Talk:University of California, San Diego/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"UCSD Secrets" external link

An anonymous user (several anonymous users) keep adding a link to "The Secrets of UCSD - For the Incoming Freshman". It is my opinion that this link does not meet the guidelines in WP:EL, but I've removed it several times and will cease doing so without consensus from other editors. Paulymer5 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The blog appears to have started only several months ago and appears non-notable, with barely any comments. This appears to be case of self-promotion or extremely misguided ideas of what constitutes a useful resource. I've removed the link. --C S (Talk) 11:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the blog does a good job of documenting certain areas of the campus that have never been discussed. The site also has a considerable number of comments.Eng rulz 11:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)eng_rulz
Just saying the opposite of what I say doesn't refute the fact that the level of activity on the blog is miniscule. Also, I have to question what your interest is in promoting this website. Are you affiliated with the blog? --C S (Talk) 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you justify inclusion of the link under WP:EL? If not, why do believe the link should still be included? In the grand scope of the University's research contributions to science, publications, programs, and affiliations, do you believe some utility passages connecting buildings is important? Paulymer5 18:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We certainly shouldn't link to the blog for this tunnel info. The information and map is ripped off (without credit) from Ben Hines' tunnels website (UCSD info here). That's the site that ought to be linked for this info, if it is to be linked to. I believe it's rather presumptuous to believe that a blog with 11 entries, totalling less than two dozen comments (the tunnels entry has the most comments: 10), with mostly information easily obtainable elsewhere (as indeed the blogger has done), is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia article on the University of California at San Diego. Let's have a sense of proportion. --C S (Talk) 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

UCSD Redirect

I've restored the redirect from UCSD to the University of California, San Diego. I believe that most users of the english wikipedia will be searching for the California University, rather than that of the Dominican Republic. I have included a link to the Santo Domingo Catholic University at the top of the University of California page through the {{redirect}} template.

In full disclosure, I'm a UC San Diego student, and thus fairly biased, but I'm definitely open to discussion on the matter.

Finally, I'd also like to see some quality improvements to Universidad Católica Santo Domingo. Paulymer5 08:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Paulymer5, I totally agree with you. I restored the redirect AGAIN and tried to put a little more effort into the Santo Domingo page, but it all depends on whether or not the previous editor is willing to stop reverting. It's odd though, as the Santo Domingo University doesn't even have its own page on the spanish wikipedia. Elefuntboy 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is even a point in having the Santo Domingo Catholic University redirect tag at the top of the page. Having that tag at top means that someone typed UCSD in the English wiki and expected to see Universidad Católica Santo Domingo, which I don't think is likely given the following:
1. It's not an English wiki. I cannot really imagine an English-speaking user going to the English wiki website, typing in UCSD, and expecting to see Universidad Católica Santo Domingo. Universidad Católica Santo Domingo is just not that ubiquitous that you would expect the acronym to be known in the English-speaking world.
2. Its English translation is "Santo Domingo Catholic University," so it is more likely that an English user would type SDCU.
3. The Spanish wiki forwards UCSD to "Universidad de California, San Diego."
4. It's a 3 sentence wiki w/o a page in the Spanish wiki or another other language.
5. If we started adding redirect for what UCSD could mean for every possible language, there would be too many redirect tags at top.
Now don't get me wrong. Universidad Católica Santo Domingo definitely deserves a wiki page in English. It's just that I don't think anybody would type UCSD and expect to see that page. More likely than not, it could only lead to confusion. Unsuspected 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree with you. I originally put the redirect tag up because another editor (sorry, too lazy atm to look up the history) kept relinking UCSD to a disambiguation page. However, regarding point two, the Universidad Catóolica Santo Domingo uses "UCSD" throughout its website and other literature, and I expect that partcluar acronym is used internationally. Just as UCSD is often referred to as "UCSD" in other lagnuages, even when its translated name is quite different, I believe it's not unreasonable for the Universidad Católica Santo Domingo to be listed as UCSD. In any case, I support your removal of the tag, and your general reasoning for doing so. Paulymer5 00:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sun God Festival

I think that more should be said about the annual Sun God Fest. Basically that it is a large attraction to students and non-students. And maybe if somebody could find that article that was in The Guardian that talked about record numbers of attendees. Oh! maybe somebody could also list the past performers. --MLSmateo 00:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I've changed the info box to the standard university template that wikipedia has to keep university pages uniform. I hope there are no objections. ArchonMeld 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy Crap...Okay finally I got the images in the infobox to blend nicely.....that took me hours. ArchonMeld 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Admissions

How could 16,000+ freshman be admitted last year when there are only 21,000 undergrads total? ArchonMeld 08:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vastly larger numbers of students are admitted each year as only a tiny fraction accept university admission. It's an accurate figure, i believe. Elefuntboy 23:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Um....you are missing the winter admits.... Please look up the source in main UC webpage about stats. The total should be ~ 49% admitted frosh.

Nearby/(loosely) Affiliated research institutes

I'm surprised there's no mention here of UCSD's proximity to the famous Salk Institute for Biological Studies (which shares some of its faculty with UCSD), or The Neurosciences Institute, or the Scripps Research Institute, or The Burnham Institute, or The La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology. It should also be noted that UCSD's medical school ranks quite high (14th for research, 7th for primary care) in the US News rankings.

On the Colleges

This article includes a gigantic section on the colleges, each of which have their own articles. The editor in me thinks perhaps the college blocks are unnecessary, since the college articles are far more detailed. It's a pretty major edit, so I'm interested in hearing if anyone else has an opinion. The college system at UCSD is well covered in the article -- I wouldn't remove any of that -- but I might advocate dropping the individual blocks about the colleges, or cutting them way, way down. Jason Snell 23 Jun 2005

Jason, that's a good point. I originally wrote the college sections for the UCSD site and then expanded them into their own articles. If you wish to delete them I wouldn't be too offended, really =). Although, I do think it helps to keep people aware of the colleges tha totherwise might not click over to see them. Anyhow, just a thought. Elefuntboy 24 June 2005
Welcome Jason to Wikipedia. You can easily sign all comments by including four tildas (~~~~) You can cut each section into a basic skeleton and place at the top this code {{Seemain|article name}} and a template redirect link will be created. lots of issues | leave me a message 10:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Much appreciated. Jsnell 15:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jason, excellent update and edit on the colleges. Five points for you! Elefuntboy 02:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) 26 June 2005

Third College

I made some minor changes to Marshall/Third College, one of which could conceivably be controversial. The previous version discussed Third College's initial founding goals in 1970 as being related to the civil rights movement. In my opinion (I worked on a large historical research project for Third's 20th anniversary in 1990 that led to a book on the topic, and my specialty was its early history), the history of Third is just as entwined with the free speech movement, student protests, growing academic freedom among faculty, and the counterculture of the 60s. Disagreements welcome, but that's my take. Jason Snell 22 Jun 2005.

You're the expert on the area then. There shoudn't be any controversy.

