UC Berkeley falls from U.S. News & World Report’s ranking after misreporting data

UC Berkeley has been removed from the U.S. News & World Report’s 2019 Best Colleges rankings after notifying the media outlet that it misreported data.

The university, which was the No. 2 public university in the rankings, has subsequently been moved to the “unranked” category in the standings.

According to the announcement from U.S. News, UC Berkeley originally reported that its two-year average alumni giving rate for the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years was 11.6%. However, it recently said its correct 2016 giving rate was only 7.9%.

The university had been incorrectly including pledges in alumni giving data, which led to the incorrect higher number. UC Berkeley had been reporting the incorrect figure, which accounts for 5% of the overall score for the Best Colleges rankings, since at least 2014.

U.S. News sent a letter to UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ and University of California President Janet Napolitano requesting they provide a signed letter certifying the accuracy of the university’s data reported to the media outlet for the next three editions of the rankings, beginning with the 2020 Best Colleges rankings set to be released in September.

Four other universities — Scripps College, Mars Hill University, the University of North Carolina, Pembroke, and Johnson & Wales University — also notified U.S. News that they misreported data and were removed from the standings.

The overall rankings on the list remain unchanged, with UCLA at No. 1 for public universities.

UCLA football is hopeful ahead of coach Chip Kelly’s sophomore year

There aren’t going to be any more firsts for Chip Kelly and the Bruins.

“Year two is going to be so much different than year one just because of ‘been there, done that,'” Kelly said. “There won’t be our first road trip, there won’t be our first plane ride, there won’t be our first bus ride, there won’t be our first time in a hotel the night before the game, there won’t be our first game day routine – they’ve been through that.”

Coach Kelly, redshirt senior running back Joshua Kelley and senior linebacker Krys Barnes represented UCLA football at the 2019 Pac-12 Football Media Day in Hollywood on Wednesday, kicking off year two of the Chip Kelly era in Westwood. After boasting one of the youngest rosters in the nation a year ago, the Bruins will be returning a Power Five-highest 19 starters – most of whom are upperclassmen.

Kelly said those upperclassmen – including Kelley, redshirt senior linebacker Josh Woods, senior center Boss Tagaloa and senior wide receiver Theo Howard – have stepped up on and off the field and are primed to take over the locker room.

“This is their team,” Kelly said. “They can impact what the team looks like, and I think our coaching staff has done a really good job on educating those guys on what they need to do, how they need to model it.”

Barnes is one of four seniors expected to lead the linebacker corps this season, along with Woods, redshirt senior linebacker Tyree Thompson and redshirt senior linebacker Keisean Lucier-South. In the midst of a nearly four-minute rant praising the defense, Kelley said he was excited to see Barnes take charge on the that side of the ball.

“(Barnes is) the leader of that defense,” Kelley said. “(Barnes) isn’t scared of anything. He’s gonna go in there, he’s gonna compete, he’s gonna knock me on my tail during pass pro (drills), he’s awesome.”

Lucier-South will not be with the team for fall camp due to academic restrictions, but Kelly said he expects him to return for the start of Pac-12 play Sept. 21 against Washington State. Woods, however, will be ready for the season opener against Cincinnati on Aug. 29 after he missed the entirety of 2018 with a knee injury.

Another Bruin who had trouble staying healthy last season was then-freshman quarterback Dorian Thompson-Robinson, who made just seven starts as a result of various injuries. Kelly said Wednesday that Thompson-Robinson was healthy by the end of last season – despite then-senior quarterback Wilton Speight starting the final three games – and that the injuries would not linger into 2019.

“(Thompson-Robinson) could have come back in at the end of the year and played, so it wasn’t a long-term injury,” Kelly said. “He was healthy, he had a really good command throughout the spring, so we’re excited to kind of see what year two looks like with him.”

The Bruins won’t exclusively be made up of familiar faces, however.

Kelly’s staff signed 25 recruits this offseason but later added 23 walk-ons as well. With the fresh blood joining the program, the second-year coach said he expects everyone on the roster to conform to his motto of reflecting the mission.

