California Official Athletic Site." Maybe you could visit the website of the Associated Students of the University of California [6], University of California Rally Committee [7], University of California Marching Band [8], etc. You obviously don't live in the state of California or follow Pac-10 athletics . . . all athletic venues are all clearly marked with the words: University of California. You can also look at the wikipedia page on the History of the University of California, Berkeley. --CASportsFan (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
None of these is actually a reference to UC Berkeley itself, but rather to an organization which operates within the campus. Moreover, the names of these organizations are historical artifacts from when the campus was known originally as University of California. No one today under the age of 60 would refer to the campus itself as the University of California (maybe as Cal, Berkeley, or UC Berkeley, but not U of C) and anyone who still does would be greeted with quizzical looks begging the question "Which campus within the system do you mean?"
Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact the UC Berkeley was originally named University of California and was referred to as such for a significant amount of time, so I'll leave the navigation link alone. --Jay Gatsby(talk) 19:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I still believe that the hatlink to UCB is appropriate, but it might be that text other than "Not to be confused with its formerly synonymous first campus..." would be better. Perhaps something like "Historical and casual references to UC or U of C might be referring to UCB."

I agree that the hatnote is appropriate as I do hear references to Berkeley as just the "University of California". Either wording works for me. Bahooka (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Washington Monthly rankings incorrect?[edit]

The Washington Monthly rankings in the "Campuses and rankings" section don't seem to match the actual numbers in the cited page (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2010/national_university_rank.php). Could someone check this? It seems that Irvine, Davis, Riverside, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz Washington Monthly rankings are incorrect. 67.124.89.241 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Average SAT scores[edit]

The average SAT scores listed are from all accepted applicants of each the campuses and not the averages of enrolled freshmen. I don't think this is an accurate measure since not all accepted applicants, of say UC Riverside, ended up going there. Many of them probably had it as their safety and ended up going to UCLA, Berkeley or Irvine. Similarly, many applicants to Berkeley may have ended going to Harvard or Stanford. This measure is very misleading. Most campuses list average SAT scores of enrolled freshmen and they are consistently about 50 points lower than ones currently listed. I will be updating with these figures as I can find them from each of the campuses.--Seaprt (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from what i've seen, you haven't been able to give the writing score for UCSD, leaving a huge gap in the way you've listed things. I'm reverting back to the old method until you can find, and cite, the writing score for UCSD. Xenfreak (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT

also, it seems, you missed the the heading for the section which is "freshman ADMISSION profiles fall 2011" and not freshman enrolled. Xenfreak (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just fixed a ton of typos[edit]

A lot of people don't seem to understand that when one uses initials, like UC, UCSD, UCSF, etc., the definite article is not used. That is, it's not "the UC," it's just UC. However, if UC is used as an adjective to a noun that takes a definite article, then the article must be used. Hence, "the UC system" or "the UC Regents." This is not rocket science, people. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Update Enrolled Freshman Profile?[edit]

Shouldn't it be updated with the 2013 numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.234 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Enrolled freshman profile[edit]

This section is a pathetic mess. 17 citations for one statement is ridiculous. Even if they're all links to relevant web pages (they're not) it's nearly impossible to tell which particular link verifies which data point (they should go in the cell whose data they're verifying). Furthermore, are the ACT/SAT/GPA numbers means, medians or something else? I tried to figure it out for myself but I don't have the time to dig through 17 citations to find which one I need. This section is an embarrassment and editors of this page should fix it posthaste. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason for so many citations is because each one is verifying each GPA, SAT or ACT and number of applications of the 9 campuses. There's not one sole website that has all of this collective data (or that accurately presents it I should say - because the main UC website does present it, just not the same information that the individual campuses will report). Quite honestly, there's nothing really wrong with the citations. They aren't blocking anything, taking up more room, or hard to navigate around. Just click on the link and it takes you directly to them.

What I might suggest, however, is adding an extra column in the table, like how we see in the California State University admissions table, for each campus and we can divide the citations that way.

I agree; good idea: specific information will be much easier to verify.Contributor321 (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Would anybody take issue with changing the "% California Residents" column to a Reference column for each individual campus? The % CA Resident isn't something that is vital to have in the table, to be honest. And if we add another column in the table, it will widen it and presumably reformat the page.
I vote to leave the "% California Residents" column in for 2 reasons. First, the declining % of CA residents at some CA taxpayer-funded institutions of higher learning is currently a contentious issue. Seeing which universities have what % of CA residents is informative. Second, when I look at the table there is a lot of white space to the right of it. I inserted a test column and fit in 60 characters before there was a format issue (the largest "References" entry in the CSU table has 12 characters), so a "References" column here will easily fit. (By the way, to whoever wrote the preceding comment, please sign your comments so editors know who they are responding to. Signing is easy: just type in ~ four times (the tilde sign is to the left of 1 on my keyboard, and probably yours too)). Contributor321 (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It's been two weeks since my last comment on the subject so, if no one has any serious objections during the next two weeks, I'm going to go ahead and add a References column sometime in the middle of November.Contributor321 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for this!Uwatch310 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)