evanluck said:

---

Given the academic category the school lives in, we actually do better than most schools in our category at engaging alumni and soliciting donations.

---

We don't even come close to the Ivies or Stanfurd. One thing that the privates do that is difficult for Cal is to build class identity from the outset. The moment you set foot on campus, your name is always followed by your year of graduation. When President Kennedy was killed, the article in the Harvard Crimson listed him as "President John F. Kennedy '40.

UrsaMajor said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Given the academic category the school lives in, we actually do better than most schools in our category at engaging alumni and soliciting donations.

---

We don't even come close to the Ivies or Stanfurd. One thing that the privates do that is difficult for Cal is to build class identity from the outset. The moment you set foot on campus, your name is always followed by your year of graduation. When President Kennedy was killed, the article in the Harvard Crimson listed him as "President John F. Kennedy '40.

---

We can do that, too:

James Akinjo '22

Best job of yanking a thread back on topic in 2018!

evanluck said:

---

Your point about the Greek system is interesting. I think the issue with Cal is the same at any other academically focused school.

Kids who go to school for only academic reasons and keep their heads down in their books are less likely to build a strong connection to the school. Their memories of school are linked to their academic journeys and the friends they meet. They don't often think of being part of a larger entity that is the University and what that means given the history of institution.

There are student extracurricular activities like the Greek system, like the marching band (Cal Band Great!) that encourage identity connection with the University. We learned the history of the school, we learned the songs, we rooted for the teams, had some of our best memories celebrating team victories. Not sure if there is a freshman orientation that can be held where some of this experience is given to freshman not affiliated with a spirit-driven extracurricular. By the time a band member finishes Fall Training Program (preseason band camp) and goes through the band's initiation ritual (where they hear all about the history of the University on a walk through all the historic campus sights given by band alums), they pretty much are ready to bleed blue and gold before they even go to their first class.

Given the academic category the school lives in, we actually do better than most schools in our category at engaging alumni and soliciting donations.

---

You got that right. I remember staying in Telefson Hall and a grueling week of practice in ftp

interesting insight into the greek system. i had no idea the university had any position on the greek system

the closest I've ever gotten to the cal greeks are walking up to Memorial on game day and passing the houses, which I thought was a cool atmosphere on game day

i also thought they were a natural source of cal sports attendance, and would make it fun and cool to go to football and basketball games. for that reason, i wondered if cal sports marketed to the greeks

the primary contact I've had/have to student candidates to attend games was my classmates and the students who play basketball in the RSF. Before every basketball game, I go to the RSF to play. I often ask players if they are going to 'the game'. A common response is 'what game'

However, on occasion, I'll offer an extra ticket for free and there is almost always a taker. Makes me wonder how Cal can market to that group (I was in the RSF about a month ago when they had a table with two Cal women players sitting on a table and handing out free trail mix in an effort to promote the team/games. I didn't take the snack but did get Chen and Archer to autograph my basketball !

Big C said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Given the academic category the school lives in, we actually do better than most schools in our category at engaging alumni and soliciting donations.

---

We don't even come close to the Ivies or Stanfurd. One thing that the privates do that is difficult for Cal is to build class identity from the outset. The moment you set foot on campus, your name is always followed by your year of graduation. When President Kennedy was killed, the article in the Harvard Crimson listed him as "President John F. Kennedy '40.

---

We can do that, too:

James Akinjo '22

---

Except that we haven't graduated a President yet, or have we?

SFCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Given the academic category the school lives in, we actually do better than most schools in our category at engaging alumni and soliciting donations.

---

We don't even come close to the Ivies or Stanfurd. One thing that the privates do that is difficult for Cal is to build class identity from the outset. The moment you set foot on campus, your name is always followed by your year of graduation. When President Kennedy was killed, the article in the Harvard Crimson listed him as "President John F. Kennedy '40.

---

We can do that, too:

James Akinjo '22

---

Except that we haven't graduated a President yet, or have we?

