Jump to content

Talk:California State University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Calstate vs UC

Is it true that Calstate is better than UC for its undergraduate programs? Because I heard UC doesn't offer "learning by doing" experience as much as Calstate, especially Calpoly.

An engineering faculty from CSULA (who visited my campus, MTSAC) even went further & said that UC put undergrad on backseat; I realized that his opinion might be biased, but can someone please enlighten me?

My landlord, who graduated from UCLA with Bachelor in EE, clarified those rumors, and said that he didn't get too many "hands-on" experience from his school, he also mentioned about this TA (Teaching Assistant) thing, which further discouraged me, since I want to be taught by professor, not some undergrad & grad students.

I'm well aware that UC is, of course, more prestigious than Calstate, but after listening to those statements, it's kinda make me want to transfer to Calpoly, instead of UC.

First of all, this area is not the place to ask such general questions on Wikipedia; try the reference desk (it's accessible through a link of the Help page, I think). Talk pages are supposed to be about discussing editing issues for the page they're attached to.
But to answer your question, yes, UC Berkeley and UCLA are notorious for a stressful undergraduate experience (which I can personally testify to). If you're looking for a trial-by-fire challenge in learning how to deal with apathetic, impersonal bureaucracies where you have to make appointments weeks in advance to talk to a counselor (the kind of bureaucracies you will have to deal with anyway if you go into business, government, or law), then UC is a great fit. If you'd rather enjoy your college years at a school with decent customer service, I advise you to find a smaller, less bureaucratic school like Caltech or Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. --Coolcaesar 05:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
At this risk of offending colleagues and mentors who might stumble onto this page, I can attest that overall, CSU provides a better undergrad experience. I received my B.A. from CSU Stanislaus and Ph.D. from a UC Santa Barbara, so I should know. There are many faculty at UC schools who are dedicated to undergraduate teaching and enjoy it; however, there are many more students to serve and many tasks are relegated to TAs. At a typical UC school, you will find yourself in a general ed. class of a few hundred students; you will mostly interact with a TA in discussion sections; if you are lucky the prof might remember your name; you will have tremendous bureaucracy. At a typical CSU school, you will find yourself in a general ed. class of 40-50 students; you will deal directly with the prof; within your major, you will work closely with them; you will find reasonable customer service. Keep in mind, the UC system is specifically aimed at research first. This makes for excellent graduate programs and exciting experiences for unusually talented undergraduates. This does not mean you cannot have a great undergraduate UC experience; just be aware. The CSU system is focused on undergraduate teaching first; in general, the faculty are much more involved personally. Now, I commit a grave error in judgment by attaching my username to this. Revolver 03:36, 22 October 2005 (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 07:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of CSU San Jose group links - Controversy

Why have legitimate external links to Gostate.org, California State Bell, websites that advocate statewide reform of the CSU been repeatedly deleted by NeoChaosX. This is Wikipedia vandalism, and has been reported. Michaelch7 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of my edits were vandalism? A site about the campaign to rename San Jose State has nothing to do with the CSU system (and better belongs in the GoState article), so it shouldn't belong on this page. NeoChaosX 02:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to Topic

This article needs updating. The CSU Seal appearing in this article is not the latest one appearing on the CSU website -http://www.calstate.edu/ . The article states the University System was founded in 1862, but the latest seal and the official website lists 1857, the year that the oldest campus (San Jose) was founded. [Yes San Jose State University is older than the University of California, Berkeley. And that makes the CSU system (1857) older than the UC system (1868).] highdesert --Highdesert 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I recommend you tell Michaelch7 that. He's convinced it's 1862, since that's when Minns' Normal School became Cal State Normal School. You're right, though, the CSU system does count 1857 as the founding of the system, and that's what should be listed here, despite what some random user and his small band of suporters believe it should be. As far as the seal goes, if there's a bigger version of the newer seal, we could put it in there. The one on the CSU website is too small, IMO. NeoChaosX 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I think Wikipedia will eventually implode with all the bickering in these discussion threads. If the California State University system claims 1857 then that is the official date. An encyclopedia deals with facts not opinions. There is a larger seal on this page: http://www.calstate.edu/GC/csu/#seal --Highdesert 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Contents and Formatting

So I changed the campus list to a table format for a better presentation. Streltzer 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Order of Images

I think the images should either follow the chronological order, or alpha. Anyone willing to change this to match the UC page? --67.170.168.68 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The images were originally in a gallery format, then someone changed them to the current format. I think their idea was to put them in order of student population, but I think I agree that it should be changed to alphabetical order as you suggest. And how about someone replacing the image of the 'lonely bus stop' for CSU Stanislaus? Streltzer 22:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

