Talk:University of California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of California article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Land Areas

Most of the land areas for the campuses don't match up with the individual articles...whoever knows the right answer fix the problem Jarwulf 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The land area mentioned in this article are sourced from the University itself. --Infernalfox 07:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if you know which ones are correct can you fix them?

Jarwulf 09:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the land areas. The previous statistics wrongly included the acreage of affiliated research laboratories (Lawrence Livermore) and non-campus institutions (Scripps Institute of Oceanography). It's pretty hard, actually, to find a consensus on the size of the campuses, but the stats I'm using are from the UC Office of the President's "UCprofile": http://www.ucop.edu/images/ucprofile.pdf. Here are some examples of conflicting statistics just for UCSD alone: http://www.jcsg.org/help/robohelp/Definitions/UCSD.htm "Nestled along the Pacific coastline on 1,200 acres of coastal woodland, UCSD is a powerful magnet for those seeking a fresh, next-generation approach to education and research."


http://www.iridis.com/glivar/University_of_California,_San_Diego "campus=Suburban, 2,040 acres"

http://athletics.ucsd.edu/university/ "The University of California, San Diego, one of the nine campuses in the University of California system, is located on some 1,200 acres of coastal woodland near the northern limits of the City of San Diego."

http://www.ninyoandmoore.com/press_R.htm " the UCSD La Jolla campus, which includes the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (160 acres), the West Campus (668 acres) and the East Campus (267 acres), as well as several nearby University properties (38 acres)."

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/general/05_26_LRDP.asp "The 2004 LRDP identifies 297 acres of land—on the approximately 1,150 acre campus—" Bluerondo (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] missing picture

the uc merced pic is missing. if anyone can find it again that would great.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.15.191 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Questionable Claims

Can someone provide a cite for the claim that the majority of nobel laureates work at the University of California? I find that rather hard to accept with some evidence. Lisiate 20:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For now the claim has been toned down -- it says "largest number", since majority is clearly an impossiblity. It appears that the UC system claims 45 faculty "affiliated" with the university, although (as with other schools) this seems to include ex-faculty who won the prize (at least in part) for work done while at UC. Joelwest 05:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another Questionable Claim

"The University of California is widely considered to be the most prestigious public university in the world." Over the Indian Institutes of Technology? I don't think so. ---67.80.52.124 (signature inserted after the fact by user Coolcaesar)

To the anonymous user: Very funny. Even if the IITs are closing in on American universities with regard to the quality of their physical sciences and engineering education programs, no major Indian university has yet approached the dominance of American universities — especially UC — in law, medicine, humanities, and social sciences. --Coolcaesar 01:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the line pending discussion: as it stands, "The University of California is widely regarded as the best system of public education in the United States and in the world" is quite subjective. However, if it can be expanded into a brief discussion of awards won or some form of objectivly verifiable statement, I think it would work a lot better. --Justin Eiler 04:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's particularly subjective, but if one wants a verifiable statement, you could say that according to The Times Higher Education Supplement for 2005, UC campuses came in at #7 (Berkeley), #17 (San Francisco), #37 (Los Angeles), #42 (San Diego), and #159 (Santa Barbara). The list only goes to 200, so the others don't show up at all, but 5 out of 9 campuses in the top 200 worldwide (4 of those in the top 50), according to the folks at the Times, isn't too shabby. In 2004 they had 7 campuses in the top 200; only Riverside and Irvine didn't make it. - Flooey 07:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Even the Wiki for the IITs states "The IITs were ranked third-best worldwide for technology, after MIT and University of California. [1]" Considering the you linked to the wiki, were you being sarcastic? I think the original statement can easily be backed up by looking at the various recognized university ranking systems. Unsuspected 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Issues

It seems the students at UCSB have more to worry about than their academics. Outward appearance adds to UCSB students stress.

Percentage of students with an eating disorder: 23.4% of women and 7.9% of men

Here's what a student had to say about the guys and girls there...

"There’s a lot of eye candy on both sides but there is also a lot of body image and eating disorders. Also, a lot of people are really into the ‘hooking up’ scene rather than opting for dating or relationships, so be prepared for that. Oh yeah, the STD rate is kind of high, so be sure to learn about that.”

from the College Prowler guidebook, University of California, Santa Babara - Off the Record

[edit] Geography Errors

Someone keeps claiming that UCSD is not in San Diego but in La Jolla. UCSD is in something that claims to be a La Jolla mailing address, but it does not have a La Jolla zip code (it has its own zip code). And the claim that La Jolla is a suburb is misleading, since in Southern California "suburb" normally means "a smaller city outside the main city".

La Jolla is entirely within the city limits of San Diego, and has been since UCSD was founded in 1959. Claiming UCSD is in La Jolla not San Diego would be like

  • claiming UCLA is in Westwood not Los Angeles, or
  • UCSF is in Parnassus Heights not San Francisco, or
  • UCSB is in Goleta not Santa Barbara.

Except, of course, UCSB is not in Santa Barbara, but is in the City of Goleta, a separate city.

Except, of course, UCSB is not in fact in either Goleta or Santa Barbara. It is in an unincorporated patch of Santa Barbara County called Isla Vista, bordered by both the City of Santa Barbara (airport annex) and Goleta. So while it's perfectly true to say that UCSB is in Santa Barbara, it is just as wrong to say that UCSB is in Goleta as it is to say that it is in the City of Santa Barbara. Interesting, huh? Qnonsense 18:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If in the individual campus pages someone wants to remark that some campus is located in the XXX neighborhood of the city, that's certainly accurate and a NPOV. Joelwest 05:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Factual question--La Jolla is within the city limits of San Diego, but is it part of San Diego? Large cities tend to have enclaves that are not part of the surrounding city--sometimes they're incorporated independent cities, other times they're unincorporated county land. (For example Beverly Hills and West Hollywood are completely surrounded by L.A., but are independent cities.) --Trovatore 08:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
La Jolla is witin the city limits of San Diego, it is not its "own" city. It is also with in the County of San Diego.
Yep. La Jolla is wholly a part of San Diego. La Jolla is not its own incorporated city, and it never has been. Bluerondo (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relative age of campuses

Is there a dispute about the age of the campuses? Several campuses that are now degree-granting universities began as outposts, like Davis and San Diego, and then became universities much later. -Willmcw 01:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Just "University of California", not "system"

The University of California, with its ten campuses, is just "University of California", not "University of California system". Accordingly I have removed the word "system" from the blue box on the right. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please find a reference. --Trovatore 07:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

So I went to the website, [2], and it seems they do use the word "system" when necessary to disambiguate. Accordingly I've restored it to the first sentence. But that's not the institution's name, as is also clear from the logos etc on the website. The name is "University of California", and that's the name I've left in the blue box. --Trovatore 07:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Administration just talks about the phone system?