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just treading lightly. But thanks for the support! Jason Snell 23 Jun 2005.

Average GPA

" The group of admitted students this year attained a mean high school grade point average (GPA) of 4.05 and an average composite SAT score of 1314"

how can the gpa be > 4.0? Do california schools allow higher than 4.0 GPAs?

Yes, with honors and advanced placement courses one can in fact have a "weighted GPA" > 4.0. Most schools in U.S. the have this policy.

Humor

This whole section was removed. Some of the other UC sites have humor sections, why not San Diego?

Gloominess reigns in San Diego. I assume you are editing as an outsider. Well trust us. lots of issues | leave me a message 21:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
In this encyclopedia we are trying to produce a professional product, and lightbulb jokes -- ugh. --fpo 22:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


Lotsofissues, you need a hug, don't you? =). I think the joke is somewhat unnecessary for the encyclopedic aspect, but trust us, there are some people that actually enjoy UCSD and have fun =). Elefuntboy 00:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Tell me about this fun friend. lots of issues | leave me a message 20:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Haha, well, i'll be having it as a silly grad student this fall. Just bug the brown guy with the afro and I'll tell you =). Elefuntboy 04:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Co-ops

I would really like to see a page on the co-ops at UCSD, as they are significant in terms of the number of co-ops, specifically worker's co-ops, at any UC campus and perhaps at American universities in general (there are 4). I will probably add a paragraph to the UCSD main page and am working on a page specifically about the Che Cafe, but the co-ops in general have played an important and unique role in the development of the campus' social and political history. Hotdogs 19:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That'd be awesome. There's definitely a lot to contribute. Elefuntboy 03:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome hotdogs -- would you mind if the che cafe was merged with the UCSD article? I think that would make for simple organization and navigation. lots of issues | leave me a message 06:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I kind of think there should be a separate article specifically for the Che Cafe as it has a cultural significance that extends well beyond UCSd. However, I think incorporating the co-ops into the UCSD article would be great. I think that's what I meant even though I suggested a "page" - a section within the UCSD page. Though having separate articles for individual co-ops (or perhaps just stubs on some really, such as the food co-op) would be a good idea I think as the co-ops, while very much connected, do have individual histories as well. Hotdogs 18:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Damnit

The academics section is complete crap. Does anyone know about the actual research that goes on rather than this self aggrandizing marketing?

lots of issues | leave me a message 14:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

History section?

What about if we add a history section to the article just like in the Berkeley and UCLA entries? -- Lrd1rocha 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Who feels like reading a book on the history of UCSD?--I don't. I doubt anyone else will. Lotsofissues 05:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A history section is a must. All the Ivy leagues, Stanford, and Caltech start off with history, not that UCSD needs to compete. It is just that a history section is a standard not an exception.

If you seem to have lots of issues with UCSD and selectivity, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history and standards of the school. The history of UCSD as a school built from the top down has allowed it to achieve top tier status in less than 50 years. Perhaps an exceptional feat. Having an "if you build it they will come" philosophy, admissions and recognition has long lagged academic standards. This is lag is expected from social feed back loops. Many grad student TA's who are alums of 'higher ranking' universities are surprised at course material of the undergrads. People who do not understand this see these articles as unjustified self promotion. So YES, please put up a history.

span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.225.130 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

UCSD's history is a pretty rich one - nice and controversial even before ground was broken, and wikipedia is a good venue for its expounding. I say add a history section, put in a couple of lines about when it opened, and watch what happens. Soltras 05:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then go ahead and make it. ArchonMeld 08:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A history section is okay as long as it is concise. WPW 18:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside Survey

I'm posting this survey request Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey on all the UC talk pages in order to gather outside opinion on ongoing issues concerning the POV of this article. Please read the article and add your insights to the survey to help us identify any points of consensus in the UCR article. Thanks--Amerique 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

UCSD has been featured in a variety of TV shows and movies. While Geisel library (and its wiki page) has some of this info on there, I think there should be a trivia section on the UCSD page for a list of items like this. One example is that UCSD was the place of the fictitious debate in a West Wing episode.

  • I got a good one...wtf is a triton?


    • A triton is a figure from classical mythology. They are undersea "spirits", the male counterparts of the female nereids, and followers of Poseidon/Neptune. They are often depicted in classical (and renaissance and neo-classical) art as bearded male figures from the waist up; below the waist they are shown with a fish's tail (like a merman) or their legs are snaky and scaled, with fish tails for feet. Tritons are often shown with spears or tridents, blowing conch-shell horns, or driving the car (chariot) of Neptune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.66.228 (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

trim ELs per WP:EL

Please see

talk

72.254.3.118 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you think that the external links violated WP:EL standards. They are instead quite helpful. I won't be opposed to someone removing links and replacing it w/ content where it would be suitable; however, just removing links for the sake of removing them is not very productive. Unsuspected 02:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject University of California

Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

misplaced emphasis in Student Life section

The student life section makes a big deal out of The Koala, which is largely ignored or overlooked by UCSD students. It also contains a perhaps-overly-grand refernce to some campus centers "There are also three campus centers that cultivate a sense of community among faculty, staff, and students: the Cross-Cultural Center, the Women's Center and the LGBT Resource Center," which is a rather large statement to make for centers that invite exclusion by spending student funds on special interest groups.

No mention is made of the numerous organizations, shows, cultural events, and campus projects which constitute a much larger part of student life for most students. Also, no reference is made to the struggle that exists between UCSD student organizations and UCSD staff - staff continually try to reign in organizations, and in fact are threatening not to re-certify the campus's Habitat for Humanity chapter because the chapter will not reserve spaces specifically for staff for its off-campus events.

As most of this consists of my personal observations I don't know how well it can be included in an encyclopedia article - but if organizational struggles persist then maybe a newspaper article will come out of it and it can be corroborated. 66.27.121.188 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In a rather long article, I see only two sentences that even mention The Koala. I'd hardly call that a big deal. Besides, at least during the time I was at UCSD ('99-'04) controversy around the The Koala, and the entertainment said controversy generated, was a significant element of public student life. As for the mention of the "three student centers", I agree that their importance is rather overblown and the wording is somewhat ironic. Please by all means go ahead and add mentions for the other campus centers (student center, the pub, price center, etc) and campus groups. If you run into any problems, I'll see if I can help when I get a chance. Newtman (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A question

That may be impossible to answer, but why didn't UCSD ever make a push for DI football? I realize the start-up costs would have seemed prohibitive, but the development of a popular "cross-town" rivalry in sports with SDSU could have paid off tremendously for both schools and the city in the long run. Probably the state wouldn't want to invest in two football teams for one town, but still. Ameriquedialectics 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, could have been the signature rivalry of the Mountain West Conference. SDSU's even got red jerseys; the color scheme would have fit right in with CA's other college rivalries. Ameriquedialectics 03:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Answered my own question, found a SD Tribune article from 2002 that said the university has been comfortable winning championships (with walk-ons, up until the scholarship referendum was passed last year, basically) at the lower divisions, and could fund a lot of programs because it didn't have to fund football:[1]... and another recent one that says SDSU's football revenues have been declining:[2] Still, SD has it's own television market... the thought must have occurred to some people. Ameriquedialectics 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endowment