UC vs. CSU campus names: City Statism

Made note of this significant difference between the UC and CSU systems. CSU Spartan 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The way you've worded it (e.g., "not permitted") seems rather POV to me.--Curtis Clark 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the "City Statism" comment as written by CSU Spartan was not appropriate. Perhaps he or she could provide us a link to a CSU policy statement or Chancellor's speech on this issue, then we could hopefully craft a more neutral comment. Streltzer 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Reinstated text after deletion vandalism. Removed "not permitted" language. All statements are factual and obvious, and may be confirmed at http://www.calstate.edu and http://www.sjsu.edu. The CSU identity of San Jose State and other CSU schools was removed by the California State Legislature in 1974, after direct lobbying by alumni associations at those campuses. Sources: Statutes of California (1974) and http://www.calstate.edu/PA/info/milestones.shtml. There is no record in the Spartan Daily or other SJSU historical materials that any student or alumni vote occurred before the SJSU alumni Association lobbied the legislature. Proof that SJSU students and alumni may not purchase CSU-oriented gear: http://www.spartanbookstore.com. Asking for protection of this article against deletion vandalism. CSU Spartan 22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't take it too personally. The section is arguably POV and contains many unsourced statements. Gentgeen was doing what he felt was right to preserve the quality of the article as a whole. He's also an admin, so I wouldn't go around accusing him of vandalism.
As for the substantive nature of the section, I think its importance is a little dubious. It's clear from the list of campuses that some include the CSU moniker and some do not. From my experience, most UC grads identify with their individual campus as much as CSU students, but neither your nor my personal experience belongs in the article. Most apparel available from the Berkeley store prominently uses the names "Cal" or "Berkeley". The statement about CSU students having to explain that their campus is a CSU is completely anecdotal and probably non-notable. There will always be some portion of the population who can't grasp that a State university in California is a California State University, but really, how many? -Anþony 20:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone else edits or deletes this then CSU Spartan's changes need to be removed. This is not neutral point of view, contains anecdotable evidence (at best), is of a subject that lacks importance and notability, and is simply, once again, CSU Spartan's attempt to advocate for his own small organization of disgruntled Go State people. I appreciate his enthusiasm for the subject but why do we keep having this argument over and over again? Is there a public policy statement issued by the CSU that prohibits the purchase of "California State University" clothing? No or CSU Spartan would have told us that... so I see no choice but to delete this entire brand new section ("City Statism"). Comments? Streltzer 21:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless we have some evidence that this is a serious CSU-wide debate about a uniform identity, then it should just go. It apparently stems from a few "CSU San Jose" advocacy groups who want to appropriate "California State" as the school's nickname the same way Berkely is known as California in sports. AFAIK, this is a non-issue outside of San Jose. -Anþony 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Evidence that a campus CSU identity is an important issue at many CSU campuses includes the sucessful struggle by CSU professors in early 2005 to save the California State University, Sacramento's identity. The professors cited the "prestige" and "stature" of a CSU identity. Sources: CSU Sacramento Academic Senate: http://www.csus.edu/acse/archive/0405/05fsa_mar_17.htm and CSUS State Hornet: http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/17/4239c4535eaae CSU Spartan 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Further evidence of the importance of a CSU identity: Students, alumni and administrators at the California State University, Long Beach, fought successfully to save their school's CSU identity in 1973-1974, against provinicalists who wanted to rename the school "Long Beach State". Source: The Daily 49er Article Archive: http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/ CSU Spartan 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I still think it's way overstated. When I was a grad student at UC Davis (admittedly quite a few years ago), there was no "University of California" merchandise; it was all "Cal Aggies" and "UC Davis". And it was resented by many that UC Berkeley was often called "the University of California". UC is hardly as monolithic as the comparison suggests.--Curtis Clark 03:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This comment raises the issue of whether the real reason for some of these objections is elitism among UC grads, and possibly a hidden agenda to cover up this issue to help maintain a competitive advantage over the obscure CSU city-state schools like "SJSU". CSU Spartan 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Curtis Clark and everyone else that CSU Spartan is attempting to insert biased original research into the article in violation of Wikipedia core policies. --Coolcaesar 06:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't biased original research. It's a sourced description of the current factual state of affairs, and historical facts, based on information that obvious and readily available to anyone. Also, the Five Pillars of the Wikipedia not only permit, but require that the Wikipedia have a neutral point of view, which requires that different viewpoints be accommodated. Also, the examples about "Berkeley" and "UC Davis" being the same as "SJSU" are utter nonsense. The obvious difference is that those schools have the word "California" in their names, while the CSU city-state schools don't. Since California is by far the largest U.s. state in population, and argubly the best known worldwide, this is a very significant distinction.CSU Spartan 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I still think this is inappropriate and a front for advocacy by the GoState people, and that it should be deleted in its entirety. However, I did my best editing of CSU Spartan's text to tone-down some of the unsupportable comments and more blatant advoacy of his position, pending a community determination of the propriety of this section. Streltzer 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice job, reasonably NPOV. I'd support leaving it like that, if it would avoid an edit war.--Curtis Clark 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I strenuously object to the removal of the text about CSU students not being able to purchase CSU oriented gear, particularly at "San Jose State", which is the founding campus of the CSU, and is the school (California State Normal School) the entire CSU is named after. Also, the text about students and grads having to explain that they are CSU students/grads now says "a university in the California State University system". This is inaccurate and misleading. As stated at the begining of the CSU article, the CSU is one statewide corporate entity, comprising all campuses and the Chancellor's office. There is no separate "university with the CSU system". The city-state names are simply veneers imposed by organizations like the SJSU Alumni Association, which represents at best about 5 percent of the alumni of the California State University, San Jose. In the interests of neutrality, however, I ask that another editor makes these changes. Also, I have applied for a Wikipedia advocate to help defend this section against those who so vehemently want to see it censored and suppressed, just like the California State Normal School article was. CSU Spartan 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Another serious problem with this section is its placement within the article, since it purports to compare the CSU and UC systems. Even if we accept it as a serious statewide debate (which I still contest), the contrast with UC schools is tenuous at best, but more likely just plain wrong, chiefly the opening statement:

Another difference between the two university systems is the presence of a unified "University of California" identity at all UC campuses, and the lack of a unified "California State University" identity for the individual campuses in the CSU system.

That can hardly be said to be a significant difference between the two universities, even if there wasn't plenty evidence that, just like CSU students, UC students identify more with their campus than the "University of California". Then there's a little bit that explains the history of the names even though that's already covered in the History section and has nothing to do with the UCs. Finally we get to the real meat: an anecdote explaining that there are dumb people in the world. All you can really say to compare CSU and UC on this point is that the UC schools have consistent formal names and the CSUs don't. -Anþony 08:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a very significant difference between the two systems, and is a big part of why the UC is a much more prestigious and wealthy system and the CSU has been referred to as an "Invisible Giant" (Invisible Giant: The California State Colleges (1971), Donald Gerth. See http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/ow/5b9aceac75a9e635.html ). I reinstated neutrally worded text about the inability of students at the total city-state schools to buy CSU oriented gear. Also added text about the other partial city-state schools, and the recent name change struggle at CSUS, which is strong evidence of the importance of this issue at CSU campuses. Sources: CSU Sacramento Academic Senate: http://www.csus.edu/acse/archive/0405/05fsa_mar_17.htm and CSUS State Hornet: http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/17/4239c4535eaae CSU Spartan 23:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made some radical changes to the section, throwing out most of what I felt was fluff to refocus on comparing UC and CSU in this regard. We don't need a list of campuses that are "city state" or "partially city state" -- that's obvious from the list of campuses earlier in the article. All of the stuff about the history of the university names is included, appropriately, in the History section and need not be duplicated. I've included your book source, though to be honest I've only your word that Donald Gerth ever said anything like that. I would appreciate it if you could quote a relevant passage from the book.
Your changes are pretty good, and will hopefully mollify the more rabid editors who want to completely censor this information about an important distinction between the two systems. The book is available at the CSU library in San Jose, but cannot be checked out, so it may take me a while to secure the passage you request. I reinstated the sourced, factural and highly relevant text about the aborted "Sac State" name change in early 2005. Sources: CSU Sacramento Academic Senate: http://www.csus.edu/acse/archive/0405/05fsa_mar_17.htm and CSUS State Hornet: http://www.statehornet.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/03/17/4239c4535eaaeCSU Spartan 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the apparel issue: at every UC and CSU campus, students may only purchase university-branded apparel that bears university-approved names. That's just obvious. CSU San Jose is not an approved name, and so you cannot buy shirts that say CSU San Jose from the school. You also cannot buy shirts that say "Cal Riverside" or "UCLA Aggies", so I fail to see how this is any different at the UCs. -Anþony 06:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization of this issue. The fact is that San Jose degrees are granted by "the Trustees of the California State University at San Jose". That is the school's real identity, which is used by tens of thousands to market their degrees. To view a copy of a CSU San Jose degree, click on the "CSU Degree San Jose" link here: http://www.gostate.org/Sitemap.htm . It is not only a CSU campus granting CSU degrees, it is the campus that gave the entire CSU its original name, (California State Normal School). That's very different from the examples you give. CSU Spartan 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The school's administration decides the name(s) they use and they are under no obligation to promote anyone else's idea of the school's "real identity". Whenever any organization has control over their public image, they're going to do things their way. That's just natural. The degree is actually a perfect example of that: "San Jose State University" is the largest and most prominent thing on the page! -75.15.118.8 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The CSUS/Sac State part doesn't flow well just tacked on like that. It is a factual statement (although you gloss over that cost was important factor) but what point are you trying to make with it? Remember it needs to relate back to the comparison with UC. -Anþony 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You say it doesn't "flow well". That sounds very POV to me. What exactly do you mean? Of course it relates to the UC vs. CSU comparison, as an example of the importance and recency of the issue being discussed in this section. If you don't like the "flow", then make it flow better, but don't just delete it. CSU Spartan 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a question of POV, it's a question of good writing and a logical procession of ideas. It's an unrelated piece of information that's out of place in an section comparing the UC & CSU systems. We're not talking about the CSU vs. City-State debate, we're talking about UC vs. CSU. The Gerth book is relevant only because it relates the naming conventions to another difference between two systems: their perceived prestige. The Sac State example, on the other hand, doesn't have anything to do with UC, so it can't possibly be comparing the two systems. We don't need to show that the debate is important or recent because that's not the point of the section. If you can find a proper place in this article or elsewhere to cover the debate itself, you could include it there. -Anþony 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You say I can include something about the naming debate, but it's not as easy as you say. I have included that before, and the city-statists always delete it, using some trumped up pretext to defend their vandalism. But I will take your advice and add a something somewhere about the campus naming debate in the CSU system, which has occured at several campuses, and I hope you will help defend it against city-statist attempts to censor and suppress all but their own myopic and provincial point of view. CSU Spartan 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CSU.PNG