---

Yes, I believe we have, but not of the US.

So the money is in the puffy jacket?

EricBear said:

---

---

evanluck said:

---

Kids who go to school for only academic reasons and keep their heads down in their books are less likely to build a strong connection to the school. Their memories of school are linked to their academic journeys and the friends they meet. They don't often think of being part of a larger entity that is the University and what that means given the history of institution.

There are student extracurricular activities like the Greek system, like the marching band (Cal Band Great!) that encourage identity connection with the University. We learned the history of the school, we learned the songs, we rooted for the teams, had some of our best memories celebrating team victories. Not sure if there is a freshman orientation that can be held where some of this experience is given to freshman not affiliated with a spirit-driven extracurricular. By the time a band member finishes Fall Training Program (preseason band camp) and goes through the band's initiation ritual (where they hear all about the history of the University on a walk through all the historic campus sights given by band alums), they pretty much are ready to bleed blue and gold before they even go to their first class.

---

I think Grant makes some great points but as someone who was at the university around the same time as him, I have to say he's overlooking a crucial point that also addresses this post. It's not that Cal students are too bookish to be into extracurricular activities. Plenty of Cal students, even some of the most serious studiers, are probably part of multiple clubs, consultancy groups, research centers, political parties, what have you. It's just that if you don't have an impetus to become interested in intercollegiate athletics, there are a hundred other things you can do on campus that probably fit your personal preferences from political activism to swing dancing to blockchain mining.

This is why winning is so important -- it's the only way to give students a reason to care (this is a microcosm of the fairweather Bay Area sports fan problem really). If your sports teams aren't winning, there's a ton of other things you can do that probably cater to your personal enjoyment/passion more.

EricBear said:

---

Got to love the Lou Campanelli game program cover above James' head in this photo.

---

You made me look closer.
And I see that the dude on the left is also in the Wichita coach photo, same background. So, who is he?
That is Salesian coach Bill Mellis.
He notched his 500th win in his 20th season there.
He was Jabari Bird's coach.

I wonder if James has been in conversation with Jabari about Cal and what has been said there.
The photo must have been taken in Mellis' office. Local hoops material.

The Sean Miller photo appears to be in a French classroom. Did James learn some French at Salesian?

Why are all 3 visits at the high school grounds?

packawana said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Kids who go to school for only academic reasons and keep their heads down in their books are less likely to build a strong connection to the school. Their memories of school are linked to their academic journeys and the friends they meet. They don't often think of being part of a larger entity that is the University and what that means given the history of institution.

There are student extracurricular activities like the Greek system, like the marching band (Cal Band Great!) that encourage identity connection with the University. We learned the history of the school, we learned the songs, we rooted for the teams, had some of our best memories celebrating team victories. Not sure if there is a freshman orientation that can be held where some of this experience is given to freshman not affiliated with a spirit-driven extracurricular. By the time a band member finishes Fall Training Program (preseason band camp) and goes through the band's initiation ritual (where they hear all about the history of the University on a walk through all the historic campus sights given by band alums), they pretty much are ready to bleed blue and gold before they even go to their first class.

---

I think Grant makes some great points but as someone who was at the university around the same time as him, I have to say he's overlooking a crucial point that also addresses this post. It's not that Cal students are too bookish to be into extracurricular activities. Plenty of Cal students, even some of the most serious studiers, are probably part of multiple clubs, consultancy groups, research centers, political parties, what have you. It's just that if you don't have an impetus to become interested in intercollegiate athletics, there are a hundred other things you can do on campus that probably fit your personal preferences from political activism to swing dancing to blockchain mining.

This is why winning is so important -- it's the only way to give students a reason to care (this is a microcosm of the fairweather Bay Area sports fan problem really). If your sports teams aren't winning, there's a ton of other things you can do that probably cater to your personal enjoyment/passion more.