I would think the Admnistration section should be something more than just a critique of the phone system a blatant POV commentary of the "mediocrity" of the customer service. It should probably talk about who the top administrators are, how the administration is organized between the central UCal system office and all the individual campuses. Can someone who is familiar with all of this work on this? Crunch 12:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(1) I added the discussion of customer service (which correlates to the remarkably low alumni loyalty of all UC campuses as documented in each year's U.S. News and World Report college ranking), and (2) it's rather difficult to summarize the labyrinthine structure of the UC system bureaucracy (because of the complexity of the relationships between the Governor, Regents, President, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, and the campus and system-wide Academic Senates). Just the org chart for a single campus (like Berkeley or UCLA) is extremely complicated. Indeed, there are several books on the subject of UC politics alone. Unfortunately, I'm too busy to deal with this issue because I'm researching a massive rewrite of the hopelessly disorganized Lawyer article and related articles at Attorney at Law, Bar association, Law school, Juris Doctor, Admission to the bar, etc. --Coolcaesar 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Arrowhead

The UCLA Lake Arrowhead center is nice but I would hardly call it lavish. 69.236.40.68 19:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hastings College of the Law

Hastings is not a campus of the UC in the same way UCSF is. Hastings is affiliated with the UC, but it has its own directors (and a member of the Hastings family inherits a seat on the Board!). 69.236.40.68 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


However, it is still a UC campus. Although administered in a different manner, the Juris Doctor awarded from Hastings reads:

"The Regents of the University of California, on the nomination of the faculty of the Hastings College of Law, have conferred upon ... "

So yes, it is administered in a slightly different fashion, but the JD given there is IDENTICAL to the ones awarded at Boalt, Davis, and UCLA except that it says "Hastings College of Law" rather than "School of Law" and "Given at San Francisco" rather than Berkeley, Davis, or Los Angeles.

Furthermore, ASUCH has become a full dues-paying member of UCSA.

I see no reason to denigrate Hastings by not listing it with the other campuses. Accordingly, I have changed this. --NoRCaLD503 06:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But it's not on the official UC letterhead with the other campuses. See, for example, this UC Berkeley letter on the official UC web site [3] (warning, this is a PDF).
And if you look at the UC system's own official "Overview of the University of California system," [4] it says that "The University of California system includes ten campuses, three national laboratories, five medical centers and many facilities throughout the state." Hastings is not on the list of campuses below that paragraph, nor is it listed on that Web page at all (one has to follow the link at the bottom to "More UC Locations"). Furthermore, I have never seen any media source say that UC has eleven campuses rather than ten. If you know of one, please cite it, though I don't think you'll find any.--Coolcaesar 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs here. It's not on the letterhead, so it doesn't count now? That seems to be kind of a stupid argument.
What's it say on the degree? UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. What's on the buildings that comprise Hastings? UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Who does ASUCH pay annual dues to? UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA STUDENTS ASSOCIATION.
Wow, they're not on the letterhead. The fact of the matter remains is that there are four UC law schools. Simply because the Regents don't get to control Hastings by historical accident is not a sufficient reason to not list it. --NoRCaLD503 05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, under Wikipedia's core policies of Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View (see WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV), we should be deferring to UC's own policy on the number of campuses. UC says they have ten, and they list only ten campuses on their Web site and their letterhead; therefore, Wikipedia should reflect that. Anything else is nonneutral original research, and the Arbitration Committee routinely bans or reprimands users who consistently try to publish nonneutral original research on Wikipedia. Please also see the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, which clearly states that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.
If you have a problem with UC's policy of not treating Hastings as the coequal of the ten other campuses, you need to take that up directly with the Regents. Wikipedia is simply supposed to reflect what other sources indicate. In this case, the Regents of the University of California have clearly chosen to indicate that Hastings is not the coequal of the ten UC campuses, and therefore UC has only ten campuses, not eleven. --Coolcaesar 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I really don't care what the Regents think or how they treat Hastings. You cite Wikipedia policies, but tell me, what is the core point of an encyclopedia? It's to disseminate truth and factual information.
Here's my "ORIGINAL RESEARCH." It's called a "Degree of Juris Doctor" awarded to (NAME WITHHELD) in May of 1998. And I quote:
"THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ON THE NOMINATION OF THE FACULTY OF THE HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW HAVE CONFERRED UPON (NAME WITHHELD) THE DEGREE OF JURIS DOCTOR WITH ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES THERETO PERTAINING."
If you want to "verify" my research, you're more than welcome. Go find anyone who graduated from Hastings. Look at their degree. You can read it for yourself. Gee, looks like the Regents are making their intent pretty clear by AWARDING DEGREES IN THEIR NAME.
I don't see exactly how this is non-neutral. It's a simple matter of fact. Their student government pays dues to UCSA, their degrees are awarded by the Regents and signed by the President of the UC and the Governor of California. It is a UC law school, plain and simple.
The website of the UC does list Hastings as part of the UC, does it not? Oh no, it's a different section. Big deal. You're acting like I'm claiming USF or Loyola is a UC campus in disguise.
My sources are the thousands of Juris Doctor degrees awarded in the name of the UC Regents from Hastings and the UC website which does include Hastings as part of the UC. Does Hastings have students? Does it have buildings? Do those students take classes in those buildings? Does Hastings have a faculty? Scholarship? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sounds like a campus to me.
And since you want so hard to believe my minor edit (which is not only accurate, but very minor) is me standing on a soapbox, fine. I'll give you something to call "soapboxing." Here it is:
Quit being anal-retentive. --NoRCaLD503 23:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Civility. Also, I have seen the Hastings diploma. So what. The ceremonial endorsement by the University of California is merely a statutory obligation of the University under Section 92203 of the Education Code, nothing more. Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, the UC web site clearly indicates that Hastings is not one of the ten UC campuses, and it is a distortion on your part to imply that Hastings is one of them. Hastings is listed separately.
Also, I just ran a search through the California Codes, and Hastings is practically always listed separately from other California institutions of higher education. For example, Section 67380 of the Education Code begins with the following words: "The governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of any postsecondary institution..." And Section 92630 of the same code mentions the "University of California or the Hastings College of the Law." The Legislature is quite aware that Hastings is distinct and sits apart from the University of California. --Coolcaesar 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I just remembered to mention that the point of Wikipedia is to distribute verifiable information that has been published elsewhere. As the Verifiability policy points out in its first substantive paragraph, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Please read the policy in full to understand the rationale underlying it, which is quite complex. In turn, your argument about the "point of an encyclopedia" is completely irrelevant.
The Verifiability policy reflects the consensus of the Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation as was thrashed out in dozens of online debates involving hundreds of participants over the past four years. If you are unable to respect the consensus of the community and the policies that it has formulated to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, it is likely that you will eventually be classified as a vandal and will be blocked. --Coolcaesar 16:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
So did you use Lexis or Westlaw to do all of your research? And congratuations on the legal research. Do me a favor and write me a memo on that. And then send it someone who actually cares.