There is this problem with US News endowment figures across the UC campuses. They are all, to varying degrees, grossly inaccurate, in some cases over-reporting by over 4x what the self-disclosed UC endowment figures are. Here is a news item from last year placing UCSD's endowment at "more than $485 million": [3]. As far as US News goes, so long as anything it publishes is not collated by other sources, I consider it unreliable. Ameriquedialectics 04:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • FWIW, I agree with your conclusion about the US News figures. They vary too wildly from the official figures published by the University of California in its Annual Endowment Report.Vantelimus (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem was first identified last year at Talk:University_of_California,_Irvine#Endowment_again. I don't know what's going on with it, I think they may be quantifying all capital assets held by the university or something. Ameriquedialectics 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Gerhard Casper the former president of Stanford, US News & World Report simply changes the formulas used to calculated financial resources. Therefore USNWR is not a legitimate reference for this data. Quote:

'Knowing that universities - and, in most cases, the statistics they submit - change little from one year to the next, I can only conclude that what are changing are the formulas the magazine's number massagers employ. And, indeed, there is marked evidence of that this year. In the category "Faculty resources," even though few of us had significant changes in our faculty or student numbers, our class sizes, or our finances, the rankings' producers created a mad scramble in rank order [...data...]. Then there is "Financial resources," where Stanford dropped from #6 to #9, Harvard from #5 to #7. Our resources did not fall; did other institutions' rise so sharply? I infer that, in each case, the formulas were simply changed, with notification to no one, not even your readers, who are left to assume that some schools have suddenly soared, others precipitously plummeted.' [4]

A challenge for the highly selective crowd

Go to the Harvard article and try to insert that term. A very well established discussion will be brought up and the term removed. This is an encyclopedia. We have standard policies. Articles should not be ceded over to over zealous students trying to promote their school.

Lotsofissues 13:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address the issue at hand. You have removed information supported by a well-known source. Further, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classifies UCSD as "more selective", its highest tier of selectivity.
I understand that university articles are rife with self-promotion and marketing. But the concept of "selectivity" is a useful one, particularly when we can rely on standardized definitions and well-known source. You may not like USN&WR's rankings or definitions but in many ways that's besides the point as verifiability is our standard and not truth. But even if you don't care for USN&WR the Carnegie Foundation and their classification systems are beyond reproach and the gold standard for classifying institutions of higher education in America. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe you are writing an encyclopedia then you should respect standardization. You should accept my challenge. Otherwise you are subverting rules to advance university promotion. Lotsofissues 15:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The question here is whether the use of the term is appropriate. The argument by Lotsofissues that omitting the term has been standardized is not supported. Instead of support, he only poses a meaningless challenge. What the people who edit the Harvard article have decided is not a necessarily a Wikipedia standard. The relevant wikipedia standard here is Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. The sections that seem relevant are "avoid vague terms of praise..." and "if you cite college and university rankings, be precise and honest." The term selective is imprecise only if it does not have backing from a source that has a standard way of using the term. Both the Carnegie Foundation and USNWR use standards for assigning a selectivity rating. Therefore the vagueness clause doesn't apply. The "precise" clause may apply. The use of the word in the article is "highly selective", however, Carnegie's ranking for UCSD is "more selective" and USNWR's ranking is "most selective". As Elkevbo notes, these rankings are the highest selectivity tiers assigned by those studies. Thus, it seems "highly selective" actually downplays the selectivity of UCSD. A more accurate statement would be "According to US News and World Report, UCSD is one of the most selective colleges in the US." This is a precise statement that can be backed by reference to USNWR. The same, btw, can be said for Harvard. I'll leave the decision of whether to add the statement to the Harvard article up to the people who concern themselves with the Harvard article. For the UCSD article, I think Elkevbo has made a better case here than Lotsofissues. In fact, if he wants to change the statement to "one of the most selective", I'd support that also. Vantelimus (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"one of the most selective", I'd support that also. That's a very bold claim to make and it's not supported by admissions figures. The 2-subject avg for UCSD matriculants is about 1240-1250. There are dozens of schools with higher boards (probably ~40). Based on your response, I can see you are serious about writing a factually supported article. So it puzzles me why you make such an odd suggestion. To claim UCSD is one of the most selective would mislead readers. Anyways, the Harvard article shouldn't follow its own rules, contradicting what we do. The aim should always be to standardize. They've had discussion and concluded the label is promotional. You make the case that Carnegie classifications are basic info so I suggest clarifying the source of the term "highly selective". Lotsofissues 12:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The best way to standardize would be to open a larger discussion and have the term added to the list in Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism if it is to be excluded. Your argument for why UCSD isn't "selective" is a reasonable one, but your definition differs from the Carnegie classification, which defines the phrase "more selective" as: Score data for first-year students indicate that these institutions are more selective in admissions (our analysis of first-year students’ test scores places these institutions in roughly the top fifth of baccalaureate institutions). Your observation that about 40 schools have better test scores sounds about right to put UCSD at the bottom of the top fifth. I concur with your suggestion that the source of any claim of selectivity be clarified, whether it be USNWR or the Carnegie foundation. Vantelimus (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Another thought or two on selectivity... when compared to Harvard, a selectivity definition which admits the top 20% seems very weak. However, obtaining admission to a top 20% university is still an unobtainable goal for roughly 80% of prospective college students. Viewed thusly, UCSD appears selective to a supermajority of the total student population. When one considers that only about a 40% of the population attains a BA/BS or higher and only about 50% have some college (see Educational attainment in the United States) the percentage of the total population that may qualify for admission to UCSD goes from 20% down to less than 10%. From this larger perspective, UCSD looks selective. The definition of selectivity seems to make all the difference, so I am fact-tagging any claim to selectivity that I see that doesn't include a reference to the source of the claim.Vantelimus (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

Several people have told me that UCSD used to be called "UC La Jolla". Is this true? Can anyone find a source to either back this up or refute it? I think this deserves mention on this page if it is true. Cazort (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is written on the wall by the entrance to the ballrooms in the original part of the Price Center. Good data for a trivia/traditions section. Someone should bring in their laptop to PC and update the UCSD Wikipedia page!

