Talk:University of California, Los Angeles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of California, Los Angeles article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
University of California, Los Angeles is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Admissions

UCLA is among the two most selective schools in the UC system. 76.176.83.107 edited on 10 December that UCLA is one of the three most selective schools by citing UCSD among the top three, which is not an inherently false statement, but it implies that UCLA is ranked third in admission rates behind UCSD and Cal, which is not true. It seems like a way of mentioning UCSD when it's not really relevant.

Need documentation Hechung 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

UCLA and Cal are very close in admission rates, which necessitates the wording "one of the two most selective schools in the UC system." They both admit in the mid-20th percentile (23.6% and 25.5% respectively), while the next most selective school (UCSD) admits 45.7%, a significant difference. See the data here: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/selecting/camp_profiles/camp_profiles_ucla.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.67.233.206 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Should this year's stats be mentioned? The acceptance rate was about 9 percent, by my calculations. — Emiellaiendiay 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmm I don't think it was anywhere near 9%. It did drop from last year, but I don't think by that much. Where did you get your figures? Cheers. --DanielNuyu 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New info has just come out @ http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=7826 Contrary to the current entry, "UCLA admitted 11,837 prospective freshmen for fall 2007 out of an applicant pool of 50,729." (entry says 50,600 some). This sets the current admission rate to 23% (lower than Cal!). To be updated: incoming freshman class has an avg GPA of 4.3 with SAT of 2,007 (heh, this number is very fitting).

Shhh, you must keep it NPOV. ALTON .ıl 06:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UCLA navigational template

I've been redoing all the other UCs' navigational templates in a common style (see User:Dynaflow/Crap-I-Made for a full gallery of the other UCs' templates). But UCLA's template, almost alone amongst the UCs when I started my navbox crusade, wasn't and continues to not be an eyesore -- and is in fact quite elegant. In light of the superb aesthetic sensibilities of the current UCLA navbox's designers, I'm not going to bother revamping the thing unless I get specific requests to do so.


University of California, Los Angeles

Schools

Anderson School of Management • David Geffen School of Medicine • Graduate School of Education and Information Studies • School of Dentistry • School of Law • School of Nursing • School of Public Affairs • School of Public Health • School of Theater, Film & Television

Research Centers

Logic Center • Phonological Segment Inventory Database • Chicano Studies Research Center • Center for Embedded Network Sensing • The Civil Rights Project/Progecto de Derechos Civiles • Language Materials Project • Film and Television Archive • UCLA Medical Center

Libraries & Museums

UCLA Library • William Andrews Clark Memorial Library • Powell Library • Fowler Museum of Cultural History • Hammer Museum

Athletics

UCLA Bruins • Men's Basketball • Football • Baseball • John Wooden • Pauley Pavilion • Rose Bowl (stadium) • Drake Stadium (UCLA) • Hail to the Hills of Westwood • Mighty Bruins • Rover • Sons of Westwood • UCLA Band • Victory Bell (USC-UCLA) • UCLA-USC rivalry • Lexus Gauntlet

Student Life

Westwood Village • Daily Bruin • UCLAradio.com • La Gente de Aztlan • UCLA Spring Sing • Student health advocate • Associated Students UCLA
versus
v • d • e
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, California
Academics
Athletics
Buildings
Research
Life

--Dynaflow 18:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer your versions; the extant UCLA box seems just functional, as it should be, but the new versions are much more cohesive and don't seem to be as much a huge block. ALTON .ıl 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty, it shall be done. --Dynaflow 05:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've now replaced the old template with a new version. I did a rather brutal crop-job on the Powell Library photo because I don't intend for it to stay. I would like to replace it with a thin, vertical picture of Ackerman's roofline from below and across the plaza, or perhaps with a vertical shot of Powell from a more-oblique angle (you can probably tell I'm not exactly a pro with these highfalutin' photography terms). I need someone else to take those photos, though, because at the moment I am up in Oregon, and when I get back to California, I won't be going south of Santa Cruz at all soon if I can help it. Is there anyone with a good photographer's eye who would be willing to take a couple good, mercenary snaps for the navbox? See Cal's navbox (above) for the approximate dimensions the photo should have. --Dynaflow 06:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] userbox

Is there a UCLA user box?? If so please tell me! Thanks-- Penubag  06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can find my retooled UC userbox series at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United_States#California. --Dynaflow babble 06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
UCLA This user attends or attended the
University of California,
Los Angeles
(ec) Yes, it's {{User ucla}}. ALTON .ıl 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! -- Penubag  08:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was keep at the same name, per the discussion below. Yonatan talk 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

