Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 6

message: (I archived all 82kb of the previous talk page, after finding no recent topics that had not devolved into uncivility or pointlessness.)
–Tifego(t) 04:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try this again 

message: The StudentsReview.com stat needs to go for multiple reasons.
*The sample size is 40 students. It's self-reported data as well, and thusly not accurate enough for Wikistandards. You can't cite a messageboard, you can't cite a forum like this. Putting this up is like quoting ApartmentRatings.com. Additionally, with the recent substantiated claims of sockpuppetry, it's clear that we cannot trust a user-submitted site. The use of multiple identities could--and likely has--tainted Student's Review.com
   
*The statistics listed on the site show a pattern of inaccuracy. They claim that UCR has an average ACT of 14. Clearly, that is not true and is contradicted by UCR admission statistics. I don't even think you can get into a UC school with a score that low. UCRGrad responded that this is because not everyone submits their ACT score, if this is the case then the site contains a major data flaw that prevents accuracy in the stats. A reader who follows that link is immediatly presented with a statistic that is clearly not true and thus undermines our article.
*The site still has an Application deadline of 2004. It's 2 years outdated. 
*Even if it were acceptable to use information from the site, the authors who have done so, did it selectively. The majority of the school's ratings are in the B range--none of which has been mentioned in the article. If it is so imperative that we mention hate crimes near campus, we must pursue this angle with equal vigor. Since it's current form is misleading and lacking context, the statistic must go.
I have provided adequate reasoning for the removal of the statistic. I'm sure the majority of the users here back them. Thusly, do not revert it until you've addressed these concerns. If additional data is not entered to even the playing field--show both the positive and the negative, it cannot even begin to be considered as NPOV. That aside, the site's very nature does not meet Wiki standards.
Thank you
TheRegicider 04:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the StudentsReview.com stats must go. A self-selecting user-submitted population with sample size of 40? Not exactly reliable information. Dandan 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you really suggesting that the Princeton Review has a sample size of 40 students? That's so ridiculous that I am without words. The data flaw alone invalidates this stat. If the SR was on top of things they'd get rid of the ACT data but they haven't. As it currently stands it claims the average score is 14. IT'S NOT TRUE. With that same flaw in mind the SAT, GPAs are tainted if a studented did not enter their score. As you've said, survey's are the weakest form of data. This article is jammed backed with info, we do not need to lower our standards to admit it. We've got plenty of stats painting an accurate picture, we don't need this one. Anyways, majority is clearly on my side--I imagine it will be as you're now without sockpuppets, so it will stay out. TheRegicider 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Majority may not mean correct, but keep in mind that "Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken". As for us not being formally examined, perhaps we actually have been (I don't know), but if you want to make sure and have reason to believe we should be, you might consider filing an actual request. –Tifego(t) 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student's Review Redux. 

message: What should we do about these statistics? From what I see from other schools, no other UC lists these statistics at all. For example, the "UCR in the bottom twenty among its top 361 for "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses",[10] "Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching]",[11] and "Professors Make Themselves Scarce".[12]." also apply to UCLA if you look it up online -- but the UCLA wiki doesn't mention it. Should we mention Princeton Review statistics at all?
Going by what other UC's are doing on their wiki, I would say not to. Listing a simple ranking a la US News & World Report should be sufficient. What do you guys think? Dandan 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I think it's odd that the Princeton Review for 2004 is used in one part of the article and one for 2006 used in another part of the article. –Tifego(t) 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: first of all, please don't cut my statements up (i have edited them back into their original format); its rude. second, what is the gold standard for what a university article is and how come you get to decide what the standard is for UCR? the gold standard definitely can't your edits considering how many people regard your version as severely & negatively biased. all the UC's are part of the same system, why wouldn't their wikipedia show similar & standardised information? it IS relevant what the UCLA wiki article has, because all the UC articles should strive to include similar information and background. Dandan 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princeton Review Statistics 