Format

Tone down the detailed rankings of every sub-department. It sounds like UCSD has an inferiority complex. UCSD is a top tier university, and does not need a page with so much petty proof. The tone and formant should mirror the UC Berkeley, U. Michigan, Stanford, and Harvard pages. Get rid of the Koala stuff. Who cares? Harvard has the H-Bomb pornish mag and they don't flaunt it on their site. U. Penn has museums, UCSD has an aquarium, the San Diego Supercomputer Center, and several large shake facilities like the Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table, research ships, and a sea port. Put it up under a notable facilities section. UCSD also has a lot of famous research including global warming and the discovery of the Keeling Curve. It has even invented a very widely used computer language (UCSD Pascal, which evolved into Java). A notable research section should also be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.110.121.86 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I don't think UCSD has an inferiority complex. It does have a general recognition problem by being overshadowed by Berkeley and UCLA. So, I'm a little more tolerant about the proliferation of rankings. Your idea of a section on famous research and discoveries would be a nice way to eliminate the perceived need for some of the ranking data. Vantelimus (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
While only speculation on my part, I think UCSD does have something of an inferiority complex, if only because it hasn't developed a DI football program when it would seem to be in a prime market position to do so. Academically it's great, of course, but they didn't try to develop anything for students or the city to identify with, so student apathy is tremendous and things like the Koala are "big news" over there. Here's a 2005 student satisfaction survey that more or less confirms: [5] Ameriquedialectics 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Football isn't mentioned in the 2005 student satisfaction survey. I don't think UCSD needs a giant football program when the money saved enables a myriad of sport alternates that would otherwise not be available. All UCSD has to do for PR is highlight the sports alternates it offers... Here on the wiki page, I agree the puff-piece tone should be pulled out wherever possible and a hard facts tone substituted. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You are right, but it's one of those "chicken before the egg" questions, I guess. Again, this is only speculation, but I would say a possible reason why it doesn't have DI athletics and a full-scale football program is because of low satisfaction in the "student life" aspects of the university. If the students don't campaign for it, it doesn't happen, and if they are not satisfied with or especially "identify" with the place, they won't. Academically, UCSD is certainly on par with Berkeley and UCLA, but in terms of having hordes of raving diehard "fans" from within the student and the local populations who are willing to act like fools for and fanatically support the place, UCSD doesn't have that. (So the costs of developing a football program could be seen as an investment in developing that, especially as they've got a natural cross-town rival in SDSU.) Ameriquedialectics 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
When did the goal become the acquisition of "raving diehard "fans" ... who are willing to act like fools"? I would hate to see UCSD saddled with a huge football program. The charm of the place is elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that may be true, but all that fanaticism leads to increased revenue streams and popular recognition for the university. In LA and the Bay Area, vast numbers of people who have no formal affiliation with and no chances of admission to either UC (or Stanford or USC) buy tons of merchandise to show they "bleed blue and gold," as it were. Anyway, again, this has nothing to do with the article, but why should UCSD leave the San Diego market entirely to SDSU? Ameriquedialectics 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
(As a side note in this off-topic discussion: It's well known and documented that the vast majority of DI institutions with football teams lose money on their athletic programs. They're not money makers unless your fan base is completely rabid AND very large. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC))
That is true... and this is totally off-topic, but I think the market in SD hasn't been properly developed. The SD area supports professional football and baseball teams... throwing in a college football team that would be competitive with SDSU should increase the market capital of both institutions. (And cause people unfamiliar with the schools to have to differentiate between the acronyms.) It would take a while to cultivate, of course, but "if you build it, he will come," as the voice said in Field of Dreams.
From page 27-28 of UCSD's USCSC Report, under findings:
Athletics
Many students suggest that UCSD should move to NCAA Division I athletics. At the core of that recommendation is the passionate desire to promote school spirit and pride and improve UCSD’s image among peers. While athletics seems to be the easy answer and a quick fix, just moving to Division I athletics is not a cure-all. The Committee noted that at UC Davis, school spirit actually decreased after that school’s move to Division I athletics. Committee members believed that this drop in school spirit or pride was the result of the school’s teams being less competitive than they were in Division II. UC Davis’s move to Division I was very recent, though. It is unclear whether the perceived decrease in school spirit is a permanent and irreversible phenomenon, and the final effect on school spirit is unknown. Although the Committee members agree that a simple move to Division I is not a silver bullet for increasing student satisfaction, students continue to express frustration at rivaling schools such as Harvard and Berkeley in all areas but athletics. Often athletic competitions serve as proxies for a more profound competition.
Students comment that they would like to see athletic competitions with institutions that are generally comparable to UCSD, such as UCLA, Berkeley, and Stanford. This makes athletic competitions more profound and elicits greater support and emotion. The Committee believes the rivalries created in athletic competition help build pride for an institution. It is important that these rivalries be comprehensive and extend beyond a single sport. At schools with higher profile athletic programs and prominent institutional rivalries, even losing nights attract large numbers of students who rally for a common purpose and who support the overall institution.[6]
But anyway, this is only something they haven't done. Who knows if they ever will? UCSD was explicitly designed to meet the demands of research faculty, as opposed to undergraduates, so it probably wouldn't be in their institutional character for them to do something like this. Ameriquedialectics 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly, I have a strong POV which is that university athletics programs should involve more students in athletics than in spectatorship. I just rewrote the Athletics heading, getting rid of the opening apologia (Gee, we don't have football). I added two more subsections: Boosters and Football. In the Football subsection, I tried my hand at neutrality, bringing in a couple of views about how football would enhance the national prestige of UCSD, etc. Hopefully, my active-athlete vs. passive-spectator POV-ishness hasn't completely muddied the waters on this topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks great! I hadn't known about this history. I just wondered why a school that strong academically hadn't developed comparable athletics when successfully doing so would have really helped them out in terms of public perception vis a vis Berkeley and UCLA. (They should have started this when it first opened up, although this wasn't on their minds, apparently.) I know many other schools have tried and failed at developing self-sustaining "big money" athletics, but UCSD is in an area where doing so would seem feasible. Anyway, I'll shut up now. Ameriquedialectics 23:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


MIT is extremely well known and does not have a huge sports program. If they have any kind of Olympics on campus, it involves liquid nitrogen and calculators! The highest paid employee in the UC system gets paid over 2 million a year. It is not the president, he only gets less than half a million a year. Take a look for yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.110.121.86 (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Images

Hi, it has come to my attention that some random people deleted images off of the UCSD Wikipedia page. I have reverted these back, because I feel that these are definitely important images that add to the history and explanation of UCSD. Please help to save and grow this page by discouraging random people who might have never even been to San Diego to make judgments on whether or not a topic or picture related to this article is unnecessary or not. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savedaworld (talkcontribs) 21:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You assume the deletions were by a non-alumnus. Strike! I am interested in retaining images that are serious and informative. What's informative about a guy wearing green near green bushes? Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
As the person who uploaded the images to commons from flikr, I think the pics of Calit2 and the watermelon drop were illustrative. Calit2 is a major research center and the watermellon drop is the oldest student tradition (other than the koala) that ucsd has. The other "art" shots I can take or leave. Ameriquedialectics 22:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see the validity of having a watermelon photo. How about if it is a single combination image incorporating both the 'in-the-air' and the 'splat' snapshots?
Created a table for it. I'm not sure if that's what you meant. I think it sticks out too much. Feel free to revert if you agree. Ameriquedialectics 01:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting horizontal array, but in pondering it, I thought that a vertical stack would work better with the text. I went and slimmed the top image down to get rid of a lot of empty building texture and then resampled the bottom 'splat' image to match the width of the slimmed top image. I then married the two snapshots into one vertical composite image. Maybe it works better, maybe not. Hey, if you don't like it, you can revert. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Ameriquedialectics 09:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<--The "Muir College" image needs a new description. Muir College can't possibly be represented by one building and parts of two others. It's been waay too long since I was a student; is the center building the Humanities or Math building? Whoever can identify it accurately, please do so.

