Jump to content

Talk:University of California, Santa Barbara/Archive 1

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

Only University on the Beach

I think what User:67.103.42.237 said is true; UCSB is the only University in the country that is actually built on beachfront property. I haven't been able to find a source for this, though. Can anyone find any documentation proving one way or the other? -- Doopokko 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Northwestern is directly on Lake Michigan and has its own private beach. Also with its own beach (from a 10-second Google search): Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, NY. --99.145.183.82 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of UCSB

On January 19 User:128.111.96.243 removed the externa link to [1] with the comment (Took out slanderous Website made primarly to promotoe GOP and racist agendas). Regardless of any political slant this website might have, I feel it is our responsibility to include the link for completness and to maintain NPOV. Doopokko 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


UCSB student that disagrees:

I feel that the website : the dark site of UCSB offers subjective information about the university. UCSB is a highly reputable school, in fact 12th best public school in the country. A party scene at a college is unavoidable, and IV league schools, such as Havard or Yale have party scenes just as bad. I strongly feel that the dark site of UCSB is is portraying UCSB in a very negative and subjective manner, which does not benefit the excellent reputation of the University in the subject that matters: Academics. I do not feel the link should be included, since it offers skewed information, and does not mention the academic excellence of UCSB, and the problems of other campuses, that are very similar to the ones at UCSB.

UCSB student that agrees:

http://www.thedarksideofucsb.com

Everyone should be able to make a rational decision based not just on the good facts, but on the negative ones as well. From my personal experience, if I could have seen both the good and "dark" sides, I would have never made the decision to attend UCSB. I feel betrayed. Reputation is everything! UCSB offered me early acceptance, and I took it. Now, I am constantly mocked and interrogated by family and friends about UCSB's notorious party reputation. Every person should have a right to all of the facts. This is something that I did not have, and now I am suffering because of it.

The person who took out this link [2] -- shame on you!

There is nothing said there that is not true -- most of their website is basic news articles and media coverage. This is news information that ever student that attends UCSB knows without a doubt, but new and prospective students do not have easy access too. They should have this right!

UCSB student that agrees, but with reservations:

The person above is obviously not a UCSB student. UCSB's party scene, as all others is avoidable. It is also notable the UCSB is one of the top schools in the world, often out-ranking UCLA and UC Berkeley. I believe that www.thedarksideofucsb.com should be left on the page, but it should be mentioned that the website often puts up falsified or altered facts in order to taint UCSB's image. I have a feeling that the person who posted above me has some connections to the operators of The Dark Side based on the way he writes. Yes UCSB has a reputation of being a party school, but it also has a reputation for being one of the best research institutions in the world. --Dakart 04:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. I find it hilarious that the UC Berkeley and UCLA articles are in far better shape than this article. This article has highly erratic capitalization and is extremely disorganized. I guess that's because a lot of UCSB people are there because they didn't score high enough on the SATs or the AP exams to get into Berkeley or UCLA. Despite the mediocrity of its student population, I have to admit that UCSB probably has the nicest physical infrastructure of all UC campuses, since it is the only one with a true shoreline location (San Diego is actually a little bit inland). --Coolcaesar 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh, NPOV? Talk pages are not for trashing universities. I, as a Californian, am glad to see UCSB and USC as opposed to Cal-Berkeley and Cal-Los Angeles.
I'm not sure what your problem is, but last I checked this wasn't a place to attack things, places, or people. But since you brought it up, I will justify my argument. All the UCs are top notch schools... It's impossible to get into a UC school as a mediocre student. In addition, a school called a "Most Selective" school isn't very likely to have mediocre students. The quality of this article has nothing to do with the quality of UCSB's students... It has everything to do with the amount of time put into it by Wikipedians. --Dakart 08:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But it is a place for balanced treatment. And, we'd need independent verification of the claim that UCSB is ranked (across the board) as highly as Berkeley and UCLA. And, it's true, some of the pro-UCSB things on this page have displayed poor skills in English. I believe putting in the actual rankings for the various programs would be helpful, as long as it's not skewed toward only the departments were UCSB ranks highly. People should be allowed to judge for themselves the overall status of UCSB, by looking at its strengths and weaknesses.Levalley (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe its because UCSB students are so busy chilling on the beach they don't have time to edit this like the kids at Cal and UCLA ;) I guess you have a point and I'll try and start working on this to show some school spirit. However, please review WP:CIVIL policy before you attack an article, a school, and a student population. Thanks! --L1AM (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