You're obviously bright. But I guess that must be limited to legal scholarship, because the ability to read the English language seems to be lost on you. Go back and read the last sentence of my last post and then get back to me.

Or perhaps you just don't know how not to be anal-retentive. You want to talk about legislative intent? The reason Hastings is listed seperately is because, in fact, they have a seperate Board of Directors. It is not indicative of some legislative intent to sever Hastings from the rest of the UC. In fact, Hastings was started as the original and only law school for the entire University of California. But if you can find some statement of legislative intent to the contrary, go ahead. And then write me a memo on it. I'll probably ignore it because frankly, I don't care. The law can't read "Trustees of the CSU, Regents of the UC, etc. etc. etc." and not include the Hastings Board of Directors. I think you know what happens when legislators leave out MINOR DETAILS.

I don't think it is a distortion at all. Hastings students are just as much UC law students as those at the other three law schools. They are part of the same UC-wide student organizations. The Boardo of Directors, although independent in name, rubber-stamp the fee-hike suggestions of the Regents. So, because of historical accident, we should go ahead and pretend they are not a UC institution. Seems pretty petty, don't you think?

As for verifiability. Go find a Hastings degree. Go read the UC website. Hastings is listed, albeit on a seperate page. You're acting like I'm claiming CSU East Bay is one and the same as Berkeley. Hastings has a campus. Hastings is a UC entity. They award degrees in the name of the Regents. I don't see the problem in listing it as a UC campus. But since you did not go to Hastings, or so I assume, I'm willing to bet you get off on making others feel less than you. But you're also the kind of guy who thinks he's a real hot-shot at his job.

Or perhaps you're still upset you didn't get into Boalt or Harvard.

But I assume you're just pissy because your life is irrelevant. But hey, if writing articles for a free encyclopedia is how you get your kicks, more power to you.

I just prefer socializing with real human beings is all.