---

I'd rather attend a Bitcoin mining 'game' too.

packawana said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Kids who go to school for only academic reasons and keep their heads down in their books are less likely to build a strong connection to the school. Their memories of school are linked to their academic journeys and the friends they meet. They don't often think of being part of a larger entity that is the University and what that means given the history of institution.

There are student extracurricular activities like the Greek system, like the marching band (Cal Band Great!) that encourage identity connection with the University. We learned the history of the school, we learned the songs, we rooted for the teams, had some of our best memories celebrating team victories. Not sure if there is a freshman orientation that can be held where some of this experience is given to freshman not affiliated with a spirit-driven extracurricular. By the time a band member finishes Fall Training Program (preseason band camp) and goes through the band's initiation ritual (where they hear all about the history of the University on a walk through all the historic campus sights given by band alums), they pretty much are ready to bleed blue and gold before they even go to their first class.

---

I think Grant makes some great points but as someone who was at the university around the same time as him, I have to say he's overlooking a crucial point that also addresses this post. It's not that Cal students are too bookish to be into extracurricular activities. Plenty of Cal students, even some of the most serious studiers, are probably part of multiple clubs, consultancy groups, research centers, political parties, what have you. It's just that if you don't have an impetus to become interested in intercollegiate athletics, there are a hundred other things you can do on campus that probably fit your personal preferences from political activism to swing dancing to blockchain mining.

This is why winning is so important -- it's the only way to give students a reason to care (this is a microcosm of the fairweather Bay Area sports fan problem really). If your sports teams aren't winning, there's a ton of other things you can do that probably cater to your personal enjoyment/passion more.

---

I think the problem does not begin at Cal. It is not the losing. It is not the distractions on and around the campus. There have always been things to do with one's free time at Cal. Politics and Telegraph Avenue was always a big draw. Many students had part time jobs. There were tons of clubs and intramural teams you could join. There was research to do. There were the usual social interactions with the opposite sex, etc. I was at Cal during the losing years of Rene Herrerias's teams, and Harmon was packed with fans. Basketball may not have gotten the seemingly non-stop media coverage that it gets today, but basketball back then was much, much more popular on campus, on all the courts and nearby playgrounds. I first lived Putnam Hall, and there was an outdoor court across Channing way, with games going on all the time. I later joined a fraternity, and their building had an inner courtyard with a hoop, and there were games going on at that court from morning to night. Harmon gym was open during the day and many pickup games took place at all the baskets. The intramural leagues were loaded with good players. Cal itself had an 18 man freshman team, a 15-18 man varsity and a 10-12 man junior varsity team. The tryout for the 1959 freshman team including 17 scholarship players had 60 players trying to make that team. And many who missed making that team, came back the next year to try and make the JV team.

And Cal was just an extension of high school, etc., in the sense that basketball was way more popular in high school in those days than today. I grew up in San Francisco, and every junior high and most elementary schools had teams, and the Catholic schools all had teams from the first grade on up to high school. In high school there were so many players wanting to play that the school district came up with lightweight teams, and every San Francisco high school had at least 4 teams: 110 lb, 120 lb, 130 lb, and varsity, and most schools had a junior varsity. In my high school each team had 15-18 players. For 130 lb and varsity games, the gyms were packed with fans, mostly students, and the 110 lb and 120 lb team games usually would draw 50-100 fans.

In high school, we'd ride around in a car, going from gym to gym looking for a game with good players that we could join. Most of the gyms were open. We'd go to USF or any of the junior high schools, and some of the high schools, or to any of the Catholic youth centers or the Boys' Clubs. You could go to St Agnes, and get in games with some of the local college stars and even pros like KC Jones or Tom Meschery. There was always action and plenty of players, so you might have to wait an hour to get into a game. On the weekends or in the summer we'd go to outdoor playgrounds, looking for games. We'd drive over to the Marin Town and Country club which had several swimming pools and basketball courts. Meschery and Freddie LaCour were always there, and you might have to wait two hours to get into a game, it was so crowded.