message: I figured out why one source reports 5 hate crimes in UCR vs. the Clery Act (federal) source, which reports none.  The reason is that the Clery Act (federal) source only reports hate crimes that also fall under the following categories:
Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter
Aggravated Assault
Forcible sex offenses
Arson
Negligent manslaughter
Simple Assault
That is, only VIOLENT hate crimes (plus arson) are Clery Act-reportable.  However, the more generous statistic also includes non-violent hate crimes.  Thus, there is no discrepancy between the refs.
UCRGrad 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate Crime Stats 

message: 1. Yes, Melvyl is a computerized UC catalog of which library holds what. This includes a catalog of what medical references are held in what library. You can then order the medical reference you need from that library.
:Exactly. It's not a medical reference itself. It's a conduit to "order" references from elsewhere. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. Major medical journals have online access, but not all of them. Almost none of them are free to access. You are making assertions that you clearly do not have the background/experience/knowledge to make. UCRGrad 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. Classic articles tend to be older and are not, by definition, available in online form. You are making assertions that you clearly do not have the background/experience/knowledge to make. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. 1 day for an article to arrive. 1 hour each way (with light traffic) to drive to UCI's medical library. These are gross inconveniences. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me repeat: they ATTEND CLASS physically on the UCR campus. They PAY TUITION to UCR. Their UCR transcript contains the records and letter grades of their medical school coursework. UCLA is a "concurrent enrollment," and that's all. It is irrelevant if they attend a one-week orientation at UCLA or whether they "consider themselves" UCLA students.  They become UCLA students once they TRANSFER to UCLA for MS3 and MS4 years, after which point they receive a UCLA diploma.  Again: while they are at UCR for MS1/MS2, they are UCR students, plain and simple. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: EXCEPT for a dedicated medical library. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely 100% agree with you that building a medical library with expensive subscriptions is not financial feasible. However, this does not change the fact that the UCR medical studenst don't have such a medical library. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I will stipulate that UCR students can access UCLA's online content, however, if you only knew how few textbooks and journals were available online, not to mention how many articles from the early 90's were not converted electronically, you wouldn't be making these remarks. There is absolutely no substitute for having access to print copies. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dandan, you clearly are not a medical student, otherwise you wouldn't be making statements like "classic" articles are available online or thinking that "oh, medical students probably wouldn't mind driving an hour each way to retrieve an article they should have locally."  Do you honestly think they have two hours to "throw away" a couple times a week?  I honestly think that you should divert your enthusiasm towards other parts of this UCR article that you might be better qualified to edit. UCRGrad 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: at least for original biomedical research citations, which isn't exactly what most medical students would be accessing these journals for (especially not in MS1 & MS2). regardless though, the point is that they have easy access via interlibrary exchange & the internet, there is no need for a dedicated medical library. Dandan 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: and why exactly is it necessary to have a dedicated medical library that, by UCRGrad's own admission, isn't feasible? Dandan 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Dandan's concerns about UCR Medical Library 

message: well... I think scientists in UCR deserve some credits.. this is what i came up
'UC Riverside is a research based university. In the past decade, UC Riverside has had leading numbers of faculty members named as fellows of American Association for the Advancement of Science among all institutions in the nation. As in 2006, 8 UCR faculty members have been elected to AAAS fellowship, highest among UC schools. ' 
http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/fellows/2005.shtml
http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2002/april09art1.htm (bottom portion of the article)
Let me know if i counted it wrong.. "CTRL + FIND"
YES, UCR is not a perfect nor a most selective school.. AS long as negative facts are expressed in a NPOV way.. i have not problem seeing them on the article. But it caught my attention by seeing someone tried so hard to object this credible school using words such as "909", "SMOG BELT", "University of Chinese Refugee".. i mean.. what's wrong? Those words are 100% opnion based.. why people hate it so much? This article was actually misleading people to believe that UCR is "IN FACT" the worst school in the world, which it isn't.  come on.. give it some respect..  "CONTRIBUTIONS" claimed by some people, in my opnion, are just jokes. but i'm glad to see some progress going on.. and this is what Wikipedia is all about.. --bowbowx
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.224.50.16 (talk • contribs) .
A few things here:
- I have no objection to adding AAAS numbers. 
- "University of Chinese Refugees" is offensive, and was removed from the article a LONG time ago.
- Nobody reading this article will infer that UCR is the worst school in the world - dunno where you're getting this from.
- "smog-belt" is an actual term, and it is referenced. UCRGrad 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Association for the Advancement of Science 