current UCSB student that craves rationality: Agree with not attacking the school and the student population. Let's be fair adn realistic. There are students that come to UCSB to party, live a block from the beach and put as little effort into learning as possible. There are also other students who never miss a lecture or section, never party and take their academic career extremely seriously. Most UCSB students are somewhere in between. I would love to see people on here who want this article to become better and have the most even-handed representation of UCSB. The Dark Side does have an agenda, that is without a doubt. Perhaps it should be re-added along with a fair assessment of the site, detailing people's reactions and reservations to it. The problem I have with the Dark Side is it is not representative of UCSB as a whole, yet it doesn't really make that clear. It also doesn't address how the culture of "hooking-up" and blame the victim in sexual assault/rape cases are issues across the nation and in no way unique to Isla Vista and UCSB. --Sbcalif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.125.77 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No article on a particular campus has to explain a nation-wide phenomenon, such as date-rape. All college campuses are required by law to make public their crime statistics, by the way, and so, as information in the public domain (and usually available from a link on the university's main page), it is indeed appropriate to include it on Wikipedia, if someone wants to make the effort. Whether or not the effort is made for each campus is up to the volunteers here.Levalley (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Endowment

According to the sept 19, 2005 issue of "93106" the Faculty and Staff newsletter for UCSB "the comprehensive endowment for UC Santa Barbara now exceeds $130 million"

Image layout

The image layout was better [3] before. Your version [4] looks like this [5]. It doesn't look any better with alternate skins, either. I asked some other people what they thought and they said "I like the version without the extra picture of tower better" and " you shouldn't have pictures on both sides of the text". I invite other people to weigh in on this and hopefully an agreement can be reached, but for now I'm going to revert it. CryptoDerk 06:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Famous People: Top or Bottom of Article

Isn't it pretty much standard to put lists of famous people at the bottom of the article? I know they usto be at the top, and someone moved them down, but today they've been moved back up to the top again. Can we come to some kind of consensus about this? Doopokko 22:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah.. every other UNI page has them at the bottom. Actually, only Nobel winners and NASA astronauts were moved up.. very strange.. they're back down, again. Madmaxmarchhare 01:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note to Mr. Annonymous--please do not change the alumni listings again without discussing your changes first. Some questions you might want to ask yourself---What's the difference between NASA people and everyone else? I don't think there's a problem with listing them as a separate group within the alum category, but why the insistence--which goes against the standards set forth by other pages, by the way--that they be listed separately? Madmaxmarchhare 02:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright...someone changed them again. This is getting ridiculious. I'm reverting them back to the last version by Madmaxmarchhare. Doopokko 07:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we're going to have to ask that this article (and possibly the discussion??) be protected. Someone changed both. This is the goofiest thing I've ever seen.Madmaxmarchhare 17:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- oops, the "vandalism" I was referring to on the article page was actually meant for my revert of this page.

Founding Year

Just our of curiosity... a lot of schools use their initial founding date, even if they combined with other schools or changed their mission. Given that, why does UCSB choose to recognize 1944 as their founding year rather than 1909?

Because it didn't officially become a UC until 1944. --Dakart 04:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reputation

Something is broken. On both a Windows XP PC and an OS X Mac running Firefox, the [edit] button is floating in the middle of the article. Dunno why. 128.111.207.97 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could add the departmental rankings under Reputation. Someone add it if they want. Source: http://research.ucsb.edu/annual98/annual98e.htm

National Research Council Departmental Rankings (NRC 1995)

  • Geography #4
  • Materials #8
  • Religion #9
  • Physics #10
  • Chemical Engineering #14
  • Electrical Engineering #19
  • Ecology #20
  • Geology #20
  • Sociology #23
  • Chemistry #33
  • Philosophy #42 (Source: 2007 - I've got the cite somewhere, it was posted before somewhere else on Wikipedia). Here it is: http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp
I think these should be added and updated. It's really interesting to look at these rankings, actually. Fascinating.

And for overall rankings, see United States National Research Council rankings and note that UCSB is nowhere in the top 30.

In the City of Santa Barbara (?)

There seems to be some disagreement as to UCSB being in the CITY of Santa Barbara - it's not. UCSB is in the unincorporated portion of Santa Barbara County. True, it has a "Santa Barbara" address. So do many parts of the unincorporated area around Santa Barbara CITY.

