Jump to content

Talk:University of British Columbia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 23.16.152.103 (talk) at 06:56, 11 February 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

First Sentence

I doubt the first sentence is right. Technically U.B.C. is not part of Vancouver. The land is leased from the Musqueum Native Band.

First sentence is not correct - UBC is on provincial land called the University Endowment Lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.103.98 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The University, while not in the City of Vancouver, has an address that is in Vancouver. If you want to check have a look at any of their listed addresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.12.53.117 (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

Leventio is misreading the articles he/she is citing. For example: the Vancouver Sun article states that "now, with the odd exception, they must have an average of at least 86 per cent" (http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=aa6f577c-92e7-42ad-869c-ad4b8a12d891). The user is reading it as being the average entering grade for first year students and misleadingly posting it as such. There is a very big difference between minimum entering requirements and the average entering grade of students. The average entering grade would be higher than the minimum. The Macleans article says the same thing: "Students entering the two largest faculties, science and arts, will need a minimum high school average of 86 and 85 per cent respectively" (http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/07/08/your-grades-will-drop/). Nowhere in the either article does it state UBC's average entering grade. It only states the minimum requirement. The article does however list both Queens' and McGill's average entering grades. Leventio is inaccurately comparing UBC's minimum requirements to the average entering grade of Queens and McGill. What he/she is attempting to do is like comparing apples and oranges. Furthermore, in a 2003 National Post article that was ironically about Queens, it was stated that UBC has the highest entrance requirement for undergraduate admissions amongst all Canadian Universities (Queen's University's 'back door' is in England: Easier to gain admission to campus at 15th-century castle, Heather Sokoloff, National Post, June 5, 2003). It does not occur to the user that it is likely that neither article is wrong. He/she is misreading his/her own articles and inferring that the National Post article is wrong based on his/her flawed interpretation. I am not the original poster of the National Post article, but I do disagree with the user deleting it.

I have concerns that Leventio may be attempting what he is accusing me of: WP:BOOST. I would like to suggest that a third party read all three articles and render an unbiased opinion.128.189.198.99 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you and Leventio believe, you both need to stop edit warring. You're both way over the line with your actions. ElKevbo (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that was a message clearly laid out in the page lock channel, and am willing to making another step in diffusing the situation by no longer reverting the article until a consensus has been reached. However, I ask that the IP user from now on maintains civility WP:CIV and not attempt to engage me through slights, as he appeared to attempt to do in his last edit summaries, although I will address them. First, I never stated these articles are schorlarly, I stated "Macleans and Vancouver Sun are as scholarly as the National Post", which I only stated because you seem to have implied the Post was (though I'll admit may have read that wrong). Also my alma mater is not Queen's, just because it relates to it, doesn't mean I am an alumni from there, and in fact, if you look at one of my first edits in the Queen's article, it was to remove a similar claim they made in which they stated they were the "2nd highest entering average in Canada" (you can see me take it out here [1]. If your basing this off the editing history of Queen's, then by that measure, I'm also an alma mater of almost every U15 university in Eastern Canada.
As for both articles, in response to your accusations, I am not mistaking minimum requirements with the average entering grade. In fact, in the Vancouver Sun, the article states UBC's actual minimum requirements. "Although the published required grade point average is 67 per cent, the actual cut-off is always higher and is determined by the number of applicants and the number of seats" (Vancouver Sun). The article itself gets this minimum average from Okanagan's minimum requirements is 67 percent and can be seen on their official website (UBC Okanagan Admission criteria). The Sun states the average admission average three times:
"And some faculties, like science, require even higher marks than the 86 per cent needed for an A." (Vancouver Sun).
"In 1990, students were admitted to UBC's arts program with an average of just 70 per cent. Ten years ago, they needed an 80-per-cent average. Now, with the odd exception, they must have an average of at least 86 per cent." (Vancouver Sun)
"In 2000, the mean admission average presented to us by a B.C. high school graduate [regardless of whether they were admitted] was 82 per cent; in 2010, it is looking to be around 87 per cent," he said. (Vancouver Sun)
As for the Maclean's quote you stated earlier, while it does not explicitly state that was UBC entering admission average, it also does not state that it is the minimum requirements. The article itself is a discussion on how students should expect their averages (the ones they've had upon entering university, in other words... their average entry admission) to drop once they start university, so it can be seen that, even though it does not explicitly states average entering admission, it is what they were refering to in that quote you used. Also consider that there is no way they are refering to minumum requirements, considering Okanagan's minimum requirement as explored in the last article, and UBC Vancouver's minimum requirements, which with a bit more investigation, reveals Science and Arts requirements are stated at mid to high 70s, and not mid-80s (though some programs are, they are not Science and Art) (UBC Admission criteria). Additionally the article does state the expected entering admission average was expected to rise to 87% this year, hence the 86-87% range.
"At the University of British Columbia average entrance grades across the university are expected to be 87 per cent this year, a two per cent increase from last year, and up from 80 per cent ten years ago, and 70 per cent twenty years ago. Andrew Arida, UBC’s associate director of enrolment says higher entering grades are simply a matter of supply and demand. “Because students are presenting higher grades, we’ve had to raise our admission averages to avoid over-enrolling,” he explains." (Maclean's)
Information from both articles comes from Andrew Arida, UBC's associate director of enrolment. As for the National Post, I only removed the National Post because I considered it outdated in light of more recently published articles (Maclean's and Vancouver Sun were published in 2010 as opposed to 2003). I have never stated it to be wrong, as you seem to have implied, I did question the relevance looking at the title, but regardless, the main facet of my argument has always been it was outdated in comparison to the two newer articles I had presented. This is the case I present, however, I am in agreement with you that a third party editor should read all three articles, and take both of our arguments into account before we reach a consensus.
Also, in a slightly related, but unrelated matter, in the edits I made in the article, I also included an edit regarding the acceptance rate of the University of British Columbia, which was removed. The citation itself came from Moody's Investors Service, and it also explicitly state the acceptance rate I put down (page. 6), and the report itself originates from UBC's treasury ([2]) so I would just like to ask whether or not that was a sweeping reversion in relation to this issue, or just accidental, along with the contested information. Leventio (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The quotes that you're posting all refer to the minimum needed (the actual cut off as opposed to the posted minimum), not the average entering grade.