Or in other words, get a real life buddy, and once again, quit being such an anal-rententive control freak. I feel bad for whatever woman is stupid enough to end up with you. Poor girl. Go cry about me to someone who cares. --NoRCaLD503 21:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, by failing to challenge my arguments in the context of the plain and simple text of Wikipedia policies, and to reformulate your arguments in context of such policies, you have failed to prove your point with regard to the substance of the article. So, implicitly, you just conceded my point. In plain English, you lose.
The technique is called close analysis and it's taught in the required first semester (or quarter) of undergraduate English composition at all UC campuses. I can think of three different superficial counterarguments based on a close analysis of Wikipedia policy and California law, but you were incapable of thinking of any of them and instead fell back to reiterating the same weak arguments.
Furthermore, by failing to stick to the issue and making irrelevant ad hominem attacks (which no mature and intelligent UC graduate would do), you just proved yourself to be acting in bad faith. The Arbitration Committee will construe that against you, if that becomes necessary---although it looks like your behavior is going downhill so fast that an admin will be able to speedy-block you without having to involve the Committee, which gets involved only when there is a legitimate dispute involving editors who are engaging in a reasonable debate on the merits in good faith.
I'm fixing the article. Any edits to the contrary on your part will be reported on the admin notice board as vandalism and dealt with accordingly. At the rate you're going, you'll end up on the hall of shame on the Wikipedia:Long term abuse page soon enough (any edits suspected of originating from people on that list are speedy-reverted). --Coolcaesar 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to enjoy talking down to others. What is so ironic is that you still cannot read plain English.
First, the Wikipedia policies you have cited are not applicable to the situation at hand. My edit is based on verifiable information (the UC website identifies Hastings as part of the UC, albeit on a seperate page, the buildings at Hastings read "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" in big, gold letters, and moreover, the J.D. from Hastings is awarded in the name of the Regents of the UC). It is not a biased point of view, as it is a simple statement of fact. If you can refute any of the three factors I just listed are true, by all means go ahead and try. To do so, you'll need to convince the UC to take Hastings off their website, get a picture of Hastings without the words University of California on the side of its buildings, and a degree from Hastings not awarded in the name of the Regents. Good luck with that.
You took sections of the California Education Code and interpreted them as you saw fit. I disagree. What you have cited in no way is indicative of legislative intent to make Hastings a seperate entity independent of the UC. Rather, because Hastings, does in fact, have a seperate Board of Directors, the California Legislature had to list them alongside the Trustees of the CSU and the Regents of the UC. Furthermore, as I stated in my last post, if you can find a statement of legislative intent that backs up the position you're attempting to put forward, by all means, I'd like to see.
So in plain English, you haven't won squat. You can pretend my arguments are weak, but in reality, yours are superficial and lame. I have based my argument on the following facts: (1) the degrees are awarded in the name of the Regents, (2) the UC website lists Hastings as being part of the UC, (3) the students at Hastings are part of the University of California Students Association (like every other UC campus), and (4) the Hastings Board of Directors rubber-stamps every suggestion the Regents make.
You, on the other hand, have manifestly failed to address these facts. Rather you have taken select portions of the Education Code and interpreted them as you saw fit. So, why don't you follow your beloved Wikipedia policies and find an actual verifiable statement of legislative intent that backs up your position
And you can piss and moan all you like, but I am going to sit and enjoy looking at my B.A. awarded, just like a Hastings J.D., in the name of the Regents of the UC.
I'm sorry if you don't like my tone. But I'm not going to sit here and kiss the ass of a petty peon who can't stand it when other people disagree with them. There's always a couple jerks like that at every law-school. I guess you must be "that guy" at yours. Here's my advice to you. Realize that, although you are smart, not everyone will agree with you. You will not always be right. Deal with it.
If you want to go cry about my editing the article back, fine. I bet you were that kid who took his ball home and cried to mommy when he didn't get his way.--NoRCaLD503 08:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing. If you want to put me on your little "Wall of Shame" go ahead. I really don't care what you or an online virtual community thinks of me. But then again, since I have made meaningful contributions to other parts of Wikipedia, I don't qualify for the list. So quit trying to pretend like you're someone important and just deal with the fact your ego has been bruised by someone who doesn't agree with what you think. --NoRCaLD503 08:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Finally, if you look at my most recent edit, I think you'll see it is a fair and proper compromise position. It explains the "traditional" means the UC lists its campus while recognizing in reality there is another UC campus. It also contains the material that explains this historical accident. So, go ahead buddy and cry to your committee. Edit it back and pretend Hastings is not a UC institution. If you're going to claim someone is acting in bad faith, you better take a long look in the mirror. --NoRCaLD503 08:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was willing to go along with the edit you first made, but then you added Hastings back to the list.
Anyway, I realized that in your responses above, you betrayed a critical weakness in your own position. If you don't care what the Wikipedia community thinks of you, if you have no respect for the Wikipedia community or its members or its policies, if you think contributing to a free encyclopedia is a waste of time, then why waste your precious time editing Wikipedia? Leave it to the "petty peons" who care.
Also, if you find it so difficult, so painful, to show some civility---that is, you can't tell the difference between showing a little courtesy to your fellow human beings and "kissing ass," (and most intelligent people can discern the difference) then you have my sincere condolences. You will find it unbearably excruciating to practice a profession where, in your words, one must "kiss ass" with regard to the client, the judge, and opposing counsel every day. What are you doing in law school?
Turning to the underlying issue, you completely ignored the fact, as I have pointed out at least twice already, that the UC Web site clearly indicates that they have only ten campuses, and that they do not list Hastings as one of those campuses on their list of campuses. [5] I just ran some Google searches limited with the site: operator to universityofcalifornia.edu. There were 85 hits for the phrase "ten campuses." (see the results [6]) Again and again, UC asserts that they have "ten campuses." There were no hits for the phrase "eleven campuses." [7] Indeed, among the hits for "ten campuses" was President Atkinson's congressional testimony in which he said that we have "ten campuses." [8] Are you seriously going to imply that Richard Atkinson perjured himself under oath in front of a House subcommittee? Also, UC Merced calls itself the "tenth campus" of the UC system. [9]
As you should know, the UC systemwide Web site is the only aspect of UC that many people will ever see (particularly people outside California). UC is not going to post information to such an important site unless they have their facts and numbers right. Their site clearly indicates that Hastings is "affiliated" with UC, but it's not one of the "ten campuses." I will be amused if you attempt to argue that the UC systemwide site is a unreliable source or is not verifiable.
As for the statutory issue, you don't seem to realize that if Hastings was an integral part of UC, there would be no need to mention its Board of Directors separately. The chancellors of the other campuses and their vice-chancellors aren't mentioned because it's assumed that they are all under the control of the Regents. Indeed, all the reported cases involving Hastings as a defendant name the school or its Board of Directors, not the Regents. In contrast, all the reported cases involving UC as the defendant (e.g., Moore and Tarasoff) name the Regents. If you haven't studied the law of agency yet, you might want to take Corporations or Business Associations.
I looked into the UCSA; it's an independent nonprofit organization that can do whatever it likes. UCSA's treatment of Hastings is irrelevant because the organization is not under the control of the Regents; indeed, UCSA has a Web page called "Regent Watch." It would be like trying to analyze the corporate structure of the federal government in terms of the structure of federal employee unions.
As for the name on the degrees, that's a statutory obligation, as I already noted. It doesn't change the day-to-day administrative reality that the Board of Directors is separate and distinct from the Regents. Even if they do rubber-stamp the Regents' decisions, they retain the power and discretion under state law to diverge from them.
It seems like you deeply resent the fact that UC treats Hastings as an "affiliated" institution and doesn't treat it as an "eleventh" campus. The Verifiability policy requires Wikipedia to defer to what published, verifiable sources say, and published sources defer to UC's own count of its number of campuses. See, for example, archived articles from the New York Times which state that UC has nine campuses (this was before Merced): [10] [11] --Coolcaesar 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree with your argument. And as for trusting the University of California for trustworthy information? I guess it's nice to see someone is gullible enough to get on bended knee for the Regents. Or have you so quickly forgotten how they have fucked us students at every possible chance? Let's not even begin with how the UC is constantly racked with scandal. Shady compensation packages. Unnecessary vacations and personal renovations. Rampant abuse of UC funds. Because my caseload with DOJ has picked up, I don't have the time to debate the merits of your argument. I still maintain my position, but I will leave the UC page as it is as a fair compromise that puts forward both positions. I did make the minor edit of changing "affiliated" to affiliated. It is, in fact, affiliated with the UC. I think the quotations are not necessary.
Considering the Regents run the website and don't get to run Hastings, don't you think you should at least nominally question their position? Consider their sources and their motivations.
Like I said, I still think Hastings should be listed as it is a University of California academic institution. But I think we can agree on the current language of the page. However, I still think you're anal-retentive, but that's neither here nor there.--NoRCaLD503 03:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Compromise accepted.
I should've figured you were a prosecutor type. That explains a lot. I'm definitely defense-oriented. --Coolcaesar 07:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to further elaborate on the change of "affiliated" to affiliated, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that the "University of California, Hastings College of the Law is a public law school located in San Francisco and is part of the University of California school system." Order Re Motions for Summary Judgment, Christian Legal Society v. Mary Kay Kane, et al. (No. C 04-04484-JSW) (April 17, 2006). --NoRCaLD503 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Hastings technically a part of UCSF? That was my impression when I was living in San Francisco. I think the sign on the Hastings building even said, "University of California, San Francisco -- Hastings College of the Law". starkt 07:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Hastings is not part of UCSF. UCSF is only oriented toward the health sciences. The signs on the buildings at Hastings, as well as the Hastings letterhead reads: "University of California, Hastings College of the Law." Hastings students often study at UCSF's facilities, some Hastings students reside around UCSF or in UCSF residence buildings, and Hastings is temporarily renting use of UCSF's Mission Bay Rec Center as Hastings is unable to host intramural sports at its campus due to the renovation of one of its buildings.
However, Hastings is definitely not part of UCSF. NoRCaLD503 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The most conclusive facts indicate that Hastings is part of the University of California; its just not "administered" by the regents. The indications on the UC website, although relevant, are hardly conclusive. The UC Regent site is administered by some IT goon, not the legislature. Its a public school; there are only three public school systems in the state (community college, state, UC), its not comm coll or state, hence it must be UC-- simple logic. Plus, if it wasn't, it would be illegal for it to use the name UC Hastings on its building, all its letterhead, its diplomas, and its website. Also, the education code goes to the administration of the school, not its status as a UC, so of course the UC regent schools will be separated from Hastings.

