BeachedBear said:

---

Along the Stu model, I had a higher GPA at Cal than I did in high school (majored in EECS and Applied Math). And I attended almost every Basketball, Football and a few other games and played intramural sports and drank lots of beer and had fun.

---

Um, I didn't say I had a high GPA at Cal. My reaction to the shock of the rigorous academics was to lower my standards. But sometimes I did study, particularly during the quarter I took 4 upper-division physics classes. In addition to learning some physics I learned never to do that again.

BeachedBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

What evidence is there that today's Cal student has to study harder than those in the past? Give me one shred... Unless you consider staring at an effing cell phone screen to be study time...

I buy some of the other arguments about declining attendance, but not this one...

---

Overall quality of the students has increased over time.

"The crown jewel of the University of California system, Berkeley is arguably one of the most selective public universities in the country. In 1999, it denied over 70 percent of its applicants. But the competition to get into the University of California's flagship campus wasn't always so steep. Before 1960, 15 percent of California's high school graduates were eligible to attend the school, and until 1964, the school admitted anyone who met its requirements."


"Throughout the 1970s, competition for admission at Berkeley gradually increased. By the early 80s, the school was denying nearly half of its applicants, and by the end of that decade, it was denying almost two thirds of those who applied."

(Reference: History of Admissions at UC Berkeley)

Now the number accepted is something like 17%.

More selective means smarter kids so they should have it EASIER, right?

Well, no, because a lot of classes at Berkeley grade on a curve which means stiffer competition to get good grades. That means more studying for a lot of students.

It also means that kids who developed strong study habits in high school (in order to get in) often continue those habits in college.

---

But this probably means that the average Cal student accepted during this period was BETTER at studying and did so more efficiently - which sort of supports Chapmans point

Along the Stu model, I had a higher GPA at Cal than I did in high school (majored in EECS and Applied Math). And I attended almost every Basketball, Football and a few other games and played intramural sports and drank lots of beer and had fun.

---

Same. But I didn't study in high school at all. I did good enough and then got a great SAT score. My first quarter at Cal I almost flunked out. Started studying, but hanging out at cafes or cool libraries on campus to do it. And yes, attending football, basketball and baseball games, intermurals, parties, dances, protest marches, debates on Sproul Plaza, trips to the City, wine trips to Napa, skiing and gambling in Tahoe, driving my friend and his DJ gear to gigs, plenty of beer and other substsnces

calumnus said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

What evidence is there that today's Cal student has to study harder than those in the past? Give me one shred... Unless you consider staring at an effing cell phone screen to be study time...

I buy some of the other arguments about declining attendance, but not this one...

---

Overall quality of the students has increased over time.

"The crown jewel of the University of California system, Berkeley is arguably one of the most selective public universities in the country. In 1999, it denied over 70 percent of its applicants. But the competition to get into the University of California's flagship campus wasn't always so steep. Before 1960, 15 percent of California's high school graduates were eligible to attend the school, and until 1964, the school admitted anyone who met its requirements."


"Throughout the 1970s, competition for admission at Berkeley gradually increased. By the early 80s, the school was denying nearly half of its applicants, and by the end of that decade, it was denying almost two thirds of those who applied."

(Reference: History of Admissions at UC Berkeley)

Now the number accepted is something like 17%.

More selective means smarter kids so they should have it EASIER, right?

Well, no, because a lot of classes at Berkeley grade on a curve which means stiffer competition to get good grades. That means more studying for a lot of students.

It also means that kids who developed strong study habits in high school (in order to get in) often continue those habits in college.

---

But this probably means that the average Cal student accepted during this period was BETTER at studying and did so more efficiently - which sort of supports Chapmans point

Along the Stu model, I had a higher GPA at Cal than I did in high school (majored in EECS and Applied Math). And I attended almost every Basketball, Football and a few other games and played intramural sports and drank lots of beer and had fun.

---

Same. But I didn't study in high school at all. I did good enough and then got a great SAT score. My first quarter at Cal I almost flunked out. Started studying, but hanging out at cafes or cool libraries on campus to do it. And yes, attending football, basketball and baseball games, intermurals, parties, dances, protest marches, debates on Sproul Plaza, trips to the City, wine trips to Napa, skiing and gambling in Tahoe, driving my friend and his DJ gear to gigs, plenty of beer and other substsnces

---

When did you guys attend? After 1999?

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

ClayK said:

---

I think the attitude of young people towards school sports has changed significantly in the last 15 years or so in California, starting in high school.

Back in the day, "everybody" went to the high school game on Friday nights, if only for the dance afterward, and the basketball games were packed if the team was any good.

That has changed dramatically in the Bay Area, and in much of California, and since Cal students do reflect the state, it's not surprising the college kids don't care that much about sports either.