Image:CSU.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CALSTATE SEAL.PNG

Image:CALSTATE SEAL.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just caught apparent vandalism

User:Correctos recently deleted my edit regarding Kevin Starr's quote about the CSU system with no explanation, which is incompetent at best and vandalism at worst. Starr is the former state historian and one of the preeminent scholars on the history of the state, and that quote is actually the most neutral part of a larger analysis of the defects of CSU relative to UC. So I am countermanding that deletion.

The quote was in the article for months and is fully compliant with all Wikipedia editorial policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V). If I see that quote deleted again I will be happy to take this issue through dispute resolution and arbitration if necessary. See User:Ericsaindon2 for what happened last time I took a user to arbitration. --Coolcaesar 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I was in Long Beach recently...

I am uploading a picture shortly. Now I will have contributed photos of the headquarters of all three of California's higher education systems to Wikipedia! --Coolcaesar 05:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

CSUN picture

Perhaps a photograph of a building that is more strongly associated with CSUN would be a better choice. I do not recognize the current one even though I am very familiar with the campus. I would suggest either Sierra Hall or the university's main library (which, by the way, has been used as the location or backdrop for a number of feature films). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.31.208 (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

community colleges?

The CSU system is composed of 23 campuses and has 414,000 students supported by 44,000 faculty members and staff.[1] It is the largest system of postsecondary education in the United States that does not include community colleges.[2]

Yet, in the paragraph previous, it says that the California State University system contains the California Community College System.

Is this a contradiction, or am I misinterpreting it entirely? LogicalDash 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    • The article is correct and Streltzer is right. By stating that it doesn't include community colleges it is referring to the State University of New York System which has 64 campuses that includes their state community colleges. According to the SUNY website, they have a total of 418,000 students. SUNY is like rolling the UC, CSU and California Community Colleges into one unit, if California did that the new system with have close to a million students and SUNY would be dwarfed. Highdesert (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP CSU

 Hello, I noticed your recent edits and thought you might want to become a member of the California State University WikiProject. We've recently revamped the project page and started a drive to improve California State University-related articles. We have a lot of articles under our project and would like assistance getting them to good article status. Hope you'll join us. Go STATE!

--Dabackgammonator (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

engineering

If half of all the bachelor's degrees in the state come from CSU, then isn't it low if only 40% of the engineering graduates come from there? john k (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sonoma State University does not have a photo in the Gallery section. The most appropriate would be the front view of the Schulz Information Center which is available for Wikipedia use at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sonoma_State_Schultz_Infoctr_Front.jpg

Would someone who knows how please put this photo in the Gallery section for SSU? Thanks! Dwalls (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Senior system

What is senior system? The largest senior system what does that mean? RTHonVDS (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That means a system that is composed only of four-year universities (plus Masters and perhaps Ph.D. degrees); it excludes 2-year colleges. For example, SUNY, CUNY, and the Ohio system include community colleges as well as four-year (and plus) universities. The CSU does not include "junior" or "community" colleges, thus it is a "senior" system of higher education. Dwalls (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

california state unversity

californaia state university was established on 1857. california state universityis known as CSU.the colrs of CSU is red and white. it has one of the three higher education systems in whole california state.the mascot of the "Golden Eagle".the logo is Vox Veritas Vita which means Voice Truth Life.CSU has 23 campuses.you can get the bachelor and master's degrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.168.186 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing the AKA

71.202.196.168 has several times removed referenced items from the AKA column of the table. I don't know that editor's motivation, but I have known plenty of cases of partisans of the San Luis Obispo campus who are fundamentalists when it comes to the name, and presumably would as soon burn residents of the Pomona valley at the stake than hear them refer to the local campus as "Cal Poly".

It is ironic that 71.202.196.168 has removed, repeatedly, the only referenced items in the AKA column. I've watched the article for going on two years, and editors are constantly adding names to that column that other editors later delete. I see only two resolutions that would be in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia: Either delete the column or only allow referenced entries (and don't delete referenced entries, since, absent anything beyond "I don't like it", it might as well be vandalism).