message: Apparently, Tifego had attempted to use Clery-Act reports to support his statement that NO hate crimes were committed on the UCR campus.  I subsequently determined that the Clery-Act only includes VIOLENT hate crime, which accounts for why other resources report FIVE hate crimes total in 2004.  
HOWEVER, the Sacramento Bee (a promiment newspaper), conducted a five-month investigation into the so-called Clery Act reporting by UC campuses.  Here are a few excerpts from the article:
"UC Irvine and UC Riverside failed to compile detailed crime statistics as required by federal law. Instead, the campuses used less-exhaustive FBI statistics."
"In some cases, crimes were miscategorized. UC Riverside police say men cannot be raped."
"Lance Gilmer, student conduct coordinator for UC Riverside, said he and his colleagues from other campuses are frustrated by administrative decisions to publish crime reports devoid of statistics collected by women's centers, residence halls and judicial affairs -- the campus office that rules on internal disciplinary cases. "Universities aren't reporting like they're supposed to, and we all know it," Gilmer said.
"Nowhere in the UC system are Clery violations so pronounced as at UC Riverside and UC Irvine. Over the last 10 years neither of the two schools compiled any Clery statistics, instead republishing FBI numbers."
"At UC Riverside in 1997, the man forced to perform oral sex on the campus track reported the crime to police. Instead of classifying the crime as a forcible sex offense, it was listed as an aggravated assault. The only explanation proferred by police: Men can't be raped, said Jack Chappell, campus spokesman. "That's unconscionable," said Carter, adding the law's definitions were not gender specific. "It's clearly a device the campus is using to get out of reporting a serious crime."
Link: http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/ucrape/
Clearly, using Clery Act data here is flawed because it constitutes gross underreporting.  It is unacceptable to use Clery Act-based references to support a statement that NO hate crime (or even NO non-violent hate crime) occured on the UCR campus. 
UCRGrad 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's cute. You are citing a six year old article. The statistics are being reported for 2002-2004. There have been no verified sources questioning the 2002, 2003, or 2004 statistics. Therefore, the OFFICIAL federal Governemnt Clery Act statistics will be put back in. Calwatch 03:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on Hate Crime 

message: Please explain why it's necessary to include the fact that the classrooms are "trailer-sized". You don't see any articles commenting on how large the classrooms are, and likewise there's no need to make an aside in the article on how tiny they are. Not in a section that's supposed to be talking about academics as opposed to choices of classroom architecture. –Tifego(t) 02:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not currently referenced. I don't see how the rest of that paragraph could be called "glowingly positive" but I never called that part negative, it's simply out of context. I don't care what size it says it is, the statement's position gives weight to something unrelated to the program being discussed, and fails to contrast it with the size of any other classrooms or buildings on campus. (Additionally, I would expect something more specific than "trailer-sized" to be used.) I moved it to its own paragraph, where it can be expanded upon and given context. –Tifego(t) 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classroom size 

message: Stephanie Kay is a lecturer for the Dept. of English at UCR. Link
Insert-Belltower 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the statement and the source.  From the edit history and the above conversation I suspect it had been significantly modified from its original or its most-acceptable form.  However, the statement as it stood when I removed it completely misused the cited article.  Yes, UCRGrad, it is necessary to state who provided the "statistic" as it is completely dishonest to quote the statistic as if it were a conclusion drawn by the source's author(s); it's just one quote from one person with NO cited evidence.  I respect Ms. Kay's opinion but the statistic is unverifiable in the source given for it.  Further, I disagree with the placement of the statement in the article.  It seems clear to me if there aren't many UCR detractors there are certainly very vocal detractors.  I suggest that you create a separate "Criticism" section in this article so you have a appropriate to fully lay out your (sourced and cited) criticisms.  That approach has worked well on other article.  The Harvard article is a good example of this approach.  --ElKevbo 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephanie Kay 