The CITY of Santa Barbara has a small strip of land that goes into the ocean and over to the CITY airport. I placed a link to the County Assessor's Office (it takes a while to load so be patient) that shows the city going out into the ocean, around UCSB. I know it's silly, but nobody wants UCSB because you can't get property tax revenues, and you inherent the normal problems of dealing with students, etc. As many locals know, UCSB wanted to be annexed with the City, but the local Board of Sups. prevented that by denying the City's application to LAFCO.

The city limits ends around Highway 154. Isla Vista is also. of course, unincorporated.

Original School Location

It currently states that the school was originally located on the Riviera (north side of State St.); however, I believe that the old campus is actually the current SBCC which is located on the Mesa (south side overlooking the ocean), not the Riviera.

The Riviera is correct. SBCC is not located on the original campus

Picture of UCSB from lagoon

I just visited UCSB yesterday and took a lot of pictures. I am thinking about being bold and replacing the first picture in the article (by Alanmak) with the one I took. I visited in the late morning so the colors in my photo are not washed out in the overly yellow light of the sunset. If anyone has any objections, please let me know, or else I'll be going ahead with my planned edit this week.--Coolcaesar 03:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think morning pictures are generally better than afternoon shots--so go for it, and if we don't like, we change back.--Rockero 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Finally got around to it. Let me know what you think. --Coolcaesar 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Football

The article states that football was discontinued in the 1990s. I attended from 1981 to 1985, and can attest to the fact that football had already been discontinued. In 1981, the dormies put on an "exhibition" game designed to convince the admin. to bring back football. Perhaps it did come back -- I doubt it -- but it definitely disappeared first in the 1970s.

Profnjm 14:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Private dorms

Hey guys, I've been doing some research on this school myself, and what about the privately-owned dorms close to campus that are for students? Tropicana Gardens Fontainebleu I didn't see them mentioned in the article but they're recognized by the university...they're even listed on UCSB's community housing web page. Since there are some other non-university-owned housing options mentioned, I thought maybe this should be on the page too.ShadowGuy 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that there's non-university housing listed on the article? Because Fontainebleu and Tropicana are not only for UC students, they're largely occupied by City College students too.JohnnyRush10 08:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside Survey

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

Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Both links in the first paragraph that state UCSB's rank are broken. "U.S. News ranks UCSB the 12th best Public University in the United States[6], and the 45th best University[7]." Please fix, I am bissy moveing in to UCSB! Troysteinbauer 23:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

US News just came out with the new 2007 edition, which is why the links are broken. Unfortunately you can only see the top 3 public national universities now without a subscription so I'm only going to keep the (new) overall national rank.ShadowGuy 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Athletics

NPOV in "Soccer" subsection: this sentence ("UCSB's historic upset was deeply humiliating to UCLA, considering that Santa Barbara was unseeded during the tournament and was widely viewed as the underdog.") includes many non-neutral words (e.g., "historic upset", "deeply humiliating"). Would someone like to copy edit this section? I'd be happy to do it myself as well. Also, I think some context for the particular game mentioned (i.e., UCSB-UCLA series record, etc.) would be beneficial here.

Kunalmehta 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Picture

View of the UCSB Lagoon and the Marine Biotechnology Labatory
View of the UCSB Lagoon and the Marine Biotechnology Labatory

I took this picture (second one cropped), but I am not sure if it should go on this article. I dont' know what section it should be in. Any ideas?

ChristopherMannMcKay 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice pic. I'd advice just puttting it in any section without a photo. -Will Beback · † · 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Reducing size to thumb for consideration, editors can click on them to view, or set their personal preferences for images sizing should they wish to see images larger. But really pretty pictures! Ariel♥Gold 12:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fraternities

The lists of fraternities should be deleted under WP:Laundry. Agreed? Jolb 13:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bikes

I think that the fact that a vast majority of students use bicycle as a mode of transportation should be added to this article. UCSB has separate "bike highways" that can sometimes even have traffic jams during peak times between classes. KevRus 07:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ucsb gauchos.jpg

Image:Ucsb gauchos.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have done some cleanup on the article. The prior version's references were in plain "naked URLs' (URL between ref tags) and as some of these were extremely long URLs, the reflist ended up being extremely confusing, with one side overlapping the other. I have placed all the references into citation templates, and removed self-references (references from UCSB) and placed them into External links (such as housing info, map, EMT unit, etc). This has made the article much easier to read. I also did some general cleanup, removing some things that came across as very "advertisement" sounding, and removing other redundant items. (Like the rankings, which are shown in the template box, but were also repeated in the article). Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 12:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject University of California

Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Endowment

Found a Dec 2007 press release from UCSB putting the endowment at $190 million. [8] The UCOP hasn't issued an updated endowment report since 2006, at which time it was reported at $151.8 million. US News flat out misreports endowment figures across the UC system campuses, so I don't consider the information they use to literally make up their rankings reliable. I'm ok with reporting the US News ranking themselves, for what they are worth, but so long as anything they publish is not collated with or is in fact contradicted by information published by the UCs themselves, US News is an unreliable reference. Ameriquedialectics 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Coed dorms?

Does UCSB allow coeds dorming in the same room? I know some colleges allow that and some don't but don't know what UCSB's policy is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.63.106 (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The dorms are not coed. Alternating floors of male and female students on all university owned dorms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.77.133 (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dorm rooms might not be co-ed but the dorms certainly are. I'm a guy and I lived on a floor made up mostly of female students in my freshmen year (06-07). I'm a senior now but I'm fairly sure this hasn't changed; my freshman friends last year were living in the same situation. Reydeyo (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranking orgy

The rankings orgy from the article is copied below. Too much emphasis on bulleted program. Focus on programs that are recognized by multiple publications or otherwise notable, but don't list every ranking for every program. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

View of the UCSB Lagoon and the Marine Biotechnology Laboratory
  • Fine Arts (58th),
  • Biological Sciences (58th),
  • Chemical Engineering (9th),
  • Chemistry (26th),
  • Computer Science (37th),
  • Earth Sciences (21st),
  • Economics (36th),
  • Education (58th),
  • English (28th),
  • College of Engineering (19th),
  • History (32nd),
  • Materials Science and Engineering (5th),
  • Mathematics (48th),
  • Physics (10th),
  • Political Science (48th),
  • Psychology (47th),
  • Sociology (36th).

The Geography graduate program is ranked 4th in the nation by the National Research Council Report on Quality in Ph.D. Education in the U.S.

The UCSB School Psychology program is ranked 2nd in the nation in a study published in The School Psychologist Winter 2007.[1]

In 2004, ISI Essential Science Indicators found that publications by the UCSB Electrical Engineering program were cited more in "Thomson ISI-indexed journals of electrical & electronic engineering between 1998 and 2002." than any other institution's publications.[2]

In 2008, Thomson Reuters released the Institution Ranking for Chemistry based on data available via Thomson Reutrer's 'Essential Science Indicators' covering journal articles published between Jan. 97 and Dec. 07 which was based on institutions having more than 50,000 or more citations. In this report, UCSB's Chemistry program ranked 8th in the world with 2,225 papers with 50,948 citations (22.90 citations/paper). The only other University of California institution in the top 20 ranking was UC Berkeley at 7th.[3]

The UCSB College of Engineering's graduate program was ranked 1st in the nation by the Princeton Review's first ranking of graduate engineering programs.[4] The engineering educational programs were ranked using a combination of quantitative criteria, including GRE scores, undergraduate GPA, percentage of applicants accepted and percentage of top undergraduates applying.

UCSB is active in the interdisciplinary field of nanotechnology, nanoscience, and bioengineering. In addition to the Materials Research Laboratory, the California NanoSystems Institute (now Elings Hall) which is a sister institution to UCLA's CNSI, UCSB hosts many national centers such as the Center for Nanotechnology in Society, a national center for research in the humanities and social sciences.

The Department of Political Science at UCSB is currently the host department and university for the American Presidency Project, a collaboration between Department Chair John T. Woolley and alumnus Gerhard Peters, currently a professor at Citrus College. The American Presidency Project is an internationally recognized resource for presidential research with its entenstive document database and other pedagogical resources.</ref>

