Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 12

message: I'm ready to discuss the issues about the biomed section.Insert-Belltower 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: the biomed program section, the removal of the "but have not always been successful" clause is all I think it needs to be considered NPOV as well. As ElKevbo said, the information is unnecessary. No one (I think) is assuming that anyone who applies to med school from any campus anywhere will get in. You would have to, I think, be beyond naive to honestly think that. You could just as well say that not everyone who applies to med school from Berkeley or Harvard gets in; no one expects that either, the information is useless.--Amerique 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even a big fan of the entire sentence but it is informative since it deals with a unique program whose rules may conceivably only allow students to apply to particular schools.  But, as stated, the final part of the sentence is completely unnecessary.  --ElKevbo 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Even with percentages and references, I'm still not sure it would be necessary to include such information. Afterall, this is an article about the university in general and not just the program. We don't include numbers that reflect how students in other disciplines fair in graduate school, I'm not sure what makes this particular one stand out. Still, it would be better than simply saying "not all are successful". --WHS 01:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think it would be necessary (or even possible) to include similar numbers for all academic programs.  And I don't know why we would single out this one program in this manner.  --ElKevbo 01:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are familiar with undergraduate recruitment for national universities, one of the statistics they publish is success rate of med school applicants.  They realize that a significant proportion of science majors are pre-med and one of the important questions these high school applicants have is how will their school choice affect their chances of getting into med school.  If you are familiar with medical school admissions, you would know that med school admission from college is the "rate limiting step" to becoming a physician.  So important is this statistic that some universities have been accused of coaching their pre-med advisors to instruct weak applicants NOT to apply to med school, in order to inflate their "success rate" numbers.  It's a big deal.  This is why med school admissions is so important, vs. something like success rate in admission to nursing school (which you never see published).  Those of you who are truly familiar with UC Riverside would also realize that the Thomas Haider program is the crown-jewel program of UC Riverside.  It's something that recruitment officers are proud of mentioning, it's a feature in recruitment brochures, and it's something even non-premed students brag about when they attempt to speak highly about UC Riverside.  This is why the program has so much space dedicated to it...and it's why there was a paragraph about the Thomas haider program already in the article before any of us (including me) started editing the article.  I hope this helps put things into perspective. UCRGrad 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be okay if you could 1) cite the specific statistics for UCR and 2) summarize what you've just written (with sources, of course) to give context to the statistic.  Otherwise it just sticks out and the lay person has no idea of its importance (as demonstrated by the current discussion).  --ElKevbo 01:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with ElKevbo in this case. No one is arguing against including informative content about the biomed program. The contested statement we are arguing against is not statistical and is not at all informative.--Amerique 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oral histories are the least reliable sources and barely meet criteria for a "verifiable source" on Wikipedia (if they do at all).  The only reason I don't call you on it is that I think that the history section is an important addition to the article, irrespective of how good your sources are. UCRGrad 05:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to go ahead and remove the "students not selected are still eligible to apply to other medical schools" for the exact same reasons that you guys have given for why the phrase "but have not always been successful" should be removed.  In both cases, these seem to be obvious statements to you guys, they are not statistical or referenced, and are what you'd expect anyway for premed applicants.  Obviously, students not selected are "eligible" to apply to medical school - why wouldn't they be??  So line deleted. UCRGrad 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with this edit, as the fact that students are still eligible to apply is rather obvious and doesn't need to be stated. --WHS 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biomed Program- Let's Work Out the issues 

message: I've taken the liberty of re-adding the POV Dispute tag. While some editors believe the article is NPOV, it is clear that at the very least, there is a dispute involved. Discuss here. --WHS 10:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: If you wish to discuss a particular topic of the article, please make a new header.  I think we can all agree that it's becoming impossible to follow threads into their 10th generation above.  Thanks.  UCRGrad 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Request 

message: You would think so judging from the Admissions section. What about out-of-state and international students, undergraduate transfer students, graduate students? starkt 05:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add this in, although you should definitely note the percentage of each that ultimate are admitted - it's not that much. UCRGrad 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A tall order, because different graduate programs will have different percentages admitted and different admissions requirements. As for transfers and international students, schools tend not to keep figures on percentages admitted in my experience. Out-of-state freshmen? They might be lumped in with in-staters for the purposes of calculating the percentage of admits. But I'll see what I can come up with. starkt 11:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to doubt that UCR only admits California freshmen. From what I've seen of UC Santa Cruz's admissions materials, they'd give the same impression. But I did meet several first-year students from other states the one year I was in the dorms (at UCSC). From what I hear, just shy of 5% of UCSC undergrads are from other states. I'm having trouble finding similar stats for UCR, but I think the fact that they list out-of-state tuition is a good indication that they do admit freshmen from outside California. Though I imagine most out-of-staters in a position to get into a UC would opt for Berkeley, UCLA or UCSB (which I heard somewhere has the highest percentage of non-California undergrads). szyslak (t, c, e) 07:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that international and out-of-California students make up only a small portion of UCR's student body.  I don't disagree with including this information, but I don't think it would be appropriate to emphasize it too much. UCRGrad 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, there should be a source. So at the moment, it's not worth spending much time on. One thing I do know is that most UCs don't have many out-of-state or international students. In particular, all the international students I met at UCSC were part of temporary study-abroad programs. So UCR likely isn't exceptional in that regard. szyslak (t, c, e) 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Sources are important.Insert-Belltower 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does UCR only admit freshmen from California?