My preference is to delete the column: AKAs can easily be handled at the individual articles. But that is perhaps excessively WP:BOLD. While I wait to see what the rest of you think, I'm going to {{fact}} tag all the unreferenced entries (which, thanks to 71.202.196.168's deletion, is all of them), and then maybe reference the ones for Cal Poly Pomona. I'd suggest referencing the others as well, in case deletion of the column is rejected.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting the column. And before you accuse Cal Poly editors of being "fundamentalists," you may notice that Cal Poly Pomona editors seem to have an obsession with editing the Cal Poly article. And if I recall, I believe it's against WP policy to comment on individual editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the only edits I have made on Cal Poly have been vandalism removals (including an unexplained removal of a hatnote). I won't speak for any of the other regular editors of Cal Poly Pomona.
I wasn't speculating on your motivation (sorry to disappoint) nor was I necessarily commenting on any Wikipedia editors, but rather commenting on a general attitude that I have noticed, going back even to the days before there was a Web. The only comment I have to make about you is that you delete sourced material. I think that speaks for itself.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The only sourced material that I have deleted have been poor sources. The sources presented do not support the claim made. You've asked me to re-read the sources; I ask you to do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
<futility>The sole point to be made is that locals call it Cal Poly. The reference supports that. No one ever said it was "correct", but it happens, and Wikipedia is not censored.</futility> I hope you don't mind all the unsourced statements that I just removed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, I give up. I stand by my position--that your sourced material does not support your assertions--but whatever. I care about the accuracy of these articles, but to use your word, it seems futile to debate with you. I'm done. You can put whatever you want on this page, and I won't edit it.

What is the average class size? I'm doing a class project and this is a piece of information that my teacher is requiring to be in my project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.130.198 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

around 40 students per class75.26.156.235 (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

COST OF ONE YEAR AT THE UNIVERSITY ?

WHAT IS THE COST OF ONE YEAR AT THE UNIVERSITY ? DEBBIE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.230.17 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagship Campus - Controversy

What evidence is there to back-up these statements of support? What support really exists for this concept? What about citations to documents other than webpages promoting this drastic change? Anyway, how is it that a small group of SJSU people have managed to turn this article into an advocacy page for their attempt to establish San Jose as the 'flagship' campus? All of the statements about this need to be excised from the main encyclopedia article and put into a separate article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about the CSU as a whole. Streltzer 22:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence of support is in the membership of the CSU Students of San Jose (250 members) and CSU Alumni of San Jose (53 members), CSU Spartans (36 members) and other groups. Also, since this issue involves the institution of a statewide flagship campus, in does involve the whole CSU. Michaelch7 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be a separate article, so that the arguments and references can stand (or not) on their own merits. Some of the inaccuracies can be cleared up, as well: the Chancellor's Office is in Long Beach, but not at CSU Long Beach.--Curtis Clark 23:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the disputed language concerning the 'flagship' campus controversy has been removed. So, is there are a new article concerning that matter for all of us to review and comment? Streltzer 17:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, where has the text be moved? Or was it simply deleted by a Wikipedia vandal (NeoChaosX) under the guise that it wasn't relevant, but really because he is opposed to the issue. (pure SJSU censorship) Michaelch7 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a parallel discussion at Talk:San José State University. 65.104.77.179 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
User NeoChaosX created a stub about their campaign at GoState. Streltzer 21:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to throw in my two bits: As far as I can see, there is no real controversy. I haven't seen any coverage of any "controversy" in the L.A. Times, the San Jose Mercury News, or the San Francisco Chronicle (and I skim at least one of those three each day, and all three during any one week). I've not sure Wikipedia even should be mentioning it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.--Coolcaesar 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. As I mentioned on the talk page for SJSU, it's just the GoState folks using Wikipedia as a tool to force their viewpoint on what's really an SJSU-only non-issue on others. If that's all they're going to add, they should keep it on their own webpage, because Wikipedia is not the place for promoting one's cause. NeoChaosX 08:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. The issue of restoration of CSU student rights in San Jose has been covered in the San Jose Mercury News, the Spartan Daily (repeatedly), and the SpartanThunder.com website. There are close to 400 students and alumni in groups like the CSU Students of San Jose, CSU Alumni of San Jose, and CSU Spartans who support CSU restoration in San Jose. This is a valid and legitimate issue in the CSU system, and your attempts to suppress it amount to typical SJSU repression of California State Normal School history and CSU student and alumni rights in San Jose. Michaelch7 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If your numbers are correct (213 SJSU students, 53 alumni, and 36 other boosters), than the GoState group is a non-issue. SJSU has over 25,000 students and I believe over a million alumni, so GoState represents less than 0.1% of the student body and a completely insignificant amount of the alumni. Removal of the links from this page is appropiate, as they have nothing to do with the subject of this article, the California State University System. Additionally, if the GoState article were nominated for deletion, I'd vote to delete. Gentgeen 09:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
hey you have to include cal poly now. look at the talk page75.25.16.24 (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