There are facts on both sides. Against UC status: biased/myopic statements by the regents in the speeches (like the president's) and on their website; plus ambiguous Education Codes that indicate a split in administration only which we all know. For UC status: the legal name of the school, as reflected on its website, building, wikipedia page, and degrees, and, apparently, a judgment from the Northern District Court. Yes it is unique because its the only UC not administered by its campus, but in critical thinking classes (at UC), you learn that black and white categorization can lead to fallacies. The world is not black and white (e.g., must be one of the ten regent campuses to be a UC "campus"), there is a lot of grey, and people who open their minds and accept this will be much happier as a result.

In my opinion, the weight of the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that it is a UC and it is a UC campus. But hey, I'll disclose that I'm a Hastings grad, so I'm biased, just like I'm biased to UCSC. Lets leave the final decision to an independent arbiter (perhaps Amerique or the Wiki committee?) though, not to Coolceaser and not to Hastings grads (clearly the supporters here). Until then, I'm editing references that indicate Hastings is not an actual UC. I'm relying on verifiable facts from UC Hastings and the UC Hastings board of directors, just as reliable in my mind under Wiki policy as the UC Regent assertions.

NB: Here's an interesting note I just found in my research, the original statute that established Hastings, approved March 26, 1878, provided that the "The college is affiliated with the University of California, and is the law department thereof." Wow, its the Law Department for the UC? Sounds like a UC to me. Sure, its not a UC regent's campus, but is the UC Law Deparment campus. Also, re use of the term "affiliated,", if you look at other UC wiki pages, including the one for Berkeley, they also say in the sidebar that they are "affiliated" with the UC. Does that mean we must now use that term for all UC campuses, or do we have to single the red-headed "step-child?"


216.38.135.218 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This debate is long since over, as I understand. As far I understand, the designation "general campus" goes to institutions with broad teaching and research missions, i.e. undergraduate teaching, liberal arts and science depts, etc. (Though I am not sure why UCSF is considered "one of the ten campuses" by the UCOP, and not Hastings. I would suspect it is entirely due to the governance issue, or perhaps medical sciences are considered "broad" enough in resource requirements for UCSF to be considered "general.") While Hastings is of course a UC, it is a specialized rather than a "general" campus of the system. However, I do think useful facts and distinctions in these debates can get obscured or ignored between the incivility and personal attacks. What we all need to remember is that, as fellows of the great and vast UC system, our time could be much better spent dissing posters from Stanford and USC;-)(And improving all the UC articles in general.) Ameriquedialectics 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm exasperated that some anonymous Hastings alumnus wants to come in and disrupt the consensus on what I thought was a settled issue. But I'm too busy working 10-hour days on a very important project to get into a full-blown argument over this right now. Anyway, I'm going to try to fix the most incoherent inconsistencies created by the latest edits to that section, but leave the reference to Hastings in there, since Hastings alumni seem to be so stubborn about that issue.
I should point out that our anonymous visitor from 216.38.135.218 might wish to reconsider using their work computer for editing Wikipedia; I myself NEVER edit Wikipedia from work. Unless that IP address is being spoofed, a simple reverse DNS lookup indicates that it appears to belong to the San Francisco litigation boutique of Rogers Joseph O'Donnell. Running a Google search limited to that domain with the "site:" operator indicates that there are only five Hastings alumni employed there, so I have a fairly good guess as to who our anonymous visitor is. --Coolcaesar 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admissions

Although Los Angeles has a lower admission rate, Berkeley has the highest average GPAs and test scores for its incoming class. They're admissions are pretty much at the same level.

Uh oh. I hope they're not admitting people who use "They're" in place of "Their." --Coolcaesar 01:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe you're misunderstanding the term "selectivity" here. It has nothing to do with scores or grades, but rather, the proportion of students accepted. If UC Irvine only accepted students who were under 5'2" and received exactly a 930 on the SAT, they would be the most selective school in the system...
I think the POV of the article that claimed UCLA was most selective conflicts with the statistics, which point to the fact that UCLA and Berkeley have almost the same standards for admission.
I'm not sure you realize that "selectivity" is a precise term in academic admissions, and refers specifically to the number of students admitted compared to the number of applications received. It doesn't require anything about the quality of the admitted students. As the person you responded to mentioned, if a school accepted 10 people and got 10,000 applications, it would be incredibly selective, even if the 10 people it selected were the bottom 10 of those who applied. - Flooey 08:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering how each of the CSU and Cal Poly campuses would rank academically in the Shanghai Jiao Tong University survey (do a google search for "best universities"). The only one that appears in the survey is San Diego State at number 301 out of 500 world universities. Does anyone know how much lower say a Cal Poly campus would be than UC Riverside or Santa Cruz (both # 101 of 500)? If someone really knows please reply to my query. Thanks. Vivaldi4Stagioni 08:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 67.169.17.61

This user seems to be some sort of UCLA fanboy. He has made very positive changes to the UCLA entry and controversial ones to the Berkeley and USC entries.

I concur. --Coolcaesar 07:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UCSF

Why isn't UCSF included in the box with linked images, along with the other campuses?

Because no one's bothered yet to go out to Parnassus Heights and shoot some pictures and license them to Wikipedia under the GFDL. I don't go to the City that often, and when I go, I'm headed to downtown, not to Parnassus Heights, which is in the middle of nowhere with no freeway access. Plus the weather in the city is usually awful (it took six tries before I happened to be in the City on a day when the weather, lighting, and timing was just right for the State Bar of California picture). --Coolcaesar 07:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a picture of the Mission Bay campus, then?

[edit] Picture Problem

There's a problem with the picture of UC Merced -- it isn't actually the UC, that's just a satellite area that was being used as a base for UCM's offices while the campus was being built and is actually a part of the Merced Community College. In fact, I don't even think it is being used anymore.

  • Okay, took care of that. --DanielNuyu 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] size of library system.

Please reconcile the article's statement:

"At 32 million items, the University of California library system contains the third largest collection in the world, after the Library of Congress and the British Library."

with the Harvard University article's statement:

"The Harvard University Library System, centered in Widener Library in Harvard Yard and comprising over 90 individual libraries and over 15.3 million volumes, is the largest university library system in the world and, after the Library of Congress, the second-largest library system in the United States."