Along those same lines, can somebody write a short bit about the teddy bear art in the foreground of the Calit2 photo? And let's not abbreviate Calit2 in the description... Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

University of California, San Diego Sports

I recommend that most of the sports information on the UCSD article be moved to the UCSD Tritons article. That way, there will be less information about sports on the UCSD article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech30 (talkcontribs) 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC) --Tech30 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Ranking cruft

I overhauled the lead to give less emphasis to the rankings and to convey actual information about the university. However, it appears that the lead was actually an accurate summary of the article since every paragraph incorporates some sort of relative measure to describe the university. This is tacky and, moreover, unencyclopedic. I will hack at the rest of the page in the coming days to strip this ranking-cruft out and replace it with more valuable information. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

UCSD Screw Up

Hi Brothers, hey i wanted to know if somebody could add this piece of information in the article [7] its something that happened a few days ago, when UCSD sent emails and letters mistakenly congratulating nearly 29,000 applicants on their acceptance, and well, then killing their dreams cause they werent, im very pissed off at this cause i was one of them niggas. Somebody that could write about this with neutrality should add this, maybe emerge and Article like Criticism of UCSD or something like that Well, thats all, thank u for ur attention--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

doubt an entire criticism article is warranted, but will be sure to add to History section or somewhere. That's truly an atrocious blunder. My condolences/pity to you. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, why havent anyone done anything? yall gots to add that info, its important (= --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It fixed now. You could see the updated info on the History Section Thanhluan001 (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank You--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, please keep silly criticism that involve a select group of faculty off the site.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of California, San Diego/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Major style and neutrality issues to address

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Inconsistent, over-complex parallelized sentences in some places, mission statement-ese in others,
    B. MoS compliance:
    A variety of issues with en/em dashes, non-breaking spaces, inconsistent citation formatting; overall structural style is inconsistent with WP:UNIGUIDE (outreach and television having top-level headers); no discussion of organization or administration (board of trustees, relationship with UC system, president & provost, student and faculty governance, endowment and fundraising, etc.); no discussion of campus (overview of layout, some history, geographical context and proximity, notable buildings, transportation, sustainability (I'm not a huge fan of the this, though it is popular)
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Citation formatting is inconsistent and redundant ([8]), many citations originating from UCSD domain (see WP:SPS), majority of citations seem to be for rankings and are redundant or inconsistent
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Missing citations throughout History, Recognition, Research, Admissions, Student Life
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    History section is far too short and neglects major topics like campus protests and activism in the 1960s and 70s, gender/racial integration, declining gov't sponsorship, town-gown tensions, 2008 admissions snafu merits no more than a sentence; academics section neglects any mention of accreditation, academic calendar, honors, enrollment distributions throughout schools, core undergraduate curriculum, popular undergraduate majors & graduate programs, tuition & financial aid, etc.; Alumni sections makes no mention of any notable alumni; no discussion of makeup/diversity/background of student body; research section omits important NSF data (
    B. Focused:
    Undue weight on rankings and neglect of major topics such as administration/organization, campus, academic information, alumni, etc.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    I think it should automatically fail for having rankings in the lead (see WP:UNIGUIDE) as well as unduly devoting a non-trivial percentage of the total written content to unencyclopedic rankings and recognition to the detrimental omission of other encyclopedic information (see 3a); several instances of weaselly/peacocked/boosterish statements ("especially well-respected", "academic strength and athletic prowess", "consistently rated", "Stellar faculty were recruited", etc.); mission statement-ese ("foster a lifelong, mutually beneficial relationship", undergraduate colleges)
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Lots of enthusiastic and good-faith editing
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Someone should look more closely at the logos especially, but they appear to pass
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    A map or some other image providing a general geographical context for the campus might be nice, but it's not essential
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This is what a B-class university article should look like. To the detriment of this article's quality, many many university articles currently assessed B-class need to demoted to C-class or lower. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a fail or a hold? I honestly can't tell. Wizardman 16:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been almost one month since this was posted. I've removed it from WP:GAN and closed the review as a fail. It can be renominated when it meets the GA criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Campus image

The choice of the Warren Mall seems a bit arbitrary, and it's only 1/6th of the campus. IMHO, Geisel would be a better choice as an image for the "Campus" section, since it's at the center of campus and has quite strong associations with the university generally. Thoughts? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, if you want. I just put it there because it's a panoramic. Ameriquedialectics 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article

We are in the process of turning this article into good article status.Anyone that wishes to contribute, please edit away! Tech30 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, try to address the concerns I raised in the GA review. I would also encourage editors to take a look at WP:UNIGUIDE and other university FAs and GAs for inspiration. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Important reliable sources to incorporate:
I'm going to take a hack at this. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If any of you plan to expand the "libraries and museums" section, here's a link with information about the UCSD libraries Tech30 (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Despite the burst of editing about two weeks ago, I haven't seen significant strides towards the issues I raised in the GA nomination. I'll give it another week. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Location?

Note: Following discussion moved from Talk:La Jolla, San Diego, California to here since UCSD is the source of the confusion/controversy/dispute --Cybercobra (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed University of California, San Diego as being within La Jolla, per San Diego City definitions:

These official definitions make UCSD, Scripps and Salk into their own community, one that borders La Jolla. The definitions also put La Jolla Village outside of La Jolla. San Diego has no jurisdiction over UCSD, Salk or Scripps. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So in other words, you are stating that the university is named UC San Diego even though the City of San Diego has no control over the university? Please explain.Tech30 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just reporting what this link says—I'm not going to try and interpret it. Quoting "Neither Scripps nor the University of California are under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego."
More to the point, UCSD is its own San Diego community, as defined in this link, where it is said to comprise the University community. Historically, the whole area was generally connected with La Jolla, back when Kearny Mesa and Claremont Mesa were just natural mesas with sagebrush, coyotes and ground squirrels, and back before UCSD was incorporated. Today all those areas are clearly delineated by the city. Of course, nearby neighborhoods would like to bask in the prosperity of the name "La Jolla", so you get things like "La Jolla Village" hoping to have some of the magic dust brush off onto it, and I can imagine that some at UCSD would like to emphasize the connection for the same reasons.
The post office will deliver mail no matter which San Diego community is listed in the address; they go by zip code. People in UCSD could probably put Torrey Pines in their address and still get their mail. Mapquest and other mapping services will not have the same definitions as every city government, but who would you believe in this case? The city which defines community boundaries, or the independent mapping services? Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I do have to agree that, though UCSD may de facto be in La Jolla, the sources just aren't there and the official maps convincingly back the University City, San Diego, California view. The postal address in La Jolla is probably more like a PO Box than the university's actual location. At best, it's adjacent to La Jolla and La Jolla Village. I'm surprised personally. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Surprised me, too. I happily put La Jolla on my address both when I was in Tioga dorm and when I was living near Genesee and Governor for the last three of my undergraduate years in the early '80s. These days, even Mapquest calls that latter area "University City". Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As explained below, the documents above define community planning areas for the purpose of organizing community groups to provide the city with community input. These boundaries have very little to do with the communities that existed long before these planning areas were invented and defined, and purposefully exclude areas in which the city has no jurisdiction - like on state university land. The idea that University City goes west of I-5 is absurd. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, when you say "UCSD is its own San Diego community", do you mean as in part of the County of San Diego? In that case, yes, but we are referring to where exactly the university resides in(as in what city and what part of the city). Clearly, many individuals around the City of San Diego know that the university is a part of the city of San Diego, regardless of what the sources may say. If you do not believe me, watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSSVxllD_Vg&feature=channel. It also states that the university is surrounded by the town of La Jolla. The sources may not say it, but it is widely believed.Tech30 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading at both of your comments and taking another look at the surrounding area, I would have to agree with both of you.At first, I was confused as to what area of the City of San Diego the university resides in, as many people would say that it resides in the community of La Jolla. including actual UCSD students. As much as I would like to disagree with the fact that it is not in La Jolla, I would have to agree with the fact that it is not in La Jolla, but in University City.Tech30 (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If one assumes that communities are officially defined by zip codes aggregates, the links http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/zip_codes_California2.htm and http://zipcodes.addresses.com/zip_codes_by_city/38907.html (note that this site also gives lat/lon) indicate that the zip code 92093 (the UCSD zip code) is in La Jolla. All other links I've seen resulting from searches on 92093 support the same conclusion. — Myasuda (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Zip codes do not define communities. They don't even define cities! Right now, I live in a zip code that includes two cities: Oakland and Piedmont. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It does probably contribute significantly to the widespread misunderstanding at hand though. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that in Myasuda's first link, there are no zip codes labeled "Pacific Beach", "Kearny Mesa", "Claremont Mesa" or "Torrey Pines". The zip codes are indeed confusing relative to San Diego Communities. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You call it a "widespread misunderstanding", but I don't think it's all that clear-cut. As noted in the La Jolla article, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography is part of La Jolla . . . but SIO is part of UCSD (as noted in the lede of the SIO article).
Anyhow, the 92092 / 92093 zip code association with La Jolla does raise questions worth pursuing. As I noted earlier, 92093 is always tagged "La Jolla" under zip code searches. A quick search of department addresses at UCSD shows La Jolla in the mailing addresses. All perpetuating a common mistake? Or did the boundaries shift at some recent point in time? One can't glibly dismiss the fact that all of these zip code sites all assert that 92093 and 92093 are associated with La Jolla (btw, in case there's any question, these zips don't straddle other nearby communities: see http://maps.huge.info/zip.htm ). — Myasuda (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The history of San Diego's community divisions would indeed be an interesting story to tell. At any rate, the 92093 zip includes Torrey Pines. The Torrey Pines, San Diego, California article doesn't make mention of the fact that their zip code is labeled "La Jolla" by the USPS. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The point about SIO is right though. UCSD article edited accordingly. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I ignored the point about SIO because it was already disproved by the top link in this discussion thread, where it says "The northern-most portion of La Jolla is separated from the remainder of the community by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and a portion of the University of California. Neither Scripps nor the University of California are under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego." What we see from that construction is that SIO is not part of La Jolla, per City of San Diego. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, that document is referring to planning areas loosely named and defined after the communities and neighborhoods that existed long before the planning areas were invented. Yes, of course UCSD and SIO are not part of the La Jolla planning area - state property does not fall under the jurisdiction of the city. This has nothing to do with the questions about whether these institutions are within the community of La Jolla. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The statement above is incorrect. 92093 does not include Torrey Pines. It lies within the UCSD main campus. Again, look at http://maps.huge.info/zip.htm (you may need to zoom in a bit to see). But note that this is not just about zip codes. If UCSD is not in La Jolla, the implication is that the official UCSD web site, letterhead, and all department mailing addresses are wrong and have been wrong for decades. For a high tier university, that would be surprising. — Myasuda (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The University could be hewing to the zip code definition for a few reasons, one being continuity with the past, another being the prosperous aura of La Jolla. They might not have gotten the memo about what the City's definition is, and they might not give a fig. If UCSD changed their letterhead, it would probably be to "San Diego" rather than a community name like University or University City. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, La Jolla Country Day School is also in the community defined as "University" linked to above. Paradoxically, it is not in La Jolla, according to this definition. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are several definitions of La Jolla, and each is valid within its own context. In the context of community planning ("what intersection should have a traffic light?") within the city government, of course university (state) property is excluded. But let's not confuse that definition with being the "official" definition of La Jolla. And that certainly does not mean that the university is not part of the community that surrounds it. By that reasoning, UC Berkeley would not be in Berkeley, UCLA not in LA, UC Davis not in Davis, UCSD not in San Diego nor in La Jolla, etc.
The point is, there are countless reliable and verifiable sources -- official university documents -- that clearly establish that the university is within "La Jolla". That it is not part of the community planning area of San Diego known as "La Jolla" for community planning purposes within the city government is beside the point. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The fatal flaw in this "logic"

The first link in the section above cites a reference to a city of San Diego "community profile page" and relies entirely on what area is defined there. The link in question is this: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/lajolla/index.shtml

There are several problems with this argument. The first problem with it is that it is a primary, not a secondary, source.

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

If you don't understand the relevance and significance of this point, please review this section of the WP:NOR policy. If anyone wants to argue whether the university is part of La Jolla or not, their argument needs to be supported by published reliable secondary sources. I assert that by that measure the "UCSD is in La Jolla" argument wins hands down, perhaps even without exception.

Second, and more importantly, the primary source in question starts with the words, "The La Jolla Community Planning area consists of ...". Therefore, this source is defining not the boundary of La Jolla, which is the topic of this article, but the boundary of the "La Jolla Community Planning area", which is not the topic of this article (though is implicitly covered here).

What that document defines has no relevance to the question of whether the university is in La Jolla or not.