SAT Score Revisions

Please do not revise SAT scores without proper references. Primary sources should be campus statistical department offices or CSU Analitical Studies offices. Recent revisions for Fresno and San Bernardino, not only do not reference these sources but also misread or plainly make up information. Since these revisions are always upward, I can only assume they are being made by boosters of those particular campuses. Wikipedia is no place for "I heard it through the grapevine" information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.131.7 (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes have once again bumped up the Fresno score and downward for San Francisco and San Marcos without any references. I can only imagine this is being done by Fresno booster. Mediation will be requested.--24.18.131.7 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to Long Beach scores: Does anyone really believe that CSULBs scores to be 550 verbal and 550 math for a total 1100. These figures seem a little too rounded. I've updated with figures straight from their Institutional Research department that are down to the decimal point and considerably lower than the 1100 total. I've been reverted once. Before reverting my latest edits, please comment first. I don't know if this person is making changes for the sake of accuracy or for boosting the scores of CSULB.--24.18.131.7 (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed the Long Beach scores to match what was reported by www.csumentor.edu, the basis for most of the SAT scores recorded in the table. Good catch on the incorrect scores. Now the question is: how many other SAT scores sourced from www.csumentor.edu are inaccurate? 98.234.109.54 (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Rankings

The rankings for US News and World Report (under "Campuses and Rankings" and sourced in footnote 20) seem to refer to civil engineering. This is very misleading. The rankings should be general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.10.80.121 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed 10/24/12. 98.234.109.54 (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Enrollment section

Does someone have access to current graphs for the enrollment section of this article? Or should these just be scrapped completely and put in a wikipedia-formated? The graphs stop at 2011 and are quickly becoming outdated as we approach the fall 2013 semester. --Uwatch310 (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Foundation date: California State University, East Bay

California State University, East Bay was founded in 1957 and not 1959 as stated in this article. The CalState website and the CSUEB university seal, state the foundation year is 1957. There is often a difference between founded (authorized) and admitted first students, but date founded is official.

http://www.calstate.edu/PA/info/milestones.shtml http://www20.csueastbay.edu/ir/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highdesert (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is not censored

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically "Wikipedia is not censored." The quote from Kevin Starr is incisive, accurate, and relevant---the CSU-UC relationship is well-documented and well-known in higher education circles. Only children and young teenagers who haven't seen many reruns from the 80s are totally ignorant of who is Rodney Dangerfield, and we don't cater to the lowest common denominator. To balance out the article, I have located several more sources on Google Books, as well as the relevant page in Starr's books: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I plan to reinsert the Starr quote and add the other citations in a few weeks. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? If I don't hear anything, I'm making those edits in about three weeks when I have the time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, I agree with you, the Dangerfield reference is a good description. You have an exact quote from Starr, a notable individual with expertise in the subject. It is in the source quoted on page 583 as you referenced. Go ahead and put it back. Trackinfo (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Doing it now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. In reviewing the References section of the article as updated, I can't stop smiling over the irony that it takes a UC graduate to insert the only five fully-detailed, well-formatted, and properly linked references in the entire article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on California State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberbot II (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism by Contributor321

Contributor321 is up to his old tricks edit warring and removing credibly sourced material from Wikipedia pages. This time it's the data on CSU and UC faculty workload which use the current references. They have not been updated since and their age is no reflection on their accuracy. Even the UC Regents believe the 1984 numbers are still accurate today (see page 6 on the link below) and even if they thought something completely different that would not change the fact that the references cited are the current official sources. http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may13/e1.pdf

I'll be reverting his vandalism and seeking a page or topic ban if it continues.--TDJankins (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

321 gave a cogent reason for reverting. "old tricks" and "vandalism" are NPA violations. I'm not commenting on the content, but edit warring doesn't do you any favors. Once they'd reverted you, you should have opened a discussion and waited for a consensus. James (talk/contribs) 06:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that 321 isn't really vandalizing per se, he does tend to demonstrate ownership and edit war, and refuses to discuss unless pretty much backed against a wall, so "old tricks" is forgivable under the circumstances. But the fact remains the content is sourced, and there's nothing to replace it, so it's not unreasonable to leave it in. --Drmargi (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I've recently added context to the content in question, which, I hope, is a satisfactory compromise.Contributor321 (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on California State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on California State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Largest system