UCSB as a Party School

This needs some kind of citation (I know several are available, as it's standard to say this in student-oriented guides to UCSB and has also been stated in the L.A. Times and elsewhere. However, citation is still needed. Adding that the school is not on the list of the Playboy Party schools is interesting (can't be that much of a party school then, can it?) but now argues against the topic sentence of that paragraph. It seems inappropriate to start a debate within the article about whether or not UCSB is a "party school." Perhaps someone should write an article on "Party schools" and then list the various ways that campuses become known as such. Isla Vista, of course, is known for huge parties (see the police blotter most weekends, plus many other articles) but again, that's not exactly about UCSB (Isla Vista needs its own article, which could be linked here and that would ease some of the confusion). UCSB doesn't condone excessive partying or drinking on the part of underage students, of course.Levalley (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Shame you don't research as much as you make it sound. UCSB is on the 2009 Playboy list, as they have been in previous years, they just aren't in the top 10 this year. Proof Now obviously I'm biased in that I went there, but UC Santa Barbara actually is all about the party life. Hell, look up "Floatopia" while you're researching about how the students get down. Just because the UCSB administration doesn't want the school to be known as a "party school" doesn't mean it isn't. GauchoDude (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I would remind editors to assert facts, not opinions and to substantiate the basis for any claim. Thus "UCSB is a party school" is inappropriate while "UCSB has been included X times on Playboy's list of party schools" is appropriate. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the person who made the claim, one way or another and have absolutely no interest in researching the issue. All I said, and I repeat, is that if the assertion is made, it should be substantiated. Which could be done. I said exactly what you said. Put in citations, don't just assert it. UCSB is, of course, a party school. I think every UC-bound college student in SoCal knows this. I agree that it should be in the article as you state, but someone needs to add the citation - e.g., find the issues of Playboy and put the dates of publication in, that would be plenty. Perhaps you'll help by doing that?--Levalley (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable faculty

A nobel prize is notable, an emmy is notable (if documented - one of the professors listed needs a citation to establish that they're notable). But, it's unfair to just list professors who have tenure as famous or notable, as people trying to choose a school will be misled if there are no citations. If anyone knows whether the American Institute of Religion is as prestigious as, say, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, please so state. Merely being a department chair or getting a grant to study something is not sufficient, in my view, to get on the list.--Levalley (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The usual standard at Wikipedia for notability is having a biography, i.e., a blue-linked name. If the name is linked then there's no need to give much further information. But if folks here want to establish a different standard that's probably OK too.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Recipients of major awards (Nobel, Turing, Pulitzer, Academy, etc.), elected members of major and national academies (NAS, NAE, IOM, AAAS, etc.), authors of several influential papers/books (several cited by dozens-hundreds of other works), and scholars who have received significant attention in the press are usually the best indicators of inherent notability under WP:PROF. I would echo Levalley's concerns that being a department chair or tenured is not a sufficient condition for encyclopedic notability or inclusion. Will's intuition that if no one has bothered to create a Wikipedia article for them yet should be an indication that either A. they shouldn't be included on a list of notable faculty or B. someone should go write the Wikipedia article for him/her. Red links on a list of notable persons = bad! Madcoverboy (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1

Humor

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

In this encyclopedia we are trying to produce a professional product, and lightbulb jokes -- ugh. --fpo 22:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that there's no humor in being professional? I disagree. Humorist is a profession in itself - put the lightbulb jokes back in, this is exactly what is missing from Wikipedia, which is increasingly monotonous in tone and exceedingly dry. Where in the five pillars does it say "be professional"? It says, instead. BE BOLD.--Levalley (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

UCSB Memes

Near the beginning of 2012, the UCSB Meme page was added to Facebook. These memes include a lot of UCSB inside jokes, traditions, and many other UCSB/IV life references.

http://www.facebook.com/UCSBMemesBrh04 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Add info on new Ocean Sciences and Education Building

I would like to add information about the new Ocean Science and Education building that is currently being built on campus. Should it put under the campus section or the layout? Or another section altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melsousou (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest at the bottom of the campus section. Kiki 233 (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that the information is in the article, I feel it doesn't really fit in. I would suggest trying to restart the UCSB campus article that I created (was deleted) and put the information there. Anyone else agree?. Kiki 233 (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Endowment

NACUBO is a very useful source because it standardizes endowment data, but I believe it should only be the "official" source for private colleges and universities and should be used with caution for public universities. In the case of the University of California system, NACUBO seems to report only the endowments managed by the UC schools' Foundations, and does not include the endowments managed on behalf of the UC schools by the UC Regents (see p.4 of http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/_files/report/UC_Annual_Endowment_Report_FY2011-2012.pdf for details). Therefore, I believe the UC endowment data reported by the UC Treasurer's Office is relevant and should be shown in Wikipedia articles for UC schools instead of NACUBO's.Contributor321 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mireille Miller-Young controversy

An editor recently added information[ to this article about an incident involving a UCSB faculty member, Mireille Miller-Young. It was a good-faith addition but I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_California,_Santa_Barbara&diff=next&oldid=601893699 reverted it on the grounds that the information isn't germane to this topic but is instead about the individual. The other editor has reverted my revert but instead of continuing the edit war that he or she begun I think it's best see what others think. ElKevbo (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

