Talk:University of California, Irvine

Archive 1 6/29/2003 - 1/11/2006

Why the High Concentration

Anyone have any ideas why the asian population of UCI is so disproportionate with its surround areas compared to other UCs and why they get so many more applications from asian students? Orange county does have a large asian population but so do many other areas and their schools are more heterogeneous. Jarwulf 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to several facts:

1. Irvine has a high concentration of Taiwanese-Americans, sometimes they go to high school in the area and then to UCI or go to IVC or OCC then go to UCI.

2. UC's already get a lot of application from Asians/AAs. They are rather prestigious. Almost all UC's have rather high percentages of Asians/AAs.

3. UCI experiences the trickle down effect due to rankings. Cal/UCLA tend to be the most prestigious, then UCSD, and then the rest. UCI's location and median ranking makes it attractive.

I speak from my own experiences. Cikoykip

Trivia

The 1970 bank arson has documentation: (1) Los Angeles Times Oct 27, 1970, "Arsonists Leave Radical Signs After Burning UC Irvine Bank", p. 1; (2) Oct 27, 1970, "UC Irvine Students Disgusted, Apprehensive Over Bank Arson", p. C1; and (3) Oct 28, 1970, "New Bank Branch at UCI Opens One Day After Fire", p. B1. I confirmed these via a licensed database search, but transcripts might be available online.

Public Ivies listing

Irvine as well as UC Davis are mentioned in several Public Ivies listings. For a more in-depth discussion visit check out Talk:Public_Ivies ... For instance, check out page 53 in Cool Colleges: For the Hyper-Intelligent, Self-Directed, Late Blooming, and Just Plain Different (ISBN 1580081509) and page 117 in The College Finder, Revised Edition (ISBN 0449003892).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.200.54.169"

Medical School controversies

I have to question if this section is really necessary. No other medical schools that have had problems have entries like these. For example, Stanford, UCLA, and USC does not. I'm sure those three medical schools are not controvery free. Also, the whole section has a biased feel to it like the writer has an agenda. 68.101.121.62 01:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are worth including. At least right now, most people I talk to think of these controversies when they hear about UCI. In addition, there is widespread speculation that the new cancellor was chosen in an attempt to turn the medical school around. I tried to clean up the more extreme POV parts of the section. If you can make it more NPOV please give it a try, perhaps make it shorter? Personally I think something ought to be included, but I'm open to other opinions. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are worth mentioning, but maybe in a separate article in wikipedia or in a mention and a link to a news article of some sort. I also believe what should be mentioned is the ongoing medical center controversy, which is a changing current event anyways and should not be included in the main article. Again, all medical centers are filled with controversy, no real reason in listing them all out for this one. Additionally, there is already an article for the UCIMC in wikipedia, pertinent information regarding it should belong there. Cikoykip 07:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the medical school had its own article. I agree that the detailed account that is currently in this article should be moved there. However, I don't agree with your statement "a changing current event... should not be included in the main article." This is not standard pratice on wikipedia. New information about a person is always included in her main article first. Only when it becomes to big does it split off into a daughter article. Also, I understand your concern that UCI is the only medical school to have its controversies listed. However, there are two solutions to this problem. Remove the information here, or add information to others. I think controversies are encyclopedic information, and so any bias should be solved by increasing the amount of encyclopedic information we have, not decreasing it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with not decreasing the amount of information. This information should not be erased, however, it is just my opinion that this sort of information seems kind of out of place in consideration to the entire article. Most of the article discusses the university as a whole, but this entire section devotes itself to the medical school. I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but it does seem to be specific enough to warrant its own article. I was at first contemplating moving the information to the UCIMC article, but UCIMC is not the same as UCIMS. For example, the entire liver transplant program event is associated with the UCIMC whereas anything related to the teaching or research aspect of the UCIMC is more associated with the UCIMS. Technically though, all activities of the UCIMC are in some way associated with UCIMS. I only seek to organize the information so that it doesn't seem so awkward to have "Medical school controversies" between "Notable UC Irvine people" and "Trivia". Cikoykip 10:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section should be broken out into a separate article like the Notable People and Athletics. I'll try to devote some time to cleaning up the section so that it's more NPOV. I'd like to see some citations, too. I don't think I have enough time to research all that, though. 68.101.121.62 05:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious you have a better grasp of the Wikipedia policies than I ever will, so I will just leave this up to your consideration. Cikoykip 11:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

The UCI Library currently has an exhibit on the history of UCI of how it was planned and built as well as the key people involved. Additionally, I do know that the UCIMC has a rather interesting history as well. I'm thinking about creating a History section for the university using the information from the UCI Libraries, any comments/suggestions/help with citations?

The UCIMC History would be placed in the relevant article of course. Cikoykip 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slightly off-topic

This is random, I'm sorry, but is there a user-page template for wikipedians attending UC Irvine? -MBlume 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list here: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education#Institutions_By_Location. There's Template:User uci and Template:User uci2. Evil saltine 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! -MBlume 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Origins

I changed the origins of the name back to what it was before due to several reasons: 1. The Irvine Ranch was wholly owned and controlled by the Irvine Company at the time of UCI's creation 2. The Irvine Company provided the land for the creation of UCI Thus the "Irvine" in UCI is from the "Irvine Company" not the "Irvine Ranch". Although you can infer that the name indirectly came from the ranch, it is actually directly from the Irvine Company's name. Additionally, there was an exhibit done at the Langson Library about UCI's history that mentioned this as well.

Additionally, several other important facts were deleted from the last edit and were reinserted. Cikoykip 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graaah... scratch that last part, I didn't notice how in the previous version the Irvine Company part was shifted down. Forgive me, it is late and the letters are wobbly. But in addition to what I previously said, if the Irvine Ranch was a Mexican land grant, it should probably be mentioned in the Irvine Company article instead of the UCI one. Cikoykip 12:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it must really be late, apparently this is mentioned in the Irvine Company article. [Commence Head Banging] Cikoykip 12:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reactor

When I was a physics undergrad at UCI I recall hearing that the nuclear reactor hasn't been active since the mid 90's due to the cost of insurance and AEC licencing fees. Anyone know if that's still the case? -Loren 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still running. In fact, it was just recently when the local politicians got involved when a candidate brought up the security of the reactor and the then Representative Chris Cox took a look. --Gogo Dodo 06:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is still running, but I find conflicting reports. This ABC article alludes to a future shutdown. However, as far as I know, it's still running -although there was some contention about it during the last elections. Cikoykip 08:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, it was shutdown. WPW 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US Department of Energy says otherwise. Plus, we have a grant that lasts through 2009. I highly doubt that the DOE would be funding a reactor that didn't exist for the next 3 years. --Sporkot 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wolves?

the article used to say that UCI had wolves until 1985 but now does not - is this false? -MBlume 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not noticed any wolves, nor have I heard anything about them. It would certainly take care of the bunny problem, though. :) Andrew zot 06:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parking NPOV issue

Before I get warned for violating WP:3RR, does anybody see any issues with me removing the recent parking citation statements added by three different anonymous IPs? In my opinion, somebody has a grudge and is pushing an agenda.

75.31.66.112 [1]
75.28.140.77 [2]
75.31.77.71 [3]

I noted in my last revert to cite sources, but the statements were re-added without sources. -- Gogo Dodo 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]