An editor is, on the basis of "because I say so" removed the statement that the CSU is the largest university system in the country, based on enrollment data that compares CSU matriculated student enrollment with SUNY matriculated + continuing education data, and unbalanced comparison. Moreover, the editor ignores other measures of size: faculty, staff and number of campuses. When the measure of enrollment is equivalent and the other factors are taken into consideration, the CSU is the largest system. The editor involved has reverted repeatedly, failed to provide a source that indicates anything more than the padded enrollment data for SUNY, and refuses to discuss on this talk page, so I'm starting a discussion. Nowhere in the article does it indicate that the CSU is the largest system based on enrollment alone, and the statement should only be removed when there is a good source that SUNY is, in fact, larger on all these measures. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor was given sources and doesn't like what they saw. The numbers are on both systems pages with SUNY being at approximately 600K https://www.suny.edu/about/fast-facts/ and CSU being at 470K http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2016-2017/f16_01.htm It takes 1 second to google 'largest university system' to find this link 3rd party from 2016 - http://www.businessinsider.com/suny-system-removing-questions-about-criminal-history-on-applications-2016-9 and here are three others (1st/3rd party) http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2017/0524-um-system-names-top-academic-leader-of-nations-largest-university-system-internationally-recognized-researcher-as-new-chancellor-at-the-university-of-missouri-columbia/ https://sunypoly.edu/apps/catalog/undergrad/2016-2017/suny/ http://www.suny.edu/about/
Responding to the "Moreover, the editor ignores other measures of size: faculty, staff and number of campuses." comment. CSU only has 23 campuses, and SUNY has 64. SUNY also has a faculty and staff total of 90k while CSU only has 50k. In this case, using your own metrics, you're agreeing with me that CSU is not the largest.
Keeping the sentence claiming it is the 'largest system' in there is incredibility misleading and not true. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No, editor wasn't given sources and didn't like what she saw. Editor has asked repeatedly to discuss on this talk page and for you to provide sources here, which you refuse to do. Finally, they're here, where they belong, and I will review them. In the meantime, please observe WP:STATUSQUO and try not to put words in my mouth. I will also note again that the CSU has 478K matriculated students and SUNY has 436K matriculated students, but pads their figures out with non-matriculated students, so to say 478K v. 600K is comparing apples and oranges. Do you really imagine the CSU doesn't also serve a sizable body of non-matriculated students? Consequently, the 600K figure is not a valid number to compare with the CSU 478K matriculated student numbers. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If an article is going to say that so-and-so system is the largest in the country, there needs to be a source that says, "so and so system is the largest in the country". We had that for California but I can't quickly find that document (the link leads to a generic page). It would be helpful to see. Otherwise, demonstrating that NY is larger along some measure doesn't mean 1) that "NY is larger than California" along all measures or, more to the point, that 2) NY is the largest in the nation. If we can re-locate the California document and it's reasonably up-to-date, then the information can be, should be, reinserted here (perhaps along with any ascertainable and relevant indication about whether the measure is "apples" or "oranges"). JohnInDC (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see we do have the document, thanks. The article now says what the document says - though perhaps in fairness the text should say something like, "The system describes itself as...", given that the metric isn't specified and all we have to go on is California's own claim about itself. JohnInDC (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I would also note that this disagreement is one revert away from an edit war and would discourage that outcome. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You've raised what is a critical point, @JohnInDC:, which is "what is largest?" The language the CSU uses does not confine its standard to enrollment, whereas SUNY does, based on its padded enrollment data and its data sheet. Bottom line: they're both huge systems, and I'm not sure whether the label is all that important anyway. When I read your comments here and on AlaskanNativeRU's talk page, I thought of the standard for the label "world's busiest airport", which something like four airports (Heathrow, O'Hare, Atlanta and LAX) claim based on various standards: largest number of flights, largest number of passengers, gap between take-offs and landings and highest occupied/empty seat ratio (or something like that). Really, how meaningful is the label? They're all huge and damned busy, which is the material fact. The same applies to the CSU, SUNY and probably several other systems. Frankly, given the vague standard for "largest", SUNY's padded numbers, and who knows what else, I'd support either using the "claims to be" in both articles or removing the claim of being largest from both. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone likes to make a special claim for themselves and then they come up with a metric by which they can do it. I remember something similar with Detroit and its theater district. "Largest outside NYC!" or something like that. Only Milwaukee and Cleveland and, like, two others said the same thing, all based on different measures. Here I think it's good enough to say that CSU says it's the biggest because - well, they do, and the claim is at least plausible. And let SUNY say it about itself too, why not, as long as it's clear that the claim is kind of subjective - JohnInDC (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
There you go. My only concern is that we're consistent: either that they both claim it, or we leave it out of both. We need a reliable secondary source that doesn't source back to their data to confirm who actually is; we can't go by them. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Glad some sort of compromise is happening. To be clear the SUNY page does not have the claim of it being the largest on it, while the CSU one did (with a source originally from 2013). The state wiki (California) and others also repeated the line, which is simply misleading and incorrect. And by no metric is CSU the largest, while I provided many that SUNY was, along with 3rd and 1st party sources.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
SUNY describes itself as the "largest comprehensive university system in the United States". By contrast California says it's the "largest four-year public university system in the United States". Those tricksy little qualifiers, I'm sure, contain the key to how both those things can be true; and, unsurprisingly, neither website seems to offer much in the way of enlightenment. In fact, and for our purposes in the absence of the underlying calculations, they could both be true, or one true and not the other - or neither true. In the end it's fairest and the most accurate (unassailably) that each system's article simply recites what each system says, and then say that they say it. If someone wants to tweak SUNY to match the wording here, I don't care; it also doesn't matter if SUNY is left the way that it is. (As for those other articles that say "SUNY is the largest", I note just that they make the statement in passing, and - in all likelihood - are simply parroting what the SUNY press materials or website say. I don't think they add anything to the discussion.) BTW - not arguing here, just talking. JohnInDC (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It makes sense to me; basically, four-year is undergraduate (and the enrollment figures bear that out) v. comprehensive which is undergraduate + graduate + continuing education. That explains SUNY's padded figures v. the CSU's more traditional undergraduate figures in their information bulletin. Both are what's called master's comprehensive universities, which concentrate on undergraduate and professional education (i.e. nursing, education, business, etc.) v. a research university such as UCLA, which concentrates on research and graduate education along with undergraduate education. Somewhere in the dim, dark past, some clever clogs decided we needed a system to classify universities. It's all fairly archaic now, but the terms R1 (for research) and MC (for master's comprehensive) are still floating about. The primary mission of any university is undergraduate education. The CSU figures reflect that mission, and at the undergraduate level, they are larger, whereas SUNY's bases its claims on the comprehensive university. So they're both right in their own way. It bears out what I've said all along; the CSU's claim is accurate and should not be removed, and the comparison of 478K undergraduate to 600K undergraduate + ?? enrollment cannot be directly compared. Under the circumstances, the qualified language can be removed. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the other editors on this matter, this is a major statistical issue - what measures are most accurate and why don't we all use the same. Even IPEDs data does not always have directly equivalent data because of the system or campus interpretation of standards. OPEN SUNY is an online system, enrollment data may include other types of courses such as MOOCs. Do we include MOOC enrollment? How do we compare University of Phoenix vs residential campuses? [[6]] says "Cal State...is is the largest, most diverse, and one of the most afforable university systems in the US.". Is there a consensus on this issue? Is there a consensus on the type of enrollment that should be used across wikipedia? (full-time equivalent vs headcount, matriculated vs open enrollment, online vs physical presence, full year vs semester based, credit vs non-credit, college vs pseo etc. etc.) Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