  • "And some faculties, like science, require even higher marks than the 86 per cent needed for an A." (Vancouver Sun).
  • "In 1990, students were admitted to UBC's arts program with an average of just 70 per cent. Ten years ago, they needed an 80-per-cent average. Now, with the odd exception, they must have an average of at least 86 per cent." (Vancouver Sun)
  • "In 2000, the mean admission average presented to us by a B.C. high school graduate [regardless of whether they were admitted] was 82 per cent; in 2010, it is looking to be around 87 per cent," (Vancouver Sun) -This Quote is clearly referring to B.C. high school students regardless of whether they were admitted.
  • “Because students are presenting higher grades, we’ve had to raise our admission averages to avoid over-enrolling,” (Macleans) - Again, it's referring to a rise in the cut off in order to avoid over-enrolling.

And the minimum average of 67 that you're referring to is just a POSTED minimum average. Which is very different than the actual minimum average. Your article even explains this: "Although the published required grade point average is 67 per cent, the actual cut-off is always higher and is determined by the number of applicants and the number of seats." (Vancouver Sun).

Both articles that you are referring to are referring to a cut-off (minimum requirement) as opposed to the average entering grade. I don't see how the National Post article is outdated, especially since the articles that you're posting are referring to the minimum requirement (cut-off). 128.189.166.169 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdrawing my current complaint at the moment, but I would wish to see that the National Post article be replaced as soon as possible with something more up to date (perhaps post-2010). I will be re-adding the acceptance rate reference as well as this reference (http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/services-for-media/ubc-facts-figures/) which states the average entering grade for both Okanagan and Vancouver (2009-10 at least). Leventio (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Employment Equity

I understand where Brainchild05 is coming from: UBC has an employment policy in place (see: http://www.arts.ubc.ca/faculty-and-staff/academic-postings/ ) but the School of Music proceeds to ignore the statement "Canadians and Permanent Residents will be given priority" by hiring three non-Canadians. Is UBC's School of Music admitting that Faculties of Music in Canada are not capable of educating musicians to a level that would qualify them to fill their own Assistant Professor positions? An interesting conundrum that deserves to be on Wikipedia I think.Musicprol (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a venue to make a point; if you can find adequate reliable sources describing this issue then it might be something to include in this article. Otherwise, it should remain out. ElKevbo (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) No, sorry, it doesn't "deserve" to be on Wikipedia. You are engaging in original research. If the appointments get some discussion in media outside of your union newsletter, or as the subject of a formal protest, then we can consider inclusion. Beyond that, the fact that universities make specific faculty appointments, some of which draw on a worldwide pool of talent, is hardly encyclopedia-worthy. Franamax (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympians

Here is a list of 2012 Olympians with UBC affiliations, according to July 16's The Ubyssey. I have added Category:University of British Columbia alumni to the articles that exist, but some don't and some haven't graduated yet, so they're not "alumni". I'll put the list here so they can be added in the future.

Thank you. InverseHypercube (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


HESA Ranking

I don't see the reason why the HESA ranking should not be included in the Reputation section of the article. The name of the section is not "Academic Ranking", rather, it is reputation which includes both academic and research reputation. Lets discuss this matter here. In the meantime I have restored the information to its original form. CanadaRed (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Are Universities in BC considered Crown Corporations?

I couldn't figure out whether or not Universities in BC are Crown corporations from the Wiki article. Does anyone know what the official classification is?23.16.152.103 (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_British_Columbia&oldid=537666486"