On top of that, Cal is now so competitive academically that getting in requires a huge focus on school and grades, and doing well demands long hours of study (something I did only intermittently).

So the student body a) comes in without a background in attending games in high school; and b) needs to study much more than in the past.

---

.
.
.

The only cure for this problem is winning. Winning generates excitement. I hate to think of Cal fans as bandwagon fans, but the truth is that most of them are - especially the students. And it's not just Cal either. I met a guy who got his MS at Stanford and when I told him I went to Cal he said: "Yeah, I never got into that rivalry thing. I was only there two years and focused on my degree." That describes 80%+ of the Cal (and Stanford) student body. We're not a schools like Auburn or Alabama, where a lot of people choose which school to attend based on the success of the football team.

Students will attend games if its fun. Losing isn't fun.

---

I went to Michigan for an MBA in the late '70s, lived three blocks from the stadium, and only went to a couple of games each year. My reasons were the same as your MS example from Stanfurd. I suspect that anybody on this forum who went to grad school will agree that your attitude is different from undergrad - especially if you're doing it on your own nickel. It[s not necessarily that you work harder, but you are more aware of prioritizing your time.

---

Exactly. I went to Columbia for grad when they set the NCAA record for consecutive losses in football (and that is playing in the Ivy League and FCS patsies). The basketball team was worse. Too much time studying or exploring NYC to bother with the sports teams.

You had to go to Columbia to understand how impressive it was Kyle Smith having a winning record, drawing crowds, and in his final year taking them to 25-10 and then beating UC Irvine to win the CIT.

---

I only hope that you will be equally impressed when Mark Fox guides the Bears to their first conference championship since 2010, which needs to be sooner than later for him and for us.

PS: I went to Columbia too, for a few minutes. I too got to wandering around NYC, shooting hoops in a Harlem Playground, and meeting girls and other interesting folks. I was too involved in politics then, and I departed for the Anti-War march to the Pentagon..Columbia campus was depressing after attending Berkeley. They barely could keep grass growing on a lawn, and I don't remember any trees, but as I said, I was only there for a few minutes.

Columbia as referred to to by a Harvard-friend is. The dregs of the ivy league. I once attended a game at Harvard vs Columbia.

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

What evidence is there that today's Cal student has to study harder than those in the past? Give me one shred... Unless you consider staring at an effing cell phone screen to be study time...

I buy some of the other arguments about declining attendance, but not this one...

---

Overall quality of the students has increased over time.

"The crown jewel of the University of California system, Berkeley is arguably one of the most selective public universities in the country. In 1999, it denied over 70 percent of its applicants. But the competition to get into the University of California's flagship campus wasn't always so steep. Before 1960, 15 percent of California's high school graduates were eligible to attend the school, and until 1964, the school admitted anyone who met its requirements."


"Throughout the 1970s, competition for admission at Berkeley gradually increased. By the early 80s, the school was denying nearly half of its applicants, and by the end of that decade, it was denying almost two thirds of those who applied."

(Reference: History of Admissions at UC Berkeley)

Now the number accepted is something like 17%.

More selective means smarter kids so they should have it EASIER, right?

Well, no, because a lot of classes at Berkeley grade on a curve which means stiffer competition to get good grades. That means more studying for a lot of students.

It also means that kids who developed strong study habits in high school (in order to get in) often continue those habits in college.

---

But this probably means that the average Cal student accepted during this period was BETTER at studying and did so more efficiently - which sort of supports Chapmans point

Along the Stu model, I had a higher GPA at Cal than I did in high school (majored in EECS and Applied Math). And I attended almost every Basketball, Football and a few other games and played intramural sports and drank lots of beer and had fun.

---

Same. But I didn't study in high school at all. I did good enough and then got a great SAT score. My first quarter at Cal I almost flunked out. Started studying, but hanging out at cafes or cool libraries on campus to do it. And yes, attending football, basketball and baseball games, intermurals, parties, dances, protest marches, debates on Sproul Plaza, trips to the City, wine trips to Napa, skiing and gambling in Tahoe, driving my friend and his DJ gear to gigs, plenty of beer and other substsnces

---

When did you guys attend? After 1999?

---

Cal 1980-1984

Columbia 1988-1990

> When did you guys attend?

early 70s (eecs), paid for by the gi bill, after failing frosh year at newly opened ucsd

> When did you guys attend?

1967-1970

BTW a friend of mine graduated from Columbia in 1992. She never said anything bad about it except winters were cold. I don't know if she watched any basketball but she coxed on the men's crew and rowed on the women's crew. I visited the campus a few years ago and it looked great to me. I also liked the neighborhood.

> When did you guys attend?

Fall 1967.