Bigger Impact: Cal or Stanford (Berkeley: best schools, live, law)

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by hsw

Notice nearly no tech cos. or start-ups are HQd in EastBay suburbs

That's flat out wrong. I've personally worked at some.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by batransplant

It is my understanding that CAL Berkeley attracts a certain type of very extreme liberal student. I have some friends who went to Berkeley and felt uncomfortable because they were the only "normal" people in their classes. There are always people protesting something at the school, and creating havoc on campus. Its my understanding these malcontents make it difficult for the students who are trying to learn and enjoy their college experience. One of my friends actually transferred out of Berkeley because she felt so uncomfortable there with the group think mentality. She went to UCLA instead and thrived.
You never hear about that sort of thing happening at Stanford,UCLA, or USC, who are all ranked similar to CAL in California.

Your statement mostly applies to non technical, non hard science courses. Engineering and to a great extent hard sciences are not really like that.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by baybook

HSW, most of your post is correct, but I would encouarge you to think about the WHYs of business development in SV.

Berkeley is landlocked and has been here for ages. SV up until the last 25+ years has much more room for growth in terms of square footage alone. Where do fledgling companies go?? The place with lower costs, more room to grow, etc. You can't afford to run a start up in SF or the East Bay. That is why you saw tech companies galore along the corridors from the highly dense East Bay and SF along the less dense to the South Bay and Eastern CC areas. Plus Berkeley and Stanford are an arms length away. There isn't a lack of talent in the wider Bay Area. ;-) Much of the phenomena you are referring to is a result of the boom in the last 20-15+ years in personal computing.

The SOMA was (and is) ground zero for Web 2.0 and there is decent spillover to the inner East Bay. Most of my friends involved in this part of the biz live in SF, Oakland and Berkeley.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by baybook

Where in the world did you get that UCLA was a branch of San Jose State University??????

He's alluding to the fact that some of the UC expansion campuses were originally part of the State Normal School system, of which San Jose was the flagship campus, back in the day. Those campuses were later "acquired" by UC and reflagged as UC campuses.

[CAVA1990]

I think we covered that already.

[CAVA1990]

Answer to trivia question - The Wolfskills.

[baybook]

UCLA was never a branch of SJSU. ;-)

Originally Posted by edsg25

I'm with you, krudmonk. Spot on. Do the research rather than the ****ing, I always say.

The beauty of it, or course, is that it just takes a click or two to get into the UCLA website, find its history....and voila!...

1910s

1919
1919 California Gov. William D. Stephens signs Assembly Bill 626, establishing the Southern Branch of the University of California. The Vermont Avenue campus opens on Sept. 15, offering two-year undergraduate programs to 260 Junior College students and 1,078 students in the Teachers Training program, under the direction of Ernest Carroll Moore.
1920s

1923
Southern Branch confers its first degrees, awarding the Bachelor of Education to 28 students.
1924
Third and fourth years are added to Letters and Science curriculum.
1925
• First Bachelor of Arts degrees in the College of Letters and Science are awarded to 100 women and 24 men.
• UC Regents choose a 384-acre parcel of the Wolfskill Rancho in Westwood as new site for the Southern Branch campus - declining site proposals from Burbank, Pasadena, Fullerton and Palos Verdes.
• The UCLA band begins as a 50-piece ROTC unit under the direction of W.G. Powell.
1926
• The 75-ton Founders’ Rock marks site where Westwood campus is dedicated.
• Student newspaper is renamed California Daily Bruin after debuting as Cub Californian and then Daily Grizzly.

Not I'm not saying the above proves that UCLA didn't start as an off shoot of SJSU or was some sort of a Cal State campus. All I'm saying is that if that were the case, UCLA either doesn't know about it or doesn't acknowledge it. In actuality, UCLA has chosen to ignore a college that used facilities before the southern campus of UC opened. UCLA thus does not recognize any lineage prior to 1919 and does not see itself as the continuation of the normal school established on the site.

And since it doesn't seem to acknowledge, maybe, just maybe, it would be wrong to say that UCLA was a branch of SJSU, just as (heaven forbid) it would be wrong to call UC Berkeley by the name of Cal (once the athletes got off the field, showered, dressed, left the stadium, and returned to the classroom, that is).

Or, even better, I can live with the notion that you had a valid point that UCLA had its roots in SJSU (even though UCLA rejects that notion). I wonder if you could live with the notion that UC Berkeley is Cal even in academics, even though that university doesn't give that name the edge in how it refers to itself.

It's all a bunch of semantics anyway.

I would say that in earlier times, what is today UCD in its "Cal Aggies" era was seen as UC's agricultural campus and what is now UCSF was seen as its medical school since Berkeley didn't really didn't have room for an expanded ag program while the medical center/hospitals filled a similiar role of what schools like Illinois had in Chicago, Indiana in Ipls, UT in Houston, or KU in KC....off campus sites for med school.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by baybook

UCLA was never a branch of SJSU. ;-)

i realize that. that's what i said.

[krudmonk]

I didn't mean to imply that the Westwood campus ever had a sign out front which read "San Jose State University - Los Angeles Extension."

[CAVA1990]

I think we've veered a wee bit off the original topic. Where are all the Stanfurd folk?