Changes/clarifications could be made to either page, but as it stands the two articles are somewhat contradictory on this question. I'm posting this to that page as well.

Thank you.

It looks like you're asserting that the contradiction here is that both systems are claiming to be the second largest in the United States after the Library of Congress.
I think the key issue here is what constitutes a library system. Obviously, the largest library system on one campus must be Harvard's, but UC's is the largest library system operated by a single institution (that happens to have campuses all over the state).
Of course, the extent to which UC has a single library system is debatable, since in terms of day-to-day library administration, each campus has a separate circulation system. The only thing they share directly (besides the UC logo) is the MELVYL union catalog, but MELVYL is simply a unified interface to the separate computer systems maintained by each campus. --Coolcaesar 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Items in the University of California Libraries are available to any student within the system. So I think that it's right to consider it a single library system. Nguyenmdk 09:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The UC libraries also share resources such as the California Digital Library, and melvyl is its own catalog, not just a gateway to other catalogs. However, as you say, each campus directly administers its own library system, and the various libraries can be very different. The UC Libraries are more of a tightly linked consortium (like the UCs themselves), whereas Harvard has things all in more or less in one university library. phoebe 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Phoebe, Harvard's article states that the library system includes "over 90 individual libraries," so I would doubt that they are in, as you put it, "more or less in one university library" (I could be wrong, though). Since all the UC campuses are connected, I believe UC has the right to clump the university libraries together and call them the "University of California library system." Unsuspected 08:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Laureates

"Nobel Laureates are present at all campuses except Merced, Riverside, and Santa Cruz." I don't think there are any Nobel Luareates at UC Davis either. Can anyone clarify? Nguyenmdk 09:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Dec 07, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.181.234 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC) How about now? Although he didn't win it outright. He is part of the group that won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. Here is the source: http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/12/07/Features/Professor.And.Researcher.Among.This.Years.Nobel.Laureates-3138687.shtml if this doesn't count just undo what I've changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.181.234 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My new photo of UCOP

I was in Oakland today on business and took a photo of the UC Office of the President afterwards. The building is incredibly hard to photograph because Oakland has the "concrete canyon" problem. If one is across the street, it's easy to photograph details clearly but then one can't get the full height in the image, and if one backs up two or three blocks away, then many other buildings get in the way. The best I could do was the side facing the vacant lot. It seems to me the best view would be from a nearby skyscraper or a passing plane. If anyone can get a photograph like that, please feel free to replace my photo. --Coolcaesar 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the roof of the other buildings accessible? That's really the only other way I can think of. --little Alex 04:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably not. Most large buildings in Oakland have extremely tight security due to the city's high homicide rate. --Coolcaesar 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Cruelty

There's extensive evidence that the University of California is a big time culprit of as far as animal experimentation, cruelty and misshaps.[12], [13], [14], [15]. I believe that given that historically as far as the whole 'animal liberation' organisations go (ie: it was the first internationally media covered ALF break-in that was televised of hundreds of animals that were surgically blinded with string sewn through their eyes that drew attention to the animal lib groups as a whole in 1986) and so much of a cornerstone in the animal liberation movement as a whole that to not address this would be POV.

Unfortunately I do not feel that I'm an authority enough on the subject to address the issue as well as some of the regular editors, students of folk in the know could, thus I am requesting assistance in such ammendments if anyone is willing? 211.30.71.59 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Centennial Books

Verne A. Stadtman wrote UC 1868-1968, The Centennial Publications. Excellent histories of the UC Systems, first 100 years. Ustye 01:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism took TWO MONTHS to catch

Someone just fixed the vandalism with regard to the UC HQ (it's in Oakland not Berkeley) which NO ONE, myself included, caught for two months! We have got to be a lot more vigilant on this high profile topic. --Coolcaesar 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UC Yearbook Info

I attempted to add a link to old yearbooks published by UC Berkeley ( http://www.e-yearbook.com/cal ) and it was removed by an editor with a reason given as link spam. I disagree in that these yearbooks are an important resource highly relevant to the topic of UC Berkeley. They have been published by the ASUC since 1875 and in many ways represent the institutional memory of the school. While this is a commerical site that generates revenue, a significant % of the revenue goes to the ASUC. Also, there are other commercial sites on this page (like the link to the Oski mascot site).

It just seems to me that this would more than qualify as a valid link in the "Other" external links section. In fact, I'm going to suggest that the Info_box template for Universities adds an entry for "yearbook".

BTW - I emailed both the editors that removed my edits and neither of them have responded to me... thanks, bryan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.39.140 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

First of all, that's very specific to one particular campus. Second, yearbooks do not represent the institutional memory of a school; I took the History of the University seminar with the Berkeley Chancellor (Robert Berdahl at the time) and we did not waste our time examining something as frivolous as yearbooks. Third, it is linkspam because it is of peripheral relevance. Most Berkeley students are barely even aware Cal publishes yearbooks. In contrast, everyone knows who Oski is. Please see core policies like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Most importantly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coolcaesar 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. First, yearbooks are not specific to one particular campus - the other UC campuses also have yearbooks (although not all of the yearbook programs are currently active they have old editions). Second, if you took some time to examine these old yearbooks - particularly the 60's on back - you will find they offer a unique and comprehensive history of the schools. Although you may not have used yearbooks as a source in your seminar, I guarantee that a lot of the information you covered is represented in the old yearbooks. In fact, this resource contains original, relevant content not available anywhere else. I bet if this had been available to Chancellor Berdahl at the time, he would have made use of it. Here are some examples:
- Pictures of hundreds of thousands of alumni
- Photos from all the sporting activies (trips to the Rose Bowl, basketball national championships as well as all the sports teams)
- Photos of all the greek organizations and activities
- Pictures of faculty, staff, Board of Regents, Deans of Schools
- A broad photo portfolio of student organizations and activities
- Original photography by students of important events on campus
This is a partial list of the types of information in these old yearbooks.
I do agree that many current students may not be aware of the current yearbook – just as many students are not aware of 90% of the information on the UC Berkeley Wikipedia page. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia only include information the students know about? That defeats the whole purpose.
I have read the core policies and I believe this is an important part of the UC schools and should be included.
If you don’t think the yearbook deserves a mention, than why does the Daily Californian get an entire entry unto itself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.39.140 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
The Daily Californian is notable and therefore worth its own article on Wikipedia because (1) it has existed for a long time and (2) it is generally well-known among the Cal community in the broad definition of that term (including Cal's hundreds of thousands of living alumni). Also, the yearbooks were easily available (the seminar met in the Bancroft Library!) but we simply did not use them because they were hardly relevant. Instead, we looked at more important documents like scholarly papers and books, and heard retired UC regents, professors, and vice-chancellors talk in person about their involvement in key historical moments like the Free Speech Movement. The range of photography you describe sounds like an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 05:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Blue & Gold Yearbook has existed since 1875 - I think that qualifies as long time. The yearbook is certainly not an indiscrimiate collection of information - it is well organized and consistent in it's content for over 100 years. Each yearbook has a section on the schools, the senior graduates, group photos of athletic teams, clubs, etc, etc. Current events are also present - in fact, there are unique photos and other content on the Free Speech Movement. Most of the older alumni are aware of the Blue & Gold - since many of them had their picture taken for it when they were in school.