One reversion, with clear explanation of reason for reversion, does not seem to constitute an edit war. I also added response of UCSB.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_California%2C_Santa_Barbara&diff=601900658&oldid=601898773
With respect to relevance, this alleged crime occurred on UCSB campus and was allegedly committed by a UCSB professor. This controversial incident has received nationwide news coverage. Perhaps addition of public statements from Michael D. Young, UCSB's Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, which has also received nationwide (and international) news coverage regarding free speech in aftermath of this campus incident could also be included, if there's concern the current entry doesn't fully cover UCSB enough.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/26/uc-santa-barbara-vice-chancellor-issues-statement-supporting-free-speech/
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62050
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/mar/21/ucsb-administrator-issues-email-free-speech/
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/28/university-defends-feminist-studies-professor-who-assaulted-pro-life-students/
--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted statements Miller-Young made to police (because more relevant to her personally than to UCSB campus incident). Also, added brief statement from UCSB Vice Chancellor Young. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Black Student Union

I wanted to add a section to the free student organization section. I wanted to talk a mainly about the black student union at ucsb, the event they through, and how they began. Does this sound like a good place to add it? (username: T.T.Tidwell) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, August 19, 2012

Isla Vista Mass Murder

Wanted to get a general consensus, should a section for the College Town/Isla Vista Mass Murder lead to a brief section here on the UCSB article since it was across the street from campus, and most of the victims were UCSB students?

This is obviously still a developing story, so information will be changed as becomes available.--Hoteljargon (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A brief sentence at the end of the history section would be appropriate, with a link to an article about the shooting itself. Do we have one yet? ―cobaltcigs 09:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight on one controversy - proposed solution

This article has a "Controversies" section with several detailed sentences about the Miller-Young incident in 2014. WP:CSECTION says "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism" and "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word 'controversies'."

This article shouldn't have a standalone "Controversies" section; controversies should be discussed in context in the "History" section if they're important to the history of the university. Looking at the current "History" section, it's very brief - for example, there are only two sentences about the May 2014 IV killings, which is very important in the history of UCSB, and it doesn't mention the 2001 IV killings, which are also important to its history. There is a longer article at History of the University of California, Santa Barbara with more room for detail. I propose that we should move discussion of the Miller-Young controversy to that history article and consider reducing it there. I can do that myself, but it's a somewhat sensitive subject so I'm putting it up for discussion first. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment and proposal. The "controversy" is part of the history and should thus be included in it. Furthermore, there should be lines/mentions for other events, such as the 2014 Isla Vista killings, 2001 Isla Vista killings, and this Miller-Young incident as brief mentions within the history also, then branch off to their respective articles where applicable. If they've got entire articles written about them, no need to double a ton of the information up here, but I certainly see it fit to make mention of the incident(s) then link to corresponding other page(s) for further info. GauchoDude (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on University of California, Santa Barbara. 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) 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrative Staff Number is Incorrect

The sidebar shows the number of "administrative staff" as 1,102. That is incorrect, and the way to see it is simply to follow the link that supposedly documents the figure. That reference goes to http://bap.ucsb.edu/institutional.research/campus.profiles/campus.profiles.2015.16.pdf, which shows that 1,102 is the number of faculty. The administrative staff would be sum of 3,679 (Academic Staff) and 7,056 (Non-Academic Staff). Of course, those numbers are "head count" as opposed to "FTE" (full-time equivalent). Head count, counts each individual once, whether they are employed full-time, or at 25% time. FTE counts a 25% as 25%, etc.

I didn't make the change, because I'm not familiar with the template format, and I didn't want to screw things up. I figured better to note the problem here and let someone more familiar with the details figure out how to make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.184.122 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting an error. The number in the infobox is correct, but the parameter should be 'Academic staff', which matches the reference cited. I've made the change and also moved your post to the bottom of this talk page where new post should be added (by clicking on the 'Add new section' button). Thanks again for catching this. — Neonorange (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on University of California, Santa Barbara. 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) 10:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

US Rankings

please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges

Munger Hall

I recently created for the proposed Munger Hall. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association (2007). "The School Psychologist" (PDF). Page 18. Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ SciBytes (2003). "Electrical & Electronic Engineering: High-Impact U.S. Universities, 1998-2002". Thomson in cites. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Sci-Bytes (2008). "Institution Rankings In Chemistry, 1997-2007". Thomson Scientific's sciencewatch.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Princeton Review (2007). "The Princeton Review: The Top 20 Graduate Engineering Programs". Princeton Review cites. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_California,_Santa_Barbara/Archive_1&oldid=1170441821"