James Allison's recent edits

A user that goes by James Allison has been insisting on adding that the CSU is "in so many ways the Rodney Dangerfield of public education" under the Differences Between the CSU and UC section, but is refusing to explain why he thinks that passage is a comparison between the CSU and the UC. As anyone familiar with the English language can see, the quote is clearly not a comparison of the two systems. He has also been adding tags to the top of the page without any explanations as to why on the Talk page. I will give him a chance to adequately support these edits or remove them before I take it to dispute resolution.--TDJankins (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not asserted that said quote is a comparison - merely that is sourced and appropriate material in the context of the article. Your comment about "English language" comes across as rude and sarcastic, to be frank. Secondly, the peacock and promotional language of the "impact" section alone is reason enough for the advert tag. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Your quote is sourced, that's not the problem. The problem is that it's not regarding differences between the CSU and the UC, but since it's so important to you, I'll create an appropriate section for it. Also, I just looked at the Impact section. It's about as straightforward as can be, so I'll be removing the inexplicable advertising and peacock tags.--TDJankins (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
And I removed it. It's a ridiculous quote, frankly. It might be fun used at a rubber chicken dinner for UC administrators, but it's not encyclopedic, and has no place in this article. --Drmargi (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Just saw this. The statement that it is not encyclopedic is nonsense. Please refresh your memory on Wikipedia core policies.
The quote from Kevin Starr is encyclopedic precisely because of who wrote it and the context in which it was published. It would be one thing if it were a casual tweet or blog. We are talking about California's seventh state librarian, who held graduate degrees from Harvard and Berkeley, served as the University Professor of History at USC, and was discussing the California State University in that fashion in a published book on the history of our state that will be on library shelves for decades to come. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
After five years, I think I've rounded out the History section in this article enough to bring that quote back. Despite all of UC's problems, UC has never suffered the embarrassment of having the state government attempt to convert one of its campuses into a state prison, having its headquarters called the "imperial headquarters," having to relocate its headquarters building after only 20 years because it was accidentally built on top of a marsh, or having a campus name answered with "Gesundheit." So the quote is an entirely appropriate description of the CSU system. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The quotation doesn’t seem particularly relevant for an encyclopedic article and doesn’t add anything to the history section. I also think the reference to Rodney Dangerfield is culturally irrelevant to a wide audience. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Just remembered to reply to this. I have to respectfully disagree. I wasn't born yet when Caddyshack came out in 1980, yet it is considered to be one of the most iconic comedy films of the 1980s thanks to home video and cable television. (For example, Loaded Weapon 1 has a notorious sight gag that parodied both Caddyshack and Fatal Attraction in the same shot, as insane as that sounds.) Also, saying like Rodney Dangerfield is culturally irrelevant to a wide audience is as narrowminded as saying Richard Pryor or Gene Wilder aren't relevant to a wide audience. The point is that Starr wouldn't have included that line if he didn't expect his audience to get it. This is the English Wikipedia and most native English speakers born before 2000 have heard of Rodney Dangerfield. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm a native English speaker born in California in 1996 and "Caddyshack" and "Fatal Attraction" are the only two references out of that paragraph that I have heard of (though I haven't seen either), so I also respectfully disagree as well. But my being a native speaker or not is entirely irrelevant. English wikipedia is the largest and most used wiki read by readers across the world, including hundreds of millions of non-native speakers. Making references to dated cultural icons when the subject of this article has nothing to do with said reference is entirely superfluous and unnecessary. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_State_University/Archive_1&oldid=1199626196"