Today, most kids don't play basketball, unless it is in a video game. I drive around neighborhoods and there are no kids playing ball in the street. I drive by schools at 3PM and there is always a long line of cars with parent-chauffeurs waiting to take their child to the next activity. I assume some of that is basketball, but I don't know. I drive by playgrounds, and there are no kids playing hoops or anything else. At night, I pass by the old gyms where I used to have to wait 45 minutes to get into a game, and they are dark, the lights are out. I would guess that in the inner city, kids might be going to those playgrounds, but in other areas, I'd guess the basketball that is played is in programs that cost the better-heeled parents more money than the inner city parents have. I don't know if it is homework, or cell phones, but the young relatives I have can't put down those phones or get off the couch. I don't see any kid walking down a street dribbling a basketball any more. I don't know if it is just San Francisco, or just the Bay Area, but the interest in basketball is just not there, in my opinion, in spite of all the hoopla attached to the NCAA tournament. There are still some outstanding recruits, but schools today can barely find 10 players who are capable of playing at D1 level. If we can't find a way to change the culture and get our kids interesting in actually playing and not just watching basketball, the sport will suffer, and is suffering now.

BeachedBear said:

---

grantfromcal said:

---

I hear many of these points...I graduated in 2016, probably the youngest paid subscriber on this forum. My grandmother went to Cal in the 50's, parents met on the debate team in the 80s. Older brother and I both graduated. Grew up at almost every basketball and football game.

I was a ASUC Senator while at school, so I think I have an interesting perspective and for me there are there are a few issues at play. So they have less time/interest in the varsity sports.

1) Many of my classmates (almost all the International kids, but also so many of the others) are not big sports fans when they get to school. They go to a few games their freshman year because their hall mates go, but have literally no idea what is going on the field/court. After a few games, they don't return and are never really invested in learning about Cal sports history or the game itself. The school could do a better job introducing students to the game. I know they have immersion classes where they, no joke, teach the international kids about Chiplotte and american slang, among other topics (friend who was in the class told me). They could easily add a Football 101 if they wanted to.

2) A large number of Cal students come from LA/SoCal so many come in with an affinity to UCLA or USC. While most quickly transition to support Cal, their fond childhood memories are of Leinart/Bush or Love/Westbrook, not Rodgers/Lynch or Powe/Anderson, like me. So when it comes to being diehards, they often never make the full transition.

3) Finally, my most controversial opinion: When it comes to fundraising, the school tries so hard to suppress the Greek system. This is not to condone the negative behaviors that often occur within Greek life, but the University does spend a lot of energy taking the fun out of the Greek system. This plays out in two ways. A) Folks in the Greek system (Link) tend to donate at a higher clip than their non-affiliated peers. So the negative backlash, while often warranted, will negatively effect donations, in my opinion. B) Folks in the Greek system, on the whole (a generalization I know), are more likely to be sports fans. So the effort to shut down tailgates, breathalyze every student upon entry, etc. forces students to make the choice between attending the game and getting in trouble with the University. Unfortunately, most of my friends during my time thought if we were going to lose the game anyway, they might as well win the Gameday.

Just the perspective of a 24 year old Cal lifer

---

Good stuff grantfromcal. I'll add two points:

1. Believe it or not, ALL three of your points were applicable in the early 80's. The anti-greek suppression was probably more social than institutional IMO at that time. I'm not sure there was a Chipotle training program, but there were similar constructs for the international students and they ignored sports back then as well.

2. My three children went to NON-CAL state supported institutions recently. The same three factors seem to apply at two of those schools (UCLA ,Cal Poly) as well. But not so at SDSU. Also, based on nephews/nieces/friends, it does seem to be different at USC, Stanford as well as places like UW, UO and Colorado.

I believe Ursa mentioned the 80's/90's hangover - it is real. Many alums from that era do not have fond memories.

---

Interesting to hear the current climate at Cal. I also think that nowadays, if a kid is interested in sports, s/he is playing intramurals or club-level in college and/or going to watch their friends play.