[edit] Logo in Template:University of California

Does anyone see the use of the fake logo in the UC template? I certainly don't. ~ trialsanderrors 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It make all the ugly text around it look better. People have been trying to put in a logo for ages but have failed due to copyright issues and many other templates have logos anyway. If you can come up with a good reason to remove it, a better logo, or a way to include the more widely used seals I will take it down Jarwulf 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I can think of a reason right away. Based on the fake logo's current prominent location and the use of the UC name and motto, you might give naive readers (particularly those not from California) the impression that your logo is an official UC logo! It's called trademark dilution and it's illegal. --Coolcaesar 06:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly I don't think trademark dilution applies because I am using the logo for the actual university article...not opening a line of UC pianos. Secondly, there's plenty of precedent for fansites and even wackedoutpedia using 'fancreated' graphics to represent products and shows...just take a look at stub and project templates. Thirdly there's an exception in US law for noncommercial situations. So even if it could technically be considered 'trademark dilution', it wouldn't be.
     ``(3) Exclusions.--The following shall not be actionable as 
       dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this 
       subsection:
                   ``(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or 
               descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, 
               of a famous mark by another person other than as a 
               designation of source for the person's own goods or 
               services, including use in connection with--
                         ``(i) advertising or promotion that permits 
                     consumers to compare goods or services; or
                         ``(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, 
                     or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the 
                     goods or services of the famous mark owner.
                   ``(B) All forms of news reporting and news 
               commentary.
                   ``(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.

And I also restate, if anyone has a better looking logo, suggestions to improve the logo, or a way to use the seals, or a real reason, I will take it down.Jarwulf 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World University Ranking

Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University's Academic Ranking of World Universities is very respected. Do not just take your own viewpoint to disagree with that statement. Observe that when you type "world university ranking" in Google, it is the first link that comes up (which is pretty amazing for a Chinese website and proves how global the world is becoming). Their methodology (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006Methodology.htm) is very fair -- far more fair than US News ranking. They are open w/ their rankings, while US News is commercial (you have to pay to see data beyond just rank). The table looks fine on my computer, and I do not have a wide screen. If that is the real problem, however, it can easily be remedied by changing the column title ("Academic Ranking of World Universities" is a tad long). Wikipedia is a global community, so do not just disregard Shanghai's ranking just because it is from China. Also, please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting

  1. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  2. If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  3. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof

Unsuspected 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


I would agree that this matter needs to be discussed with more than just an edit summary accompanying a revert. Although others, like CoolCaesar, may have not heard of these before, I've actually seen them cited in a number of places, on and off wikipedia. So somehow I get the impression, albeit vaguely, they may be well-known.
As for whether the table is too cluttered, I would agree the table is getting rather large, but I have a small screen (a little more than 13 inches) and I have no problems with viewing it. My browser window is set slightly larger than the default though. --C S (Talk) 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


On Wiki's own College and University Rankings page, the following passage is used to the describe the Academic Ranking of World Universities:
The much-publicized Academic Ranking of World Universities [7] compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which was a large-scale Chinese project to provide independent rankings of Universities around the world on behalf of the Chinese government. The results have often been cited by The Economist magazine in ranking universities of the world. [16]
This clearly stipulates the prestige of these rankings, invalidating any argument that this is just some random college rating system that spawned last night. The addition of these rankings make the page more global minded and serve to combat the general ethnocentric spin of a predominately American article. My computer has no issues viewing the table, but if you find it to be an issue, please consider applying aesthetic revisions that do not remove relevant content from this page.
--Dimachaerii 00:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed "Academic Ranking of World Universities" to "SJTU World Ranking" and got rid of the redundant location column. I hope that stifles concerns about the table being too big since now it is the same as before. Unsuspected 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done some research. While I do not like the SJTU rankings, I'll concede that they seem to be well-known among academics and journalists who specialize in the subject of world university rankings, so I'll tolerate them for now. However, the table appearance needs to be fixed. The problem I have with the table as it stands is that the names of UCLA and UCSB are wrapping when they should not be. Either we need to apply a nowrap attribute to each cell on the first column, or we need to specify an explicit width for that column. --Coolcaesar 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why doesn't this page re-direct to UC Berkeley's page?

To remain consistent with the way other public university systems are indexed on Wikipedia, shouldn't the "University of California" page show information about UC Berkeley (the flagship university of the system), and have all of the information currently on this page moved to a new page, "University of California System"?

(See: University of Texas, University of Michigan, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.47.109 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To remain consistent? Actually the argument could just as well be made that your examples are against the normal practice (browse some more and see). In any case, looking through your examples, like Texas, it's clear that the consensus to redirect 'university of Texas' to UT Austin is rather shaky at best. Nonetheless I will address the rationale that was given: that Austin is just so markedly well-known, better, etc. than the other campuses that nobody is really looking for the article on the whole university system. That same reasoning can be made to apply to Univ. of Michigan also, since Flint and Dearborn don't even offer Ph.D.s.
However, it doesn't apply to the UC. It's been a long time since UC was equated with Berkeley. Now although it is highly regarded, it is one of the 10 campuses, with several of them very famous in their own right, Many people outside California know of the different campuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.178.7 (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Other than the reasons above, primarily from the fact that each or at least some campus are famous in their own right, from the newspapers (San Jose and San Francisco) and articles I have read, when the writers specifically want to mention UC Berkeley, they'll write "UC Berkeley" or "Cal". However, if they are referring to the system itself or the entire 10 campus, they'll write "University of California" or "UC". I have never read a phrase where a writer refers to University of California Berkeley as "University of California".--BirdKr 09:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur with BirdKr, except to point out that I have read some sources that equate "University of California" with the Berkeley campus, but they were all assigned readings in the History of the University course which I took with the Berkeley chancellor himself (I mean the last chancellor who was a professional historian, guess who). And all those sources were dated prior to 1952. So the point is that since the 1952 reorganization, it has been very clear to everyone (or at least everyone in American higher education) that University of California refers to the entire system and University of California, Berkeley refers to the Berkeley campus. --Coolcaesar 04:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Developing Wikiproject University of California

