eastcoastcal said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Re: workload

Will put here what some of my EECS/Business professors have said on the subject- the curve at Cal is now shifted up. Meaning, the average grade received in today's classes is higher than in previous decades (still below what most colleges have, which is mostly As and A minuses compared to B range for Cal).

However, the academic caliber of the student body is significantly increased, especially in the last 10 years. Admissions have gotten so competitive that the average student at Cal is a really excellent student. Top high school grades, extra-curriculars, standardized test scores, resums, etc. As a result, it's competitive to stay ahead of the curve and compete in classes/get into clubs/research.

Take that as you will (and I am just reiterating what I've heard from my professors, please don't take this as the objective truth or anything)

---

There are only two components of this question that are relevant here:

How hard is it to pass your classes and make progress to graduation? This is the relevant question because as long as athletes do this, they are fine. The question isn't how hard it is to excel. The answer to this question is that it is very clear that it is much easier to pass your classes and graduate at Cal today than in days gone by. A fact that is a good thing. You don't need to flunk students out to provide a good education. The opposite in fact. This doesn't mean the classes are any easier. Just that it is easier to get a passing grade.

How easy is it for an athlete to pass their classes and make progress to graduation? I have no idea the answer to this. I have no idea what "accommodations" were made for athletes in the past (though the 70's were very notorious) and I have no idea what are made today.

I think academic caliber is in the eye of the beholder. But a major difference is that kids are forced to grow up and compete for these spots much earlier. No one in my day was sitting in 8th grade or younger mapping out what extra-curriculars would get them into the college they wanted. As a result, kids that go to elite colleges hit the ground running thinking about internships, jobs, research, prepping for grad school, etc. from the day they walk onto campus. I'm not sure if this is better or worse, but students are definitely prepared outside the classroom much earlier.

---

Good point. You are correct in both facets.

And I would agree with your assessment about competing for spots much earlier. This doesn't apply to me, but several of my classmates had LinkedIns as early as 6th grade (I mean, come on). Interestingly, I would suggest this manifests itself in making outside-the-classroom activities more challenging/competitive. Many clubs have sub 5% acceptance rates and have 3+ rounds of interviews. Part of this is the big student body, part of this is a self-reinforcing cycle where things are so competitive that people apply to many organizations, thus making things even more competitive.

Would be interested to know when people on this forum thought about college/applications in high school or even career stuff when at Cal. Early? Late? Just would be interesting to know

---

Growing up in Berkeley in the 1960s-1970s, college was always a tangible thing. That's the benefit of living in a college town. Many of my friends were children of Cal faculty (which didn't help when Profs Reynolds and Chinowsky gave me C's in physics), so college (and Cal in particular) was always on the radar. I went to a small college-prep high school in SF and didn't start focusing on college until my one-year older friend started talking about it the end of his junior year, but I'm sure there were guys in my class who were thinking about Ivy League as freshmen. They were the guys who ran for class president. The rest of us just knew we needed good grades, went to class, played a sport if we wanted, got after-school and summer jobs, etc. We assumed college admissions was based primarily on test-scores and GPA and that we were all going to a UC or CSU. And that's basically what happened.

My mom (HS only) constantly reminded us the reason we lived in Berkeley was so we could go to Cal (not quite true; she hated Sacramento, where she grew up) but the first comment my step-dad (a non-academic admin manager at Cal) made about college was when I got a D in HS geometry. He said, "Well, you've probably screwed up your chance to get into Cal. You probably can't even get into Cal Poly." Most parents didn't get involved much in their kids' college plans, other than to worry about how to pay for it. I was lucky as engineering was not a popular major in the early 1970s. For many kids at that time, college was a time of exploration (and avoiding the draft); for me, like other engineering students,it was a means to a career - who knew that the career ultimately would have nothing to do with my Materials Science major?

My two sons, both (somewhat ironically) Cal Poly grads (2010, 2013), went through the current college grind. We made sure they started thinking about college earlier than my wife and I had, but intentionally did not go the high-powered "SAT-prep classes in 8th grade" route. We encouraged taking Honors and AP courses and probably were more demanding than their friends' parents and they responded by doing fine. They did the extracurriculars they wanted, playing various sports (and ultimately, college club level soccer), got accepted at UCSB and UCLA, but wisely picked a college that better matched their interests and learning styles.

My 50th HS class reunion was this year and I talked to maybe 40% of the class either directly or via phone/email. First of all, a surprising number have died, which is very sad, but I think those alive are happy and successful and where they went to college had absolutely no impact on this.

Super cool, thanks so much for sharing HM

eastcoastcal said:

---

Super cool, thanks so much for sharing HM

---

I'm younger than HM. Started in the late 80's.

My family had season tickets to Cal games from the time I was 5, so I always wanted to go to Cal. However, I wouldn't say I was doing anything about that before high school other than I was a good student. That said I was prone to laziness and didn't do as well as I should have my Freshman year. I looked at my grades and though "Oh shyte. I'm not getting into Cal that way" and got a reality check. So I would say I first started thinking about it in a real real way when my grades would actually count toward UC admission. I did, however, take the PSAT in 8th grade (there was a program for that).

AP classes were barely a thing. My high performing high school had like two and I didn't take either. I don't believe the AP had set curriculum and there were no AP tests. They did have the grade bump for AP classes, but different teachers had different philosophies. Some basically though "you are all A students so you will likely all get A's". Some thought "This is an AP class. It is supposed to be hard. Maybe one of you will get an A. The rest should be glad to scrape a B. That is what the bump was for".

Grade inflation is real. Over half the grades given in high schools nationally are A's. Teachers then did not care about your college plans. There was almost no "extra credit". My kids' grades are regularly over 100%. I jokingly told my kid to tell her math teacher that as a math teacher he should know it isn't possible to get over 100%. IMO, grade inflation has caused, for better or worse, the focus on extracurriculars. I had zero extracurriculars. In those days, if you had straight A's and high test scores you got in. In my class, the valedictorian was the only one who had a 4.0 GPA. So, you could distinguish yourself from the crowd academically. Frankly, there are morons at my kids' school that get straight A's because the one thing they are smart about is always hitting 90%. My kid actually asked me part way through her freshman year "how do colleges know what percentage you get in the class" She actually looked kind of stricken when I told her "sorry kiddo, they only know if you get an A and A- counts, so as long as you get 90% they can't tell the difference. Then she kind of stewed angrily for a while. Point being, there are so many straight A kids with a full load of AP classes that good grades and test scores just get your application considered. You have to distinguish yourself with extracurriculars and essays, which I don't think we placed much importance on. I had no test taking tutors and no one helped me with my essays. My essays were hand written directly onto a paper college application form.

When I applied to Cal, there was a strict non-discretionary formula for the top of the class. They determined the number of students they were going to accept. 40% of that number was automatically determined based solely on a formula of grades and test scores. So for example using round numbers, if they were going to say yes to 10000 applications, 4000 of those slots went automatically by formula. If you were in the top 4000, you were in and they couldn't even look at the rest of your application. The formula was SAT scores + Subject Matter Achievement Tests - these were like the SAT II tests that were discontinued a couple years ago. you had to take 3.each scored out of 800 + 1000(GPA). This wouldn't even work today because as I keep trying to explain to people, the way UC calculates GPA, the optimal GPA is not the highest GPA. The highest GPA would go to the student who maximized AP classes, but took only the minimum number of classes that are eligible for UC consideration, and they don't want you to do that. They want you to challenge yourself. Otherwise a kid that took 7 AP classes every semester (which isn't possible) and got straight A's would have a lower GPA than a kid who took 8 AP classes total and then took the fewest number of classes required to graduate and fulfill UC requirements and got straight A's.

So yeah. When I went. Grades and test scores were the thing. Now test scores don't count and straight A's only get you considered. So those essays and extra curriculars better distinguish you.

LunchTime said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

"Cal was a tougher school with less academic support" is just a lie.

In 1991 and 2004 football players had a much lighter academic burden than they do now. It's not even arguable.

---

You state that as if it's a known and accepted fact. Is it? Understand that many of us are not in a position to judge or to know. I've been on this board for 20 years, and I'm not sure I've heard anyone make this argument. The entrance requirements might be tougher today...but why is the workload tougher? What is your evidence?

---

The NCAA cares about Academics now. They will suspend post season activity for fielding dumbasses. They didnt in 2004, or 1991. They didnt even have a policy, and just went with the Federal standard of graduation rates before 2003. When they first started to care, and more carefully measure:

Quote:

---

The NCAA report showed that Cal football graduated just 44 percent of its athletes who entered school from 2003 through 2006

---

They started measuring APR when it became clear that graduation rates in a 6 year window wasnt timely enough to show progress. Before that, in 1991, Cal's Football graduation rate was 65%


Since we know Graduation Rate in 2003-2006 (via GSR) and a similar measure from 1991, we can roughly compare them: Cals GSR is 86%, now.

APR (which was not available in 1991) was 945 (minimum is 930 for postseason). The most recent score is 975. We fired a coach in part because his APR was so ******* low it threatened our ability to play in a bowl IF he made it. We then kept a coach while attendance dropped because he improved academic performance.

That is my evidence. What is your evidence?

---

65 percent in 1991 is probably higher than the entire student body then. 87% today is 8% lower than the student body today. In the 80's - the number of kids who started and got a degree from Cal was in the 50% range. For the entire student body.

LunchTime said:

---

calumnus said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>Our problem is not that we don't pay enough, our problem is that we make poor hires and then overpay them and give them unwarranted contract extensions even after poor performance.


There is some truth in what you say, but it remains the case that last year, Wilcox was the 7th highest paid HC in the P12. And his record more or less reflected that. He wasn't being massively overpaid. A better argument can be made that he was overpaid relative to results this year. But his pay bump sort of reflected the fact that he was being chased by biggest pocketbook team in the conference in the off season. Overall one can not argue that the administration of Cal Athletics has covered themselves in glory with their hiring decisions. But neither is the argument that "if we just made better hires everything would be fine" very pursuasive. There are deep structural problems with Cal Athletics that prevent Cal from being able to attract top HCs. And since those were purposely left unaddressed, it should come as no surprise that we have arrived at this, the final train station on the journey.

---

How many P5 schools (in the last 50 years at least) ever gave a coach with a losing record over his first 5 seasons, including a losing record the last two seasons, an extension for six more years? It was unprecedented. No other school does that. Look at all the far more successful coaches that have been cut loose, or resigned.

So you think the problem is we don't pay Wilcox enough?

Troy Taylor is making at most 10% of what Wilcox makes. If you don't overpay and over extend Wilcox we could have tried someone new like Taylor. Then pay more for the coach once they have proven themselves and are generating INCREASED revenue from ticket sales and MAJOR bowl payouts.

Cal has won big with good coaching, in 1991 and 2004 we had Top 10 teams, back when the facilities were $500 million worse, Telegraph was Telegraph, Cal was a tougher school with worse academic support. Just 7 years ago we had the #6 offense in the country, just 4 years ago we had the #6 defense in the country.

In basketball just a few years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team, we were undefeated at home and had a #4 seed.

Just hire good coaches and keep them when they succeed and cut them loose when they don't. It really is not more complicated than that. The key is having an AD who knows football and basketball and can hire good cosches. THAT is Cal's problem. Fix that before you complain about anything else at Cal.

---

"Cal was a tougher school with less academic support" is just a lie.

In 1991 and 2004 football players had a much lighter academic burden than they do now. It's not even arguable.

---

What data do you have to support this? Back then, lots of non-athletes flunked out. Now very few do. Overall GPAs have increased at Cal. It is much easier to get Cs at Cal now than it was in the past.

Academic support for athletes is demonstrably better now too.

Now, if you are arguing that admission standards for athletes are higher now, I'd agree with you on that. But the guys that are getting in, are progressing and graduating, often even early now.

---

Having to go to class is harder than not having to go to class.

---

Just like now, Cal professors did not make exceptions for athletes, with one possible exception you are probably referring to, but Ainsworth and Davenport still maintain they went to class and took the final.

Oski87 said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

"Cal was a tougher school with less academic support" is just a lie.

In 1991 and 2004 football players had a much lighter academic burden than they do now. It's not even arguable.

---

You state that as if it's a known and accepted fact. Is it? Understand that many of us are not in a position to judge or to know. I've been on this board for 20 years, and I'm not sure I've heard anyone make this argument. The entrance requirements might be tougher today...but why is the workload tougher? What is your evidence?

---

The NCAA cares about Academics now. They will suspend post season activity for fielding dumbasses. They didnt in 2004, or 1991. They didnt even have a policy, and just went with the Federal standard of graduation rates before 2003. When they first started to care, and more carefully measure:

Quote:

---

The NCAA report showed that Cal football graduated just 44 percent of its athletes who entered school from 2003 through 2006

---

They started measuring APR when it became clear that graduation rates in a 6 year window wasnt timely enough to show progress. Before that, in 1991, Cal's Football graduation rate was 65%


Since we know Graduation Rate in 2003-2006 (via GSR) and a similar measure from 1991, we can roughly compare them: Cals GSR is 86%, now.

APR (which was not available in 1991) was 945 (minimum is 930 for postseason). The most recent score is 975. We fired a coach in part because his APR was so ******* low it threatened our ability to play in a bowl IF he made it. We then kept a coach while attendance dropped because he improved academic performance.

That is my evidence. What is your evidence?

---

65 percent in 1991 is probably higher than the entire student body then. 87% today is 8% lower than the student body today. In the 80's - the number of kids who started and got a degree from Cal was in the 50% range. For the entire student body.

---

Exactly. It was actually tragic, the number of amazing, smart people who used to flunk out of Cal. It was not serving the state well.

calumnus said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

calumnus said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>Our problem is not that we don't pay enough, our problem is that we make poor hires and then overpay them and give them unwarranted contract extensions even after poor performance.


There is some truth in what you say, but it remains the case that last year, Wilcox was the 7th highest paid HC in the P12. And his record more or less reflected that. He wasn't being massively overpaid. A better argument can be made that he was overpaid relative to results this year. But his pay bump sort of reflected the fact that he was being chased by biggest pocketbook team in the conference in the off season. Overall one can not argue that the administration of Cal Athletics has covered themselves in glory with their hiring decisions. But neither is the argument that "if we just made better hires everything would be fine" very pursuasive. There are deep structural problems with Cal Athletics that prevent Cal from being able to attract top HCs. And since those were purposely left unaddressed, it should come as no surprise that we have arrived at this, the final train station on the journey.

---

How many P5 schools (in the last 50 years at least) ever gave a coach with a losing record over his first 5 seasons, including a losing record the last two seasons, an extension for six more years? It was unprecedented. No other school does that. Look at all the far more successful coaches that have been cut loose, or resigned.

So you think the problem is we don't pay Wilcox enough?

Troy Taylor is making at most 10% of what Wilcox makes. If you don't overpay and over extend Wilcox we could have tried someone new like Taylor. Then pay more for the coach once they have proven themselves and are generating INCREASED revenue from ticket sales and MAJOR bowl payouts.

Cal has won big with good coaching, in 1991 and 2004 we had Top 10 teams, back when the facilities were $500 million worse, Telegraph was Telegraph, Cal was a tougher school with worse academic support. Just 7 years ago we had the #6 offense in the country, just 4 years ago we had the #6 defense in the country.

In basketball just a few years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team, we were undefeated at home and had a #4 seed.

Just hire good coaches and keep them when they succeed and cut them loose when they don't. It really is not more complicated than that. The key is having an AD who knows football and basketball and can hire good cosches. THAT is Cal's problem. Fix that before you complain about anything else at Cal.

---

"Cal was a tougher school with less academic support" is just a lie.

In 1991 and 2004 football players had a much lighter academic burden than they do now. It's not even arguable.

---

What data do you have to support this? Back then, lots of non-athletes flunked out. Now very few do. Overall GPAs have increased at Cal. It is much easier to get Cs at Cal now than it was in the past.

Academic support for athletes is demonstrably better now too.

Now, if you are arguing that admission standards for athletes are higher now, I'd agree with you on that. But the guys that are getting in, are progressing and graduating, often even early now.

---

Having to go to class is harder than not having to go to class.

---

Just like now, Cal professors did not make exceptions for athletes, with one possible exception you are probably referring to, but Ainsworth and Davenport still maintain they went to class and took the final.

---

And that professor, whose name I don't recall, said he didn't give Ainsworth and Davenport the "A's" because they were athletes but rather because they were students of color who he felt deserved a break. Or am I not remembering the story correctly? I remember thinking the NCAA probation was ironic because Ainsworth and Davenport didn't get the benefit because they were athletes. Of course there were some other offenses with players making long distance phone calls on Cal's dime or something.

>Cal is a three Michelin star, French restaurant, and I kept going in, sitting down, looking at a restaurant full of people enjoying Coq au Vin, and then ordering the Kung Pao chicken and getting mad that it tastes like crap. I complained to the chef over and over and over, with no impact. I commiserated with the one other guy in the corner trying to choke down his Kung Pao. Frankly, I'm not sure why the chef keeps it on the menu or why he spends so much on ingredients for a dish he obviously doesn't know how to prepare. But I've come to the realization. The chef loves to make Coq au Vin. His patrons love his Coq au Vin. They don't want Kung Pao and he doesn't want to make it. So, when I go to this restaurant, I'm ordering the Coq au Vin. When I want Kung Pao chicken, I'm going elsewhere. I've eaten more than enough bad Kung Pao chicken for one lifetime.

Your analogy would be more accurate modified as follows: Your Cal restaurant actually has many, many patrons that are fans of King Pao chicken. At least they used to be. But all restaurants follow these rules - in order to offer Kung Pao chicken (aka football) you also have to order the materials and offer pasta primavera (aka female athletic scholarships). Your Cal restaurant does so and loses so much money combined on these and other unpopular dishes that it took cost mitigation efforts that clearly hurt the quality of the Kung Pao chicken - causing even deeper losses. So much so that now people ordering Coq au Vin must pay a surcharge to cover those losses. As a result about 55% of diners ordering Coq au Vin go into debt in order to eat that dish.

You believe that as along as the Coq au Vin remains of high quality it is irrelevant how much money is wasted on these unprofitable dishes. This is in fact the mentality that our current and past two chancellors have taken. That head in the sand attitude is headed for a rude day of reckoning in about 14 months or so.

Cal84 said:

---

>Cal is a three Michelin star, French restaurant, and I kept going in, sitting down, looking at a restaurant full of people enjoying Coq au Vin, and then ordering the Kung Pao chicken and getting mad that it tastes like crap. I complained to the chef over and over and over, with no impact. I commiserated with the one other guy in the corner trying to choke down his Kung Pao. Frankly, I'm not sure why the chef keeps it on the menu or why he spends so much on ingredients for a dish he obviously doesn't know how to prepare. But I've come to the realization. The chef loves to make Coq au Vin. His patrons love his Coq au Vin. They don't want Kung Pao and he doesn't want to make it. So, when I go to this restaurant, I'm ordering the Coq au Vin. When I want Kung Pao chicken, I'm going elsewhere. I've eaten more than enough bad Kung Pao chicken for one lifetime.

Your analogy would be more accurate modified as follows: Your Cal restaurant actually has many, many patrons that are fans of King Pao chicken. At least they used to be. But all restaurants follow these rules - in order to offer Kung Pao chicken (aka football) you also have to order the materials and offer pasta primavera (aka female athletic scholarships). Your Cal restaurant does so and loses so much money combined on these and other unpopular dishes that it took cost mitigation efforts that clearly hurt the quality of the Kung Pao chicken - causing even deeper losses. So much so that now people ordering Coq au Vin must pay a surcharge to cover those losses. As a result about 55% of diners ordering Coq au Vin go into debt in order to eat that dish.

You believe that as along as the Coq au Vin remains of high quality it is irrelevant how much money is wasted on these unprofitable dishes. This is in fact the mentality that our current and past two chancellors have taken. That head in the sand attitude is headed for a rude day of reckoning in about 14 months or so.

---

Ah, you mean substituting road-kill for the chicken in the Coq au Vin. Yep, that would impact the quality.

Cal84 said:

---

>Cal is a three Michelin star, French restaurant, and I kept going in, sitting down, looking at a restaurant full of people enjoying Coq au Vin, and then ordering the Kung Pao chicken and getting mad that it tastes like crap. I complained to the chef over and over and over, with no impact. I commiserated with the one other guy in the corner trying to choke down his Kung Pao. Frankly, I'm not sure why the chef keeps it on the menu or why he spends so much on ingredients for a dish he obviously doesn't know how to prepare. But I've come to the realization. The chef loves to make Coq au Vin. His patrons love his Coq au Vin. They don't want Kung Pao and he doesn't want to make it. So, when I go to this restaurant, I'm ordering the Coq au Vin. When I want Kung Pao chicken, I'm going elsewhere. I've eaten more than enough bad Kung Pao chicken for one lifetime.

Your analogy would be more accurate modified as follows: Your Cal restaurant actually has many, many patrons that are fans of King Pao chicken. At least they used to be. But all restaurants follow these rules - in order to offer Kung Pao chicken (aka football) you also have to order the materials and offer pasta primavera (aka female athletic scholarships). Your Cal restaurant does so and loses so much money combined on these and other unpopular dishes that it took cost mitigation efforts that clearly hurt the quality of the Kung Pao chicken - causing even deeper losses. So much so that now people ordering Coq au Vin must pay a surcharge to cover those losses. As a result about 55% of diners ordering Coq au Vin go into debt in order to eat that dish.

You believe that as along as the Coq au Vin remains of high quality it is irrelevant how much money is wasted on these unprofitable dishes. This is in fact the mentality that our current and past two chancellors have taken. That head in the sand attitude is headed for a rude day of reckoning in about 14 months or so.

---

I appreciate you playing along with the analogy, but you are wrong about me on this part. I fully know what is coming in 14 months (largely my point) and I don't think it is irrelevant how much money is wasted on unprofitable dishes. In fact, that is the primary thing I am upset about with respect to Cal athletics - the wasted money. I'm resigned to sucking. I'm tired of laying out the maximum amount of money we can and still suck. I supported Barbour in cutting sports and me and others have made that argument for a long time. Cal needs to dramatically cut back on sports and only keep things that make money, are required for Title IX or have a very high level of tradition success (and may have to cut into that last one). So the unprofitable dishes would be gone. My menu would be much smaller.

And I have to disagree with your analogy somewhat. Sure, there are more people at the Cal restaurant that like the Kung Pao chicken than the pasta primavera, but there are 50 other restaurants who have a lot more patrons who are true connoisseurs of Kung Pao Chicken and it flies off the shelf at $30 a plate and those patrons want Michelin stars or at least a nice write up in the local paper or a 4.8 or higher on Yelp. The Cal restaurant has a handful of patrons who would be happy with Panda Express, but only if they can get it for $5. And quite frankly, the Kung Pao has to fight for space on the menu with the Liver and Onions (Olympic Sports) that few other restaurants serve and few other patrons want, but the Cal restaurant has a couple patrons that will pay $250 a plate for it because it reminds them of their youth.

>but the Cal restaurant has a couple patrons that will pay $250 a plate for it (liver, aka olympic sports) because it reminds them of their youth.

You forgot the part about how even with those occasional scalps, the restaurant still loses money on those dishes. And the part about how the mediocre Kung Pao chicken is still profitable, and thus would hardly need to "fight for a spot on the menu", IF the menu was rationally established...

There's some other BI thread this week where, posters started discussing Bertola's. Then somebody complained about the relevancy. Maybe it could fit in here.

Honestly, you'd be more likely to see coq au vin on the menu at Bertola's (okay, "Pierre Bertola's") than at a Michelin starred restaurant (*, **, or ***, don't matter). It's a dish served by French mothers on Sunday, 50-100 years ago.

Ouch.

Big C said:

---

There's some other BI thread this week where, posters started discussing Bertola's. Then somebody complained about the relevancy. Maybe it could fit in here.

Honestly, you'd be more likely to see coq au vin on the menu at Bertola's (okay, "Pierre Bertola's") than at a Michelin starred restaurant (*, **, or ***, don't matter). It's a dish served by French mothers on Sunday, 50-100 years ago.

Ouch.

---

Ah, Bertola's. I ate there several times but due to the $1 Triples, my taste buds generally weren't functioning after the watery minestrone, so I can't really comment on the food.

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

There's some other BI thread this week where, posters started discussing Bertola's. Then somebody complained about the relevancy. Maybe it could fit in here.

Honestly, you'd be more likely to see coq au vin on the menu at Bertola's (okay, "Pierre Bertola's") than at a Michelin starred restaurant (*, **, or ***, don't matter). It's a dish served by French mothers on Sunday, 50-100 years ago.

Ouch.

---

Ah, Bertola's. I ate there several times but due to the $1 Triples, my taste buds generally weren't functioning after the watery minestrone, so I can't really comment on the food.

---

LOL, that's everybody's Bertola's story, mine as well. Cheapest drinks and table-service, multi-course meal you could find. (Banchero's in San Leandro was silver medalist.)

I'm thinking a "Bertola's Deux" could thrive, though at that quality, their clientele would have to be us, but us 40 years ago.