Any changes made to the article based on the flawed conclusion that UCSD is not in La Jolla need to be reverted, the sooner the better. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The impact extends beyond this article. Editors have been transcribing this and related changes to articles such as University of California, San Diego and University City, San Diego, California. — Myasuda (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be complete, here are some reliable secondary sources that establish that UCSD is in La Jolla:

  • "Research teams at The Burnham Institute, The Scripps Research Institute and UCSD in La Jolla, and at SDSU are examining the biology of anthrax." [1]
  • "The festival is divided in two with performances scheduled this weekend at the Mandeville Auditorium at UCSD in La Jolla." [2]
  • "Motivation is a great engine of evolution," said Pevzner, a divorced father of two children who lives close to UCSD in La Jolla." [3]

There are countless more such examples from published reliable secondary sources. I suggest that examples of published reliable secondary sources establishing that UCSD is in some other community of San Diego, or in its own community, or whatever, are exceedingly rare, if they exist at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One more point... the argument that UCSD is not within the scope of this article would be valid if the topic of this article was changed to be the "La Jolla Community Planning area". Perhaps that topic deserves a subsection in this article (though its notability would have to be established), or perhaps even its own article, but it is not the topic of this article. Very few if any references to "La Jolla" in published reliable secondary sources mean the specific area defined by the planning area. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is only one good argument here, the one of the San Diego Planning Communities definition not applying to common perception of what is and is not in La Jolla. The argument contrasting primary with secondary sources does not bear on this discussion. Zip codes don't apply, as there are more named communities within San Diego, each with a Wikipedia article, than there are names of zip codes. For instance, there is no zip code named Torrey Pines, Kearny Mesa, or Pacific Beach.
So what we're left with in this discussion are links to news articles found at www.signonsandiego.com and the expectation that a great number of other references could be brought forward. I accept that these are all different than the borders described by S.D. Community Planning, and constitute the popular definition what is La Jolla. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I myself would argue that the "popular" definition isn't of consequence and only the official governmental definition has bearing. But in any case, UCSD can be said to be in La Jolla by virtue of Scripps and the proximity of main campus (it touches the dividing line), and in University City by virtue of the aforementioned map (not to mention the name). I see no problem mentioning UCSD in the La Jolla article as long as it's phrased with care since it's in both areas. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Let us not conflate official city planning areas with the communities that existed long before these "official" planning areas were artificially created. The traditional/popular definition used by nearly everyone is exactly what is of consequence. The obscure technical "official" definitions of planning areas, often named after the communities they are near, and are hardly used by anyone, are what is of little consequence, and no relevance to the question of whether UCSD is in La Jolla. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Some google test results:

  • Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "UCSD located in San Diego"
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 50 for "UCSD located in La Jolla"
  • Results 1 - 2 of 2 for "UCSD is located in San Diego".
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 143 for "UCSD is located in La Jolla"

Also, to provide some contrast:

  • Results 1 - 10 of about 270 for "SDSU is located in San Diego".
  • Your search - "SDSU is located in La Jolla" - did not match any documents.

To state that UCSD is in San Diego, something that no reliable and verifiable source says anywhere, is arguably a violation of WP:NOR. I mean, technically it's as true as the fact that UCSD is in the western hemisphere, but no reliable sources finds any reason to say it, so Wikipedia shouldn't either. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

UCSD is in San Diego. San Diego is in the name of UCSD. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what is being debated here, but fwiw no public university in CA is under the jurisdiction of the city it resides in, as these are autonomous agencies of the state. Isn't La Jolla an unincorporated neighborhood of San Diego, similar to Westwood, Los Angeles, California? What is the point that is being debated here? Ameriquedialectics 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, La Jolla is a community/neighborhood within the city of San Diego, just like Westwood is a community within the city of Los Angeles. UCSD is in San Diego, because it is in La Jolla, which is in San Diego.

UCSD is in La Jolla just like UCLA is in Westwood. This article has, until a few days ago, always stated that UCSD is in La Jolla. This was challenged (see above) and it now states that it's in San Diego. The UCLA article states correctly that UCLA is in Westwood, not in Los Angeles. We should be consistent here.

Someone got confused about the names of the city of San Diego planning areas (which generally ignore land owned by the county, state or federal government within city limits, on which the city has no jurisdiction) - conflating those with the "official" definitions of the city's communities, and from that concluded that UCSD is not in La Jolla, and so this article should not say that. That's what the debate is about. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fwiw, I'm ok with the La Jolla and San Diego articles stating that UCSD is within their environs. Ameriquedialectics 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
So, are you okay with this article saying UCSD is in La Jolla, San Diego, California? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If we are talking about what the infobox states as the city UCSD is located in, San Diego would be correct, as La Jolla isn't incorporated as a city. I don't have a problem with mentioning that UCSD is in the La Jolla neighborhood (or "district" or "community" etc.) of San Diego anywhere in the article text, however. (Debates like this are why I limit my involvement with Wikipedia.) Ameriquedialectics 19:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The infobox and the first sentence of the lede should continue to say San Diego, California. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the lede, why not La Jolla, San Diego, California the way the UCLA articles says Westwood, Los Angeles, California? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I would venture that, as there seems to be a competing territorial claim by this "University City" community that was invented after the university was developed, keeping UCSD within San Diego in the first line might be the best way to minimize or provide appropriate "lead-in" context for understanding regional conflicts of this sort. Ameriquedialectics 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
From what do you get the idea that there seems to be a "a competing territorial claim" for UCSD? University City was named for the "University Towne Centre" mall that it encompasses at least as much as for the nearby university. There is no question that University City is near the university, and supports it, but virtually nobody outside of Wikipedia claims that UCSD is in University City!
  • Results 1 - 3 of 3 for "UCSD in University City"
And none of even these three references imply that UCSD is in University City.
  • Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "UCSD is in University City"
That one sole comment is some ignorant comment in a forum somewhere. The notion that UCSD is in University City is as baseless as saying that UCLA is in Brentwood (for which you can get two equally meaningless hits). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, I don't care. This isn't my issue. UCSD could be claimed by Mars for all I know. I was simply postulating a reason; have no idea if that is the reason or not, or if there actually is one. Regards, Ameriquedialectics 22:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, you wrote that "there seems to be a competing territorial claim by this "University City" community" and used that as a reason to leave it San Diego rather than La Jolla. You also implied there is a regional conflict. There isn't. There is no more reason to not say UCSD is in La Jolla than there is to not say that UCLA is in Westwood. Wikipedia has no issues with saying the latter, why the former? Just about every reliable/verifiable source available says that UCSD is in La Jolla; so should Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(restore indent) I suggested SD might be appropriate as "lead-in;" the article already states UCSD is in La Jolla in the next sentence. (fwiw, I wouldn't revert if anyone inserted La Jolla in the first sentence, but wouldn't engage otherwise.) Ameriquedialectics 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Too much Greek

Carve off the Greek stuff to a new article. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

the greek section should be left, it is the same amount as uc irvine's which is the closest in size and involvement to ucsd. people looking at the UCSD page should see the student group that involves 1/10th of the campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjoy1115 (talkcontribs) 22:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

The ethnicity chart in the Admissions and enrollment is wrong. It looks like it was taken from the citation and then someone mindlessly slapped "american" after every ethnicity, so where the original document said "Asian", the new one says "Asian American". This is particularly dumb given that well over 10% of the student body is not an American of any sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sburnap (talkcontribs) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

NEED FOR ARTICLE IMPROVEMENT

Hi everyone..Can we please update this whole UCSD web page? It seems it lacks information in comparison to other UCs ...

History could be expanded...please look to UCSD Alumni Association Mag for this (Maybe I can do it?)

Also Public Art! The Art Collection is huge, why is there just a picture of the Sun God?

Academics...Any mention of some of the best social science programs?

Athletics? Maybe we should mention the school potentially looking at D 1 (Late may issue of UCSD Gaurdian)

Have at it;-) Re: Public Art, it is probably only a matter of time before some gunner comes in and deletes all the statuary pics citing Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. I wouldn't spend a lot of time on that. Ameriquedialectics 18:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to improve the article by focusing our attention to the reasons it failed the GA test, since there are clear directions to improve. I try to take a hack at this over the weekend :D Thanhluan001 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Universities COTM Nomination

Hello University of California, San Diego contributors. I just wanted to let you all know that this university has been renominated for next month's WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month. If you'd like to take advantage of this opportunity, be sure to vote for the university. While you're there, consider helping improve one of our current Collaborations of the Month.

Happy editing! -Mabeenot (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in University of California, San Diego

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of University of California, San Diego's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USUnivRankings_ARWU_SOC":

Reference named "USUnivRankings_ARWU_LIFE":

Reference named "USUnivRankings_USNWR_Medr":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 13:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies at UCSD

Should there be a section in this article that includes controversies at UCSD? The "Compton Cookout" controversy seems like something that should be included in this proposed section because it has already received media attention.[9][10][11][12]-Schnurrbart (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Compton Cookout" NPOV

This has been discussed earlier, but recent events have brought this issue to light again. The Koala is only referred to in a negative light in this section; there are no mentions of its goals of promoting free speech. In addition, just because certain media organizations have garnered media attention does not mean that the other 31 media orgs should be left out. A more well-rounded Student Media section should include more organizations, as it would be a more accurate reflection on media at UCSD. Digitalblue (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

$1 Billion Fundraising Campaign

There seems to be a recent trend among university development officers to seek fund raising drives that top $1 billion. In the good old days, fund raising drives were two or three years long with about half the donations identified before the campaign was pubicly announced. The UCSD campaign was scheduled to last 8 years (2000-2007) and indeed raised more than $1 billion. However, since the start and finish of the campaign were of arbitrary definition, it seems a bit of boosterism to focus on the $1 billion figure. $1 billion equates to an average of $125 million per year. What is the best way to present this in an objective light? The sentence is sourced to a UCSD press release. Racepacket (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

COTM Review

Since this article is the Universities Collaboration of the Month for March, I thought I'd start my contributions by doing sort of an informal GA review, but more of a to-do list to centralize what I think can be done to improve the article based on the comments that I usually leave when doing a real GA review. Anyone acting constructively in good faith is more than welcome to strike, add, remove, comment etc. on the list portion of my post, so don't have any qualms about WP:TPO.

Some basic things that I would look at in any GA review would be:

  1. All blue links should avoid redirects and should link directly to the article or be piped.
  2. Make sure that we're using the most recent numbers in the infobox and that they are sourced.
  3. Check to make sure that there are no dead references/external links - on that note, I notice that there are several invalid citations in the reference sections.
  4. All references should be properly formated, ie. with WP:CITET or a proper system
  5. All images should have alternate text.
  6. Unless its absolutely necessary (like after a large quote), all paragraphs should be at least three sentences, which can be achieved through additions or combinations, or else it breaks up the flow of the article and makes it look/read choppy.
  7. All facts must be cited of course, and any direct quotes should have a citation immediately following the quotation.
  8. Checking the prose is always a must - one quick example "In 1979 the Queen rode to Urey Hall in a theatrical-prop sedan chair that had been knocking around the Revelle dorms for years" seems a bit colloquial to me and is, in addition, uncited

In addition, specific to this article:

  1. While The Guardian, The Koala, KSDT, and UCSD-TV are the most prominent on-campus media organizations and should be the focus of this section, I agree with User:Digitalblue in that there could at least be mention of other media or, at the very least, numbers as to how many exist, which should be easy to source. Also, as mentioned, NPOV towards The Koala is an issue as well and I think that the "Compton Cookout" controversy isn't important in the 50+ year history of the institution and can probably be to a UCSD-related article like The Koala where it would be more relevant.
  2. The section above about the $1 Billion Fundraising Campaign is something that should be addressed for GA
  3. The lead needs to be expanded to cover all sections - as it stands there is little to nothing on "Campus", "Student Life", and "People"
  4. The "History" section seems a bit unbalanced to me - the first ten years are covered in great detail, the next 14 are omitted, the next 15 get a quick blurb, and there's only one sentence for the next 15 after that.
  5. That little blurb under "Campus" can be expanded, perhaps starting with giving an example or two of what is meant by "It is a lab for energy innovation." I'm sure that there's more than just the public art to discuss about the campus too; I'll try and brainstorm some idea when my head clears up, but I think that there are more basic facts that can be discussed about geography or specific buildings or the layout of the campus etc.
  6. The six-college system of UCSD, one of its most defining features, is barely mentioned until the Academics section, so when the article mentions that "Each college has its own student council as well", that probably won't make sense to anyone browsing/skimming (or perhaps even reading!) the article unless they've attended the university. It might be beneficial to bump up the "Residential colleges" section to "Organization", but I'm not sure.
  7. Speaking of "Residential colleges", that section looks really ugly to me, but that might just be a personal taste
  8. Perhaps "Research" could mention one or two concepts, discoveries or, for lack of a better term, "things" that were developed at UCSD or with its help? Not too much, since this is a broad overview, but anything major might be worth a quick mention.

Someone more familiar with the project can probably point out the stylistic issues, but hopefully this is enough to get started. I'll help with as much of this as I can. Hope this helps and that more is added! To get things started, I'll check all the blue links and get rid of all the redirects when I have more time. Cheers, CP 23:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

European American

It makes no sense to refer to white Americans as European Americans because there is nothing European about white Americans. The proper term that should be used is Caucasian or just white, black, hispanic, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.125.49 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

UCSD Admission

"UCSD received 48,114 freshmen applicants for the Fall 2010, and admitted 38.1%.[90] Also, the number of students applying to UCSD makes it the second most popular UC campus, after UC Berkeley.[91]"

I am sorry but this statement is TOTAL FAIL considering UCLA received the most applications in the nation with 57,651 applicants in 2010. I don't know where this statement came from and how Berkeley was dragged in here...can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.196.224 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The numbers are close but you're right: The most up-to-date numbers put UCSD third behind UCLA and Berkeley. I removed the statement. If you are sure of your assertion, you could have removed the statement yourself. ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, UCSD is second. It beat Berkeley. http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2011/fall_2011_admissions_table1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.224.106 (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)