I think the above-mentioned 80's/90's hangover extended back into the 70's. I graduated in '76 and the vast majority of my profs didn't give a damn whether I understood the material, or not (not talking about you, Professor Jim Kelly, you were great in E-36 Statics). In fact, Cal was proud of the "weeding out" that took place in lower division courses. While this may build tenacity and independence in a student, it's unlikely to build "fond memories". Consequently, my love for Cal (and Cal sports) is really based on growing up in Berkeley going to games with friends or family. When I walk down Piedmont and see the the stadium for the first game of the season, I feel like a 10 year-old again.

HearstMining said:

---

I think the above-mentioned 80's/90's hangover extended back into the 70's. I graduated in '76 and the vast majority of my profs didn't give a damn whether I understood the material, or not (not talking about you, Professor Jim Kelly, you were great in E-36 Statics).

---

I graduated in 1970 and remember a few mediocre profs and a few great ones, but my overall academic experience was incredibly stimulating. I started with a mix of physics, chemistry, and engineering but soon realized I preferred physics. In the College of Letters and Sciences I also had the chance to take some excellent courses in econ and poli sci. Then there were the Vietnam protests, not related to the University but equally illuminating.

I suppose if you ask a thousand grads you'll get a thousand opinions, but I wouldn't trade my Cal days for any alternative at that time.

stu said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I think the above-mentioned 80's/90's hangover extended back into the 70's. I graduated in '76 and the vast majority of my profs didn't give a damn whether I understood the material, or not (not talking about you, Professor Jim Kelly, you were great in E-36 Statics).

---

I graduated in 1970 and remember a few mediocre profs and a few great ones, but my overall academic experience was incredibly stimulating. I started with a mix of physics, chemistry, and engineering but soon realized I preferred physics. In the College of Letters and Sciences I also had the chance to take some excellent courses in econ and poli sci. Then there were the Vietnam protests, not related to the University but equally illuminating.

I suppose if you ask a thousand grads you'll get a thousand opinions, but I wouldn't trade my Cal days for any alternative at that time.

---

Well therein lies the rub. Right now Cal needs some of those who don't agree with you to support the program better. The question is how do we facilitate that process for now and for the future.

Jack Citrin. Polisci. My favorite.

By any chance did you take a class by a professor last name Krueger?

sonofabear51 said:

---

By any chance did you take a class by a professor last name Krueger?

---

I don't remember the name - what subject? I do remember Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavski explaining what was about to go down in the 1968 presidential election (they were right). Henry Helson explaining real analysis so clearly even I got it. Neil Bartlett explaining why computers (of the era) couldn't do quantum mechanics on molocules. Abba Lerner and Steven Goldman in microeconomics. And the fabulous 5-volume series for lower division physics, though I had none of the authors for professors.

Seriously- which team HASN'T had an in home with Akinjo at this point? I'd love to see him at Cal, but I would be surprised if he went elsewhere.

stu said:

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

By any chance did you take a class by a professor last name Krueger?

---

I don't remember the name - what subject? I do remember Nelson Polsby and Aaron Wildavski explaining what was about to go down in the 1968 presidential election (they were right). Henry Helson explaining real analysis so clearly even I got it. Neil Bartlett explaining why computers (of the era) couldn't do quantum mechanics on molocules. Abba Lerner and Steven Goldman in microeconomics. And the fabulous 5-volume series for lower division physics, though I had none of the authors for professors.

---

I also remember Wildawsky arguing that the only alternative to the Vietnam War (which he supported) was a nuclear war with the Soviet Union...

UrsaMajor said:

---

I also remember Wildawsky arguing that the only alternative to the Vietnam War (which he supported) was a nuclear war with the Soviet Union...

---

Be patient - we could still have both.

stu said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I also remember Wildawsky arguing that the only alternative to the Vietnam War (which he supported) was a nuclear war with the Soviet Union...

---

Be patient - we could still have both.

---

and Iran and North Korea...a trifecta!