University of California, Los Angeles → UCLA — more commonly referred to as UCLA (even according to the article), like CNN. —Yonatan talk 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose - I search for UCLA in the search bar, and the redirect is fine for me. Truly, I have not once referred to the name by anything other than "UCLA", but I think it is more attractive and consensual to have the article at the school's official title. ALTON .ıl 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    You position isn't supported by WP:MOS IIRC, especially seeing how you're admitting you only refer to it as UCLA. Yonatan talk 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree that it says to use the most common name. However, it also says to be consistent with title names in a series, and since other UCs such as Merced and San Fransisco do not use abbreviated forms, neither should LA. Additionally, it would seem that under Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations UCLA would fit as an acronym almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form, but the bullet also points out that USA should never be used for United States of America. Lastly (and it's a weak point but applies), University of California, Berkeley is almost always called "Cal", and even their official logo, favicon and self-references on their main site, and their athletic teams use "Cal" exclusively, but the article should never be renamed that, and I doubt anyone would propose that change. ALTON .ıl 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - See my comment below. --Dynaflow babble 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Perhaps - just perhaps, not supported by any stats - the city of Los Angeles is more commonly called "LA", so shall we move the article titled "Los Angeles" to "LA" ?? Perhaps the country named the United States is more commonly called or written as "the US", so shall we move the article titled "United States" to "US"? As long as "UCLA" is just an abbreviation to the full name and the full name isn't as clumsy as "Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport", we should keep "University of California, Los Angeles" as it is. --supernorton 10:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose UCLA obviously should redirect; the main article should have the proper, spelled-out name. Mangoe 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name of the school is "University of California, Los Angeles", and everyone knows that. "UCLA" is just an abbreviation of that name. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

Moving the article to "UCLA" would take it out of line with the consistent naming conventions for institutions that have been used across Wikipedia. It would also lose continuity with the naming conventions used for the other UCs. The practice on university articles has been to use the full, official name as the article title and then use redirects to directly channel in searches looking for other common names. To use a recently-in-the-news example, the link for "Virginia Tech" is an immediate redirect to the article titled after the full, legal name of the of institution, event though it's so much of a mouthful that no one commonly uses it and I can't remember all of it. The Cal Poly schools' articles are set up in the same way. Cal Poly Pomona is at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, but also with a redirect from the more commonly-used name.

You also have the examples of USC and Caltech, two nearby schools which are also almost never referred to by their full names, which still have their articles at University of Southern California and California Institute of Technology, respectively. This even extends, as far as I have seen, to other language Wikipedias. Peking University (Beijing Daxue/北京大学), as commonly known by its "abbreviated" title of Beida/北大 in Chinese as UCLA is known by its abbreviation in English, still has its article at its full name. Todai (the University of Tokyo), in the same situation, name-wise, as UCLA and Beida, seems to be done in the same way on the Japanese Wikipedia: ja:東京大学.

As long as "UCLA" is simply an abbreviation for "the University of California, Los Angeles," the article title should stay pegged to the latter name. In other words, until the UC Regents strip the school of the name University of California, Los Angeles and officially make it UCLA (in the same way the Texas state legislature stripped Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University of its full name and made it Texas A&M (with the "A&M" literally not officially standing for anything), then the article title should stay how it is. --Dynaflow babble 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Discussion

It strikes me that UCR has 15 archives and UCLA has only 1. Is there a reason for the massive difference? ALTON .ıl 06:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's mainly due to the mind-bending amount of trolling, sock-puppet warfare, and other bits of miscellaneous strife that have been attracted to that article, for some unfathomable reason, like white cat hair to a black sweater. --Dynaflow babble 09:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that evades me. UCLA editors must be much better at resolving disputes ;) ALTON .ıl 05:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I would like to propose the addition of an External Link to the UCLA page that points to the old Bruin Life yearbooks. This is an official site, sanctioned by UCLA that provides an archive of old yearbooks. The Bruin Life yearbook has been the official record of history and tradition at UCLA since the 1919-1920 school year, when the Southern Branch of the University of California became UCLA. It provides more history on student government, athletics, alumni, etc than any other publication. I have already been through this discussion at the Cal Berkeley site where the external link was approved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmichael (talk • contribs) 23:22, May 29, 2007