message: I really have to justify this? It's complete unethical to hold studies against UCR that make no mention of it. UCLA wasn't in "Regicider's Favorite Schools" can I throw that up there? Until the article implies that the Business School was in that Top 50 list, the citation is irrelevant. 
TheRegicider 01:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's unethical but it's certainly not worth mentioning.  It's clearly placed in the article to impugn the reputation of the business school.  It is literally a non-fact.  If there are specific, cited criticisms of the business school then it may be appropriate to place them somewhere in the article.  If it was specifically a goal of the institution to land its business school in this list then it may be appropriate to comment on it as a failed goal.  But to simply mention that the school was not in the top 50 of a particular ranking is a disingenous smear tactic.  --ElKevbo 21:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business School 

message: Greek life accounts for 4% of the school, so clearly it is not a big part of campus life. This picture was rightfully edited out of the article weeks ago. It's obviously an attempt to portray the school negatively, but putting a fat person in the article. We already have plenty of pictures, it provide no additional evidence. Gone.
TheRegicider 01:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4% is trivial for most schools, and is low for UC's, most of whom break into the low double digits. Calwatch 03:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just wanted to note that US News & World Report has the Greek membership rate at 7%, not 4% .  To the best of my knowledge and in my experience, that's still very low for a typical American campus.  If someone cares to look up the national or even just the California average rates of Greek membership, then the fact that this is (presumably) so low in comparison might be notable.  Whether or not that warrants inclusion of a particular photograph is another discussion (which is quite silly and one in which I don't care to further participate).  --ElKevbo 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't care about the picture.  But I DO care about the changes I made in good faith, fully justified on the Talk page, which you reverted.  Address the issues - don't dodge them.  This article has some very poor writing which is unjustifiably negative towards UCR.  Again, I suggest moving those negative accusations into a section of their own so as to make the article more organized and more NPOV.  I'm reverting my edits once in the hopes that you will actually address them instead of waving your hand at them.  --ElKevbo 01:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat Girl 

message: I removed the phrase stating that UCR has no Nobel laureates on the faculty.  It's a non-fact.  Given the limited number of Nobel laureates, most colleges and universites will not have any on the faculty.  It's presented here as a negative when it's really not.  I'm sure the other UC campuses are justifiably proud of their Nobel laureates but to use that fact to attempt to smear UCR is wrong. Creating irrelevant lists of things the campus doesn't have isn't at all helpful or informative.  --ElKevbo 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That information is already in the main University of California article. So it could be deleted, or it could stay. I lean towards the blurb going, though.  Calwatch 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: TheRegicider is right - your disagreement alone is not enough to warrant removing or including anything. Wikipedia, for better or worse, is governed by consensus.  And on this particular issue there appears to be a consensus on removing the statement.  The mere fact that is a fact (how's that for a confusing little statement?) doesn't mean it warrants inclusion in this or any other article.  If it were a glaring omission from the UCR campus (in general or in comparison to other UC campuses) or if it had some major detrimental affect on the quality of the campus I would support its inclusion.  This particular fact does neither.  --ElKevbo 20:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with everyone above in favor of keeping the statement out. There is no need to mention a non-fact.  --Coolcaesar 20:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel laureates

message: I'm going to go ahead and put it back up, as long as nobody has a valid objection.  I have already addressed the issue of Greek life being only 7% of the campus.  Again, it is not valid to remove something BECAUSE it only pertains to 4-7% of students...otherwise, you could use the same faulty reasoning to argue for the removal of the UCR/UCLA medical program, which only pertains to 48 students (less than 1% of students). UCRGrad 22:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Sorority Girl 

message: It's clear there are several disagreements which are not being resolved to anyone's satisfaction.  I recommend we call a truce, cease editing the article for a bit, and look into one of the mediation options such as an Request for Comment.  What say ye?  --ElKevbo 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I disagree.  I'm asking around to figure out what the best course of mediation is for us.  We're not getting anywhere and are as far apart as when we started.  I'm sorry you disagree with this action but I believe some more experienced, neutral third parties might help us break this stalemate and edit war.  --ElKevbo 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation