89Bear;842715087 said:

---

Thanks. Have a great rest of your week!!!!

---

You too bear!

NYCGOBEARS;842715086 said:

---

You wouldn't you child of privilege

---

:cry:

Just made the front page of Yahoo News.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/university-california-berkeley-chancellor-resigns-post-042017756.html?ref=gs


.....Maybe the job could go to Ashley Judd. I hear she's coming.

People on this board originally objected to Dirks' hire because they assumed he would be anti-athletics, solely on the basis of his physical appearance. Another poster wrote a poorly-constructed petition demanding Cal do away with tenure protections because he didn't like a single loud-mouthed grandstanding idiot. So forgive me if I suggest that perhaps Bearinsider is not the best source for opinion on Cal's administration.

Football isn't going anywhere. We've invested too much in the stadium to cut it. It doesn't matter who the chancellor is.

People who light their hair on fire each time Barsky does something stupid are playing into his hand. You are doing precisely what he wants you to do. You are getting played like a fiddle. A really stupid, hyper-reactionary fiddle.

Evaluating a Chancellor based on athletics is like evaluating a President based on his appointment to the Directorship on the National Parks Service.

NYCGOBEARS;842714977 said:

---

It's been two years since I've visited. I know things have changed dramatically. We had friends from Silver Lake staying with us last weekend and got the scoop. While our old section of Silver Lake (adjacent to the reservoir), is ever more expensive and there's sadly no water currently in the reservoir, the hipster areas like Sunset Junction are impossibly annoying. But it was pretty much like that when we left there eight years ago.

---

Can't even really call it hipster anymore. More bobo's and on the weekend, white collar professionals who fancy themselves some safe "alt" culture. That said, I'm probably the bigger fraud. I recently moved to the westside.

concernedparent;842715116 said:

---

Can't even really call it hipster anymore. More bobo's and on the weekend, white collar professionals who fancy themselves some safe "alt" culture. That said, I'm probably the bigger fraud. I recently moved to the westside.

---

Lol. If I ever move back I'd probably end up in Montrose.

This is awesome. You are a lucky guy, poop, and your kids are lucky. I was born and raised out in the Richmond district and as you know still walk the city multiple times per week with my wife. I just couldn't swing it financially to raise my family in SF. I hope you are happy and healthy in SF. Way to go!

grandmastapoop;842715072 said:

---

People said this to me for years: "Are you going to move to Marin or Lamorinda?" I'd tell them I'm never leaving SF. "Wait till you have kids..." Well, the second kid is due any day and I just bought a house in SF. Never leaving. Not everyone is looking to raise their kids in suburbia (I know nothing of Eagle Rock, just replying to the sentiment of your post.)

---

If you are from northern California there is no reason to know anything about LA other than they take our water. :p

Sebastabear;842715080 said:

---

Am I the only one who has absolutely no idea what an Atwater or an Eagle Rock is or why half the posts in this thread are on them/it/ there?

---

82gradDLSdad;842715135 said:

---

This is awesome. You are a lucky guy, poop, and your kids are lucky. I was born and raised out in the Richmond district and as you know still walk the city multiple times per week with my wife. I just couldn't swing it financially to raise my family in SF. I hope you are happy and healthy in SF. Way to go!

---

The funny thing is that Lamorinda/Oakland Hills/Marin, and the Peninsula are not really any cheaper. And why would I pay the same to buy that commute (my wife and I both work in the city)? I suppose I could move much farther down the BART line, but I look at it as in investment in my sanity/happiness: I hate commuting and will do what I can to avoid it.m

But thank you! We are scrambling to get unpacked and settled before the baby arrives, which is not easy with a 2 year old running around.

packawana;842714938 said:

---

The last straw was likely the bubbling up of controversy over the last minute announcement that students would be dropped from their classes unless they paid 20% of their tuition a week before class started. It'd be one thing if this was announced an entire year in advance but this one was done one month in advance. Really showed some incredible negligence.

---

Students? Doubt that matters. Most reports indicate his handling of the sexual harassment cases was the biggest factor

GMP - congrats and good luck. My family is a few months ahead of you on the kids front and I'm also in the city. We love it here and want to stay but a lot will depend on whether we are successful in getting our oldest into a school (ideally public) we are happy with.

The Dirks' regime did not cover itself in glory. First Davis now Berkeley it looks like a housecleaning is happening.

Funny to hear the mentions of the SDSU guy and the Fresno State guy......it reminds me of our "who's our next coach" discussions, when we'd bring up people who have done well at a lower level.

Seems to me like you can certainly do that for a "new chancellor search" too, but maybe I'm wrong.

GB54;842715145 said:

---

Students? Doubt that matters. Most reports indicate his handling of the sexual harassment cases was the biggest factor

---

Oh I don't doubt that the driving force was the sexual harassment failure but he's been consistently making embarrassing mistakes since the beginning of the year really.

510Bear;842715189 said:

---

Funny to hear the mentions of the SDSU guy and the Fresno State guy......it reminds me of our "who's our next coach" discussions, when we'd bring up people who have done well at a lower level.

Seems to me like you can certainly do that for a "new chancellor search" too, but maybe I'm wrong.

---

I think the key here is that the next chancellor should be someone who understands California. The previous two chancellors came from way out of state and in Dirks' case without experience heading up a university. The direction at the time seemed to make sense as we wanted to increase Berkeley's international profile but neither really got a good grasp of how to navigate here.

grandmastapoop;842715141 said:

---

The funny thing is that Lamorinda/Oakland Hills/Marin, and the Peninsula are not really any cheaper. And why would I pay the same to buy that commute (my wife and I both work in the city)? I suppose I could move much farther down the BART line, but I look at it as in investment in my sanity/happiness: I hate commuting and will do what I can to avoid it.m

But thank you! We are scrambling to get unpacked and settled before the baby arrives, which is not easy with a 2 year old running around.

---

Sorry poop, but East Bay is a LOT cheaper than SF. Marin and Peninsula are not cheaper in terms of median price but you get more house/land for the same price if that matters. Beyond that, the big difference in cost is whether you are confident in the public schools in an area. If you believe that Lamorinda, Marin, some of the Peninsula and Piedmont provide acceptable public education and SF does not or does not all the way K-12 (a decision each parent has to make for themselves) the sunk cost of paying for private school vs. applying that toward a house that will increase in value is a big cost factor.

But in terms of where you live, I would think SF could be a great place to raise a family and certainly cutting commute time if you work there means more time spent parenting. I don't know why some suburban parents seem to think it is a no brainer. There are pluses and minuses to both. I considered SF, Marin, and East Bay hills, all very different options before taking the last option. (to me, sort of a hybrid suburban/urban mix) You made a different decision than I did, but congratulations for buying into a community where you are excited about raising your family.

Well, he didn't say the East Bay was cheaper, but rather a very specific, and expensive collection of towns in the east bay. He'll get more bang for his buck, but if he doesn't actually care for more bang, the buck isn't really worth the commute.

Unit2Sucks;842715147 said:

---

GMP - congrats and good luck. My family is a few months ahead of you on the kids front and I'm also in the city. We love it here and want to stay but a lot will depend on whether we are successful in getting our oldest into a school (ideally public) we are happy with.

---

We are hopeful - we are walking distance from a good school that has neighborhood preference. Good luck!

-------> http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/UC-Berkeley-invested-in-consultants-to-boost-9147047.php?t=490c6adc8d&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

OaktownBear;842715214 said:

---

Sorry poop, but East Bay is a LOT cheaper than SF. Marin and Peninsula are not cheaper in terms of median price but you get more house/land for the same price if that matters. Beyond that, the big difference in cost is whether you are confident in the public schools in an area. If you believe that Lamorinda, Marin, some of the Peninsula and Piedmont provide acceptable public education and SF does not or does not all the way K-12 (a decision each parent has to make for themselves) the sunk cost of paying for private school vs. applying that toward a house that will increase in value is a big cost factor.

But in terms of where you live, I would think SF could be a great place to raise a family and certainly cutting commute time if you work there means more time spent parenting. I don't know why some suburban parents seem to think it is a no brainer. There are pluses and minuses to both. I considered SF, Marin, and East Bay hills, all very different options before taking the last option. (to me, sort of a hybrid suburban/urban mix) You made a different decision than I did, but congratulations for buying into a community where you are excited about raising your family.

---

That's a very important point - it's all a very personal decision that each family needs to make. I don't begrudge people who choose to leave SF. What I don't like is the scoffs we'd get when we said our plan was to stay here. As you say, it's a personal decision.

As I said in a previous post, we are very likely to get into a very good elementary school. It's rated well by the rating websites (which I find a bit dubious as they seem based on test scores, which are largely tied to family income, and so there seems to me to be some circular and reinforcing logic there - rich families move to areas with good schools which continues the cycle of good test scores which causes rich families to move there, and on and on.

Middle school, however, is another story, and our area school is not highly rated. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

As for space, I think we got pretty lucky. The house is big and has a decent sized backyard. We're not living in the Mission or anything, and it's a very family friendly neighborhood.

grandmastapoop;842715230 said:

---

That's a very important point - it's all a very personal decision that each family needs to make. I don't begrudge people who choose to leave SF. What I don't like is the scoffs we'd get when we said our plan was to stay here. As you say, it's a personal decision.

As I said in a previous post, we are very likely to get into a very good elementary school. It's rated well by the rating websites (which I find a bit dubious as they seem based on test scores, which are largely tied to family income, and so there seems to me to be some circular and reinforcing logic there - rich families move to areas with good schools which continues the cycle of good test scores which causes rich families to move there, and on and on.

Middle school, however, is another story, and our area school is not highly rated. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

As for space, I think we got pretty lucky. The house is big and has a decent sized backyard. We're not living in the Mission or anything, and it's a very family friendly neighborhood.

---

On the schooling, I'm quite a few years ahead of you, and I found the types of data you could get was very inconsistent. I tried to look at overall testing and the rating compared to similar socio-economic breakdown (don't know if they still rate that way). Occasionally you could get some other interesting data. For instance, the elementary school my kids would have gone to if I stayed in my first house (schooling wasn't why I left that house) drew from a region that crossed hills and flatlands and thus had different types of kids. The scores were good but somewhat lower. For some reason, they had the scores also broken down by White and Black (no other ethnicities which was strange). The White kids' scores were very comparable to Piedmont elementary schools. The Black kids' scores were lower, but still pretty good. I figured that school was probably doing a good job factoring in the different communities it was dealing with.

One thing, though, you are right that it can be circular, but that can be very real.

1. You will find if you are in any kind of affluent community that they will be asking for donations to parents clubs to support the schools that will most likely be something on the order of $1000. Some don't donate. Most do. Some can donate a lot more. I've had a teacher tell me that more than half of the materials in her classroom are paid for by parents/parents clubs. In addition, my kids schools had an art teacher, music teacher, and computers teacher, all completely paid for by the parents club. Bottom line, public schools don't have enough money. The amount a community can subsidize is very crucial these days

2. Yes, much of the success is that rich kids' parents expect their kids go college and support that. But it is a benefit to the individual kid to go to school with other kids who are academically oriented.

I don't like it, but unfortunately it does give those kids a big advantage even before you factor in quality of teachers, etc.

That said, there are schools that don't get the credit they deserve because they don't score as high but they are doing a great job with fewer resources and with kids that face more significant barriers/challenges to education. Unfortunately it is sometimes hard to find out where they are. Best way to identify them is usually in talking with parents and finding out how happy they are with what is going on at their school.

OaktownBear;842715243 said:

---

On the schooling, I'm quite a few years ahead of you, and I found the types of data you could get was very inconsistent. I tried to look at overall testing and the rating compared to similar socio-economic breakdown (don't know if they still rate that way). Occasionally you could get some other interesting data. For instance, the elementary school my kids would have gone to if I stayed in my first house (schooling wasn't why I left that house) drew from a region that crossed hills and flatlands and thus had different types of kids. The scores were good but somewhat lower. For some reason, they had the scores also broken down by White and Black (no other ethnicities which was strange). The White kids' scores were very comparable to Piedmont elementary schools. The Black kids' scores were lower, but still pretty good. I figured that school was probably doing a good job factoring in the different communities it was dealing with.

One thing, though, you are right that it can be circular, but that can be very real.

1. You will find if you are in any kind of affluent community that they will be asking for donations to parents clubs to support the schools that will most likely be something on the order of $1000. Some don't donate. Most do. Some can donate a lot more. I've had a teacher tell me that more than half of the materials in her classroom are paid for by parents/parents clubs. In addition, my kids schools had an art teacher, music teacher, and computers teacher, all completely paid for by the parents club. Bottom line, public schools don't have enough money. The amount a community can subsidize is very crucial these days

2. Yes, much of the success is that rich kids' parents expect their kids go college and support that. But it is a benefit to the individual kid to go to school with other kids who are academically oriented.

I don't like it, but unfortunately it does give those kids a big advantage even before you factor in quality of teachers, etc.

That said, there are schools that don't get the credit they deserve because they don't score as high but they are doing a great job with fewer resources and with kids that face more significant barriers/challenges to education. Unfortunately it is sometimes hard to find out where they are. Best way to identify them is usually in talking with parents and finding out how happy they are with what is going on at their school.

---

Thanks for the tips. One thing I intended to say in my previous post but forgot to add is that the PTA seems extremely active with lots of fundraising parties in the surrounding homes. I imagine it's a very similar situation to those you referenced.

grandmastapoop;842715254 said:

---

Thanks for the tips. One thing I intended to say in my previous post but forgot to add is that the PTA seems extremely active with lots of fundraising parties in the surrounding homes. I imagine it's a very similar situation to those you referenced.

---

Yeah, it is something that upsets me politically, not because I mind subsidizing my kids education, but I feel for those communities that can't. When I think of what the resources would be at my kids' schools if the parents didn't contribute and think about the fact that with all of the other challenges kids and schools in poor neighborhoods have, in addition they don't have those resources, it is amazing anybody comes out of that situation with a decent education at all.

I grew up in an affluent neighborhood, but parents didn't donate much to public school because it was supposed to be free. We were pretty resource strapped, but I think they cut so far that they overwhelmed parents indignation at paying for public school. These days there is no free (though you pay a hell of a lot less for a quality public school than private school). My guess is by the time your kids get to school you will see them asking for $1500-2000 per kid to the parents club, a classroom fund of like $100, a field trip fund of like $100, a teacher gift, and then other random fundraisers. Some schools are also essentially asking you to pay for computers. All voluntary of course, but generally when you see the need it is hard to say no to the "minimums". Of course every private school does exactly the same thing, only after charging you a hefty tuition fee.

Interesting to see what the major papers (LA Times) (NY Times) (Guardian) say about what may have gone on with Dirks' departure.

I agree the next chancellor better be a California insider, so I like the idea of the SDSU guy or Fresno State guy being next in line.

There's some pretty major stuff coming out this week related to our CRISPR patent fight with MIT. If we were to win, have to imagine we would be an even bigger catch for a new Chancellor. That alone could be worth billions.

grandmastapoop;842715222 said:

---

We are hopeful - we are walking distance from a good school that has neighborhood preference. Good luck!

---

Same boat here so we are hopeful. Ours feeds into a great middle school but high school is no bueno unless our kids can get into Lowell.

OaktownBear;842715275 said:

---

Yeah, it is something that upsets me politically, not because I mind subsidizing my kids education, but I feel for those communities that can't. When I think of what the resources would be at my kids' schools if the parents didn't contribute and think about the fact that with all of the other challenges kids and schools in poor neighborhoods have, in addition they don't have those resources, it is amazing anybody comes out of that situation with a decent education at all.

I grew up in an affluent neighborhood, but parents didn't donate much to public school because it was supposed to be free. We were pretty resource strapped, but I think they cut so far that they overwhelmed parents indignation at paying for public school. These days there is no free (though you pay a hell of a lot less for a quality public school than private school). My guess is by the time your kids get to school you will see them asking for $1500-2000 per kid to the parents club, a classroom fund of like $100, a field trip fund of like $100, a teacher gift, and then other random fundraisers. Some schools are also essentially asking you to pay for computers. All voluntary of course, but generally when you see the need it is hard to say no to the "minimums". Of course every private school does exactly the same thing, only after charging you a hefty tuition fee.

---

In my experience (two children in public schools), in affluent areas it is not just private donations (though that is a part of it). The real issue is parent involvement - both financial and in terms of time. Particularly in elementary school, MANY parents volunteer time in the classroom and other support roles - something many parents cannot do if they are working. Also, the involved parents tend to pressure the school and school district if there are problems that need to be addressed.

---> http://www.dailycal.org/2016/08/17/uc-berkeley-faculty-speculate-on-factors-behind-dirks-resignation/

510Bear;842715283 said:

---

Interesting to see what the major papers (LA Times) (NY Times) (Guardian) say about what may have gone on with Dirks' departure.

I agree the next chancellor better be a California insider, so I like the idea of the SDSU guy or Fresno State guy being next in line.

---

It would be good to hire a tested and proven administrator who has excellent interpersonal skills as the next chancellor. Our history is selecting renown scientists and scholars with little or no solid administrative experience or people skills.

Of course, that parental pressure on the school is sometimes taken to extremes: "How are our kids supposed to compete if they don't have a Java programming class in Jr High?".

bearloyal;842715310 said:

---

Our history is selecting renown scientists and scholars with little or no solid administrative experience or people skills.

---

At a university where faculty wield disproportionately high power, that's about what you'd expect. Though at some universities where faculty drive the bus, they also realize they need a chancellor who can complement their skills (read: good administrator/fundraiser/schmoozer) even if it's someone they may have a hard time controlling.

Other times, they'll make the easy and cowardly choice and pick someone who's very "academic" - either one of them or someone of a similar background - in the hopes that person will do what's good for them and them alone, and be easy to control.

We'll see which route our faculty go this time around.

CairoBear;842715114 said:

---

People on this board originally objected to Dirks' hire because they assumed he would be anti-athletics, solely on the basis of his physical appearance. Another poster wrote a poorly-constructed petition demanding Cal do away with tenure protections because he didn't like a single loud-mouthed grandstanding idiot. So forgive me if I suggest that perhaps Bearinsider is not the best source for opinion on Cal's administration.

Football isn't going anywhere. We've invested too much in the stadium to cut it. It doesn't matter who the chancellor is.

People who light their hair on fire each time Barsky does something stupid are playing into his hand. You are doing precisely what he wants you to do. You are getting played like a fiddle. A really stupid, hyper-reactionary fiddle.

Evaluating a Chancellor based on athletics is like evaluating a President based on his appointment to the Directorship on the National Parks Service.

---

I suspect many, many alumni agree that with this, probably a majority.

FWIW, The following comment was offered by a speaker (not me) at an alumni event (class of '68) in June: "...the focus of alumni engagement with the University is no longer football...". Unfortunately, that comment came at the end of the meeting and the speaker did not indicate what the new focus was.

I have attended two alumni events so far this year and have only heard comments from fellow alumni regarding maintaining the primacy of academics and Cal's academic reputation. When I mentioned that Dykes was making some progress improving football's academics, my comment was met with scepticism. One alumni remarked that her dentist, an ex Cal football player who knows the program, indicated that he no longer gave to Cal football, though he was willing to give to other Cal sports.

I love Cal academics, I love Cal athletics. Just say'in, the climate away from this board is not the climate on this board.

What do all of you hear when you talk to fellow alumni not on this board?

Number 031343;842715389 said:

---

I suspect many, many alumni agree that with this, probably a majority.

FWIW, The following comment was offered by a speaker (not me) at an alumni event (class of '68) in June: "...the focus of alumni engagement with the University is no longer football...". Unfortunately, that comment came at the end of the meeting and the speaker did not indicate what the new focus was.