An collaborative attempt to maintain policy, raise morale, and likewise edit some UC articles to FA status. Formerly located at a subpage of Szyslak's, it's now located at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California. Please add yourself if interested. Best, Ameriquedialectics 02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in. --Dynaflow babble 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Great! I think perhaps we should use this page to hash out the project until it achieves critical mass and gets going. Ameriquedialectics 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I went around systematically inserting ranking information ([17], [18], [19]) for all the UC law schools, based on some earlier edits I made at Hastings: [20]. In terms of this project, that is sort of how I envision it (the easy part of it, anyway): "borrowing" comprehensive references that are already present in some articles to support similar sections in other articles across the system. Ameriquedialectics 18:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready to start a section on Controversies

Friends,

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

Feel free to list them and their sources :) Be warned though, don't confuse controversial events with "notable" events. --BirdKr 08:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Did this proposal disappear without a trace or was there an edit war? I'm looking for info on the executive pay controversy, and not finding it on Wikipedia, except in spots (Denice Denton, etc., but not Greenwood, e.g.). Am I missing something? Andyvphil (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the "old" controversies (e.g., the FSM, loyalty oaths, etc.) can be legitimately used to beef up the history section; there's no need to present a straight listing, in any case. I would like to see some mention of the pay scandal there, but it should be brief, keeping WP:RECENT in mind. MRC Greenwood is probably notable enough to warrant an article of her own. I might write one if I have time. I find the dearth of information on the pay scandal odd also, especially its lack of mention at the Robert C. Dynes article. --Dynaflow babble 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of UC presidents

According to the UC Bancroft Digital Archives Leconte was the third president of the University from 1876-1881. Inaddition he was acting president from 1875 -1876.Therefore he should be listed between Gilman and Reid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.95.71 (talk • contribs)

[Comment was made in the body of the article. I moved it here. --Dynaflow babble 04:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Funny/Incorrect Admissions Numbers?

Looking through the admissions data, it seems like the systemwide admissions stats are incorrect in some way. It states 309,155 total applicants with 147,453 admitted which is certainly not a rate of 54.7%; all of the other rates appear to be correct upon cursory glance. Is this rate or number possibly matriculant data instead or maybe just a math error? Jscg (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrected, but the source provided is not good for the other systemwide averages, so who knows? Ameriquedialectics 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I propose a merger of University of California Students Association into this article. The University of California Students Association article suffers from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose in favor of speedy deletion as a copy vio of it's own website provided here [21]. However, the organization is discussed in third-party media sources [22], so it may be useful to develop a neutral article on it at some point in the future. Ameriquedialectics 05:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the UC article is not a suitable place to merge an article about an entirely independent student advocacy body. I have stubbed the article to remove the copyvio. FCYTravis (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School colors

I've a question about a somewhat trivial matter, school colors. I noticed someone recently adjusted the blue for UCLA's school color. Each university seems to use slightly different shades. In the absence of finding an official web color published by the school, what do you think the method should be the method for getting the color right? I went to the UCLA licensing page to look for UCLA's official colors and only found pantone color codes. However, the licensing page has a UCLA Bruins logo on it. Copying this image and checking its color code with Photoshop yields a different shade of blue (and a slightly different shade of gold) than currently in the UCLA colors given in the university info box. Do you think this is an appropriate method? I suspect it is. The problem, of course, is that not all monitors present have the same color registration. So any code selected may appear more correct on some monitors than others. Just curious what others might think. Thanks for the few minutes of life you won't get back by considering and answering my question. Vantelimus (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • On looking around, I found a reference to the UCLA Graphics Standards Manual... so the above is moot for the question of UCLA's colors. It is probably moot for every University in the system too as each should have some equivalent official graphics document.

[edit] Rankings

It seems completely misleading to me to say that US News ranks the San Francisco site as #5 when this ranking was given with regards to medical schools, and not with regards to the undergraduate colleges (as it is for the rest of the sites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.144.195 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Founding Dates

The founding dates seem to be inconsistent. UC Davis has its as the year it was established as a "general campus", even though it was established in 1905 by an act of the legislature and started admitting students in 1908. It opened a college of letters and sciences in 1951. [23] UCLA has its as the year it was established as a normal school. It became part of the UC in 1919. It became the University of California at Los Angeles in 1927. [24] UC Riverside has its founding date as the year it opened its college in 1954 (and began accepting students).[25] It was established as an experimental station in 1907. UCSB was founded in 1905 as Santa Barbara State College, and joined the UC in 1944, which is what is being used as its founding date. It became a "general campus" in 1958. [26] UCSF was founded in 1864, before the UC even existed and became a department of UC Berkeley (then just the University of California) in 1873, which is what is being used as its founding date. [27]. "The San Francisco Medical Center took its place alongside the other campuses of the University in 1964 with the designation of its provost, John B. deC. M. Saunders, as chancellor." [28]
So I ask what criteria do we use? The year that any predecessor was created? The year that the individual campus considers its founding? The year that it began accepting students? The year it became part of the UC? The year that it became a "general campus"? Is it even useful to compare? Nguyenmdk (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference is to use the date the campus was established as a university, as opposed to the date of the founding unit, but as long as the campus history is adequately presented in the article I don't particularly care what date goes in the infobox. Ameriquedialectics 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Though if you'd like to propose systematizing the approach in this area, by all means make a post at WT:UC. Ameriquedialectics 15:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I was actually not talking about the infoboxes, but rather the Campuses and rankings of this article because I noticed that someone changed the Davis date from 1905 to 1959. At least in the same chart it should be standardized. How about the year the school began admitting UC students for classes? That way it could be said to be at least a school and part of the UC. The only changes would be to Davis and UCLANguyenmdk (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. The problem isn't limited to the table on this page, though... at some point, WP will have to come up with a systematic approach to the issue. Ameriquedialectics 21:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Did there used to be a now removed demographics section for UC campuses? Hanfresco (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)