That site requires registration, does it not? --ElKevbo 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I have been able to look through a couple without registering. Regardless, is this a topic necessary to have in that section? ALTON .ıl 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Universities

I just wanted to invite UCLA to WikiProject Universities. Not a member of this wikipedia group, i don't feel that is proper for me to do so. Oldag07 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, My school's official title is Texas A&M University. we changed are name from the The Agriculture and Mechanical College of Texas to name Texas A&M University Oldag07 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind Oldag07 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  • New page should be made for History soon, if expanded enough. Incidents aren't significant enough on the grand scale of the university to have individual headings. ARPANET section should be hugely reduced and moved to the ARPANET page if possible.
  • Get history from 40s-90s. Should include notes on John Wooden, important administrators, etc
  • Activism maybe merge into history, some info should go in history regardless (communist hotplate) ALTON .ıl 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with this merging. Any comments should be left here. ALTON .ıl 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix-its

Just a couple things I caught periodically scanning this page. One, in the rivalry section, it says USC has won 35 Pacific Coast Conference Championships... I have to think they are referring to a collective count of PCC and Pac-10 Championships, so maybe that can be written better but I really don't have time to research the split right now or determine if this is a factually accurate statement. Any football buffs want to help here?

Secondly, I made a minor change to the count of UCLA stores open in China. The article said 5 had opened, but I'm confident the number is much greater. When I was in China this past summer, I actually found a website that listed them all, but I have forgotten how to find this website - not to mention that it is Chinese. Anyone want to do some digging around? I believe the actual number is between 15 and 30. Decafpenguin 09:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (whoops forgot to sign the first time)

Found it. One person's revered alma mater is another person's designer brand. --Dynaflow babble 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks a lot Dynaflow! Decafpenguin (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dickson Plaza

This image is titled image:Dickinson Plaza.jpg:

However user:Kjrogers pointed out that "Dickinson" is a misspelling of "Dickson". But is that the right name at all? The official UCLA map[1] shows something in this location called "Wilson Plaza". To the east, on the plateau, is "Dickson Court". Can anyone verify the right name of the pictured location. I'm fairly certain that those are the "Janss Steps" in the background, meaning the camera is pointed eastward. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that has to be Wilson plaza, with the Janss Steps in the background. Ameriquedialectics 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture management

There seems to be a conflict about what kind of image to put in the article. There are several available pictures of Royce (Image:RHall.JPG, Image:Royce Hall.jpg, Image:Royce.jpg), and a couple of Powell (Image:Powelllib.JPG, Image:Powlib.JPG, Image:Powell.jpg). We only need one picture in the main article, and others need to be cut. I'm glad that there's such an enthusiasm for taking pictures, but it's a huge campus and there are many things to take pictures of, so we should keep only the most effective to avoid clutter. ALTON .ıl 09:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Royce.jpg
Royce.jpg
I concur. The article is oversaturated with pics of those particular buildings. Meanwhile, it is entirely missing pics of the sculpture garden, Bunche hall, south campus, Ackerman union, the exterior of Pauly Pavilion, etc. Of the pics you listed, I favor keeping Image:RHall.JPG and Image:Powelllib.JPG for this article, and was thinking of suggesting a gallery page for the extras, but WP:Galleries seems to be against galleries in mainspace. Still, we "are encouraged" to attach a working gallery to the UC wikiproject. Ameriquedialectics 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, I support those two as well. I mean, I can get some new ones, but enough editors go there to get better ones that what I can take. Interesting contradiction, if that's what you mean by that. ALTON .ıl 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I set up a contradiction, but we definitely have an overabundance of some pics and an absence of others. The prepositions don't seem to contradict. I agree with the pics you selected for the article, though. Ameriquedialectics 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am for the Royce.jpg image. Whats wrong with it??? Nikkul (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a photographer, so I couldn't tell you accurately, but RHall.JPG has a better angle and wider depth. Also, Royce.jpg has a black bar (lamppost?) across the right. ALTON .ıl 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Alton. The other pic simply has a more flattering, dramatic perspective. The Royce pic seems to be listing. Actually, if anyone has time, a new shot of Powell without a dark shadow draping over it would be appreciated. Ameriquedialectics 00:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
RHall.JPG
RHall.JPG

(outdent) It may seem odd, but I think what's happening now is that the sun only rises behind Powell since it faces North and it's winter. A good picture might have to wait. ALTON .ıl 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable people