I have attended two alumni events so far this year and have only heard comments from fellow alumni regarding maintaining the primacy of academics and Cal's academic reputation. When I mentioned that Dykes was making some progress improving football's academics, my comment was met with scepticism. One alumni remarked that her dentist, an ex Cal football player who knows the program, indicated that he no longer gave to Cal football, though he was willing to give to other Cal sports.

I love Cal academics, I love Cal athletics. Just say'in, the climate away from this board is not the climate on this board.

What do all of you hear when you talk to fellow alumni not on this board?

---

This is the sentiment of alums who are tired of losing to our rivals. Yes, our program is far healthier now. But are we actually contending? Are we actually on par with our rivals? No.

By virtue of being frequent posters on a Cal message board, we're far more patient than the casual Cal fan. Make some notable waves, compete with the top 4, and the focus will shift back to football.

UrsaMajor;842714951 said:

---

Comments:

Dirks gave no reason in his resignation letter, but it is widely assumed that Napalitano put the screws to him as soon as the Katehi mess at Davis was resolved.

Dirks was not an effective chancellor (and I write this as someone who has considered him and his wife personal friends). He was overwhelmingly decide-phobic, and just couldn't pull the trigger on many decisions that needed to be made.

Best guess is that Mike Williams will resign as well, since it is unlikely that a new chancellor will want him in place (he never should have been hired in the first place).

btw, I doubt Dirks stays the whole academic year. The hope is to have a new chancellor in place by the spring semester.

Not sure I want anyone from Texas. Berdahl was the last one...

---

Your decide-phobic description certainly seems to describe an AD hiring process which dragged on and ultimately put the interim guy in place.

I have always felt that the job of the chancellor is to maintain and improve Cal's academic standing and athletics is so far down the list of items I judge a chancellor on as to be irrelevant. That being said, I certainly have hopes of what a new chancellor who is awesome at academics administration would also happen to do with athletics. Quite frankly, on that score, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have Heyman than Dirks. You knew where you stood with Heyman. I'd characterize this administration's attitude toward sports as "let's not suck just enough so that the bonehead alums will think we are actually trying and stay engaged but the faculty won't get pissed off" As far as I'm concerned, go all out or go home. Aiming for 7 win seasons is BS. I'd rather go back to the football team being a nice intermission between Cal band performances than be half assed but still have to suffer the trappings of an administration trying to squeeze every penny out of football that they can. Of course, I'd actually prefer that Cal treat football like every other endeavor and try to be the best, but that was certainly not where this administration's head was at.

Number 031343;842715389 said:

---

I suspect many, many alumni agree that with this, probably a majority.

FWIW, The following comment was offered by a speaker (not me) at an alumni event (class of '68) in June: "...the focus of alumni engagement with the University is no longer football...". Unfortunately, that comment came at the end of the meeting and the speaker did not indicate what the new focus was.

I have attended two alumni events so far this year and have only heard comments from fellow alumni regarding maintaining the primacy of academics and Cal's academic reputation. When I mentioned that Dykes was making some progress improving football's academics, my comment was met with scepticism. One alumni remarked that her dentist, an ex Cal football player who knows the program, indicated that he no longer gave to Cal football, though he was willing to give to other Cal sports.

I love Cal academics, I love Cal athletics. Just say'in, the climate away from this board is not the climate on this board.

What do all of you hear when you talk to fellow alumni not on this board?

---

I suggest you look at who is on the Cal Foundation Board of Trustees for alums who really matter and what they are saying, rather than some dickhead yelping at the end of an alumni event. To put it in perspective, an important football conference game can draw 40,000 plus alums to campus, many of whom are the school's largest donors, versus a seminar, a couple hundred small donors.

Personal perspective is most faculty really could care less about football, campus politics or culture wars, they just want to have a successful career and engage in meaningful research. There are plenty of small, loud constituencies on campus to pacify, and one can only hope the next Chancellor can do so. Maybe Furd and SC have a better idea by typically hiring school Presidents with prior experience on campus and therefore have the background to navigate Cal's peculiar issues.