Hows about we cut the list of "notable people" altogether and leave only the indisputable Nobel laureates and Fellows or such? There is no way we can ever get a stable version if people come by and do drive-by additions to the list. ALTON .ıl 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Ameriquedialectics 18:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That would work, though another option would be to delete all of the people and simply leave the link to the List of University of California, Los Angeles people. That's drastic so let's try Alton's suggestion first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, and done. Please clean it up. It would probably look cleaner with Will's suggestion, but I don't even know how important the section is. Is it necessary even to have that section, and/or could it be integrated in, say, Academics? ALTON .ıl 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The list includes both faculty and alumni so "Academics" might not be the best section. "See also" is a possibility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding comment was added at 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I don't have a problem with that. ALTON .ıl 23:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Although this isn't a policy or guideline, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities#Structure, a section is usually reserved for some discussion of "noted people." I think the current information there is adequate. edited a bit. Ameriquedialectics 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hey

¿what are the majors the ucla have?

Look here. Ameriquedialectics 06:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endowment

US News, for whatever reason, over-reports UC endowments. The last UCOP endowment report was issued in 2006, and may be dated, but is the most current official information available on UC endowments. See prior discussion here:Talk:University_of_California,_Davis#Endowment. Ameriquedialectics 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Amerique- It looks like UCLA alone reports the endowment at 956,449,000 - see page 22 of the ref'd pdf from UC endowments. This number is relatively similar to the NACUBO 2007 report on endowments, which reported 959,486,000 for UCLA Foundation. The donor designation funds listed in Table 1 on the ref'd pdf only reflects donor designation funds, not the actual allocation the campus works with. I won't make the change, but someone with a greater interest and more insight should look into it.69.143.10.92 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overenrolled

IT needs to be mentioned that the university screwed the pooch and over enrolled undergrads. And this is at the time that the funding to the UC system is Cut. I know that it mentions that they only accepted 8000 students for the 2008-2009 acatemic year, but emphasis should be put on the overcrowde...--169.232.119.242 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look around for a news article. Ameriquedialectics 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] there is no undergraduate Nursing program at UCLA

Hi, this article erroneously lists Nursing among UCLA's undergraduate programs. None of the UC schools offer undergraduate nursing degrees. UCLA and UCSF both have schools of nursing, but both offer only graduate degrees. -submitted by a UCLA grad (BA, 1990 and MLS, 1992) who is now working on a BS in Nursing at another university

69.219.227.34 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Look here Ameriquedialectics 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most selective

UCLA is now more selective than UCB, and this should be stated in the article see: http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2008/fall_2008_admissions_table_5.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.73.54 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Does the 0.1% difference really mean anything? Or is this a point of campus pride? Perhaps if you mention UCLA is more selective, you should mention that Berkeley students have higher high school GPAs, composite SAT scores, and ACT scores. My point is that this seems like an inconsequential difference.Vantelimus (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its necessary to list the actual school its tougher to get into, though you could write that its the "most selective of the UCs" or something to that effect with some citation comparing the acceptance rates like that which you posted. Besides, USC is now more selective than either of those two states. ;-) --Bobak (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the article it said "second to UCB" which simply isn't true :P. Bobak, I meant of the UCs. Adnd Vantelimus, it's not, as it was incorrectly stated in the article that it was second in selectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.79.35 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked into this a little further. The article showing UCLA 0.1% more selective than Berkeley contains the statistics for New California Freshmen only. If you look at the full statistics, Berkeley is still more selective, with an overall admit rate of 21.5% vs. UCLA's overall admit rate of 22.7%. The full stats can be gleaned from [2] and [3], both of which were found by following the links at the bottom of [4]. It is interesting that when you include out-of-state applicants UCLA's selectivity goes down and Berkeley's goes up. Either UCLA gets better applications from out-of-state students, or they have an institutional bias towards foreign students. BTW, average SAT score at UCLA for 2008 is 2000, whereas Berkeley's is 2034. Vantelimus (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a sentence to the UCLA admissions paragraph noting it is the most selective in the UC system for California in-state applicants. That should cover all bases of the reference-able truth. I'll let someone else decide if it is noteworthy enough of a fact to be included in an encyclopedia. As an aside, all these stats can be used to calculate the the out-of-state admission rates. For UCLA it calculates out to 26.1% -- far less selective than Berkeley's out-of-state admit rate of 18.4%. Vantelimus (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)