“If you want to be successful, then your habits have to reflect your mission,” Kelly said. “There’s a lot of people that say, ‘You know, New Year’s Day, I’m going to get in shape and I’m going to go work and do other things,’ and it lasts for three days, and then they’re buying chips and soda at the store three days later. Their habits don’t reflect their mission. You all figure out what your mission is and then your habits need to reflect that.”

Last year’s team opened the season on a 0-5 skid and finished with a 2-5 record at the Rose Bowl. Kelley said he and his teammates didn’t understand what “reflecting the mission” truly meant at the start of last season, but that he has it under his belt heading into his final year in blue and gold.

Barnes said being in Kelly’s system for a year has helped tremendously and that he is already holding the younger players accountable for getting adjusted as soon as possible.

“For us to be able to know (Kelly’s) standards for the team, (that) is where we’re at,” Barnes said. “Us leaders have established that for the freshmen who just came in six weeks ago, and they know what the standards are and they’re upholding them.”

Pushing to exceed expectations

UCLA was picked to finish tied for third in the Pac-12 South Division in Wednesday’s annual preseason media poll, while July 15 the Westgate Las Vegas Superbook set the Bruins’ over-under at 6.5 wins. Despite the middling results expected from the outside, Kelley said he and running back coach DeShaun Foster – who was on the last UCLA team to make a Rose Bowl in 1999 – routinely talk about the potential of making it back to the historic bowl game.

“You can’t go to a single running backs meeting without (Foster) talking about the Rose Bowl team,” Kelley said. “If you want to go to a Rose Bowl, it takes a lot of hard work, it takes a lot of confidence. That’s something that we’ve always wanted to do, play in the big game like that, and he gives us a lot of insight of what it feels like.”

Kelley was named an honorable mention for the media’s preseason All-Pac-12 team after rushing for 1,243 yards and 12 touchdowns in 2018.

Howard and senior kicker JJ Molson also received votes for honorable mention, while junior defensive back Darnay Holmes was the lone Bruin to make the all-conference second team. UCLA did not have any representatives on the first team.

Former UCLA running back arrested for attempted murder, attempted armed robbery

This post was updated July 24 at 3:14 p.m.

A former UCLA football player was arrested Thursday in connection to an alleged attempt to rob a Riverside County medical marijuana dispensary in 2016, several outlets report.

Craig Lee, a running back for the Bruins from 2013 to 2015, was charged with one count of attempted murder and one count of attempted second-degree robbery, according to court documents. His arrest came after a three-year investigation into the alleged crime.

Lee joined UCLA football as a four-star recruit in 2013, but was dismissed from the team in 2015 after failing to qualify academically, according to a former LA Times reporter. The now-23-year-old did not take a single snap with the Bruins despite being ranked as the nation’s No. 21 running back in his high school recruiting class.

The arrest followed a complaint filed against Lee on June 27. Lee is being held at the Robert Presley Detention Center in Riverside, California, on $1 million bail. He will be arraigned Thursday at 8:30 a.m., according to court documents.

Contributing reports from Martín Bilbao, Daily Bruin contributor, and Marilyn Chavez-Martinez, Campus Politics editor.

TV review: ‘Big Little Lies’ season 2 delivers underwhelming plot despite strong acting

The courtroom showdown between Nicole Kidman and Meryl Streep was the soap opera equivalent to the Super Bowl.

Celeste (Kidman) finally turns the tables on conniving mother-in-law Mary Louise (Streep) in a cathartic face-off that establishes an early, palpable tension. But despite the unquestionable star power, the climax of the “Big Little Lies” season two finale Sunday night lacked both the intrigue and the unpredictability of the murder mystery that was the framework for the show’s initial critical acclaim. The controversial decision to extend the near-perfect miniseries led to an uneven second installment with an exquisitely acted but underwhelming conclusion.

[RELATED: ‘Game of Thrones’ season 8 recap – Episode 6: ‘The Iron Throne’]

Much of the second season of “Big Little Lies” was bogged down by repetitive, heavy-handed storytelling, and the finale was, unfortunately, no exception. In lieu of any meaningful insight, Madeline (Reese Witherspoon) reminds viewers the “the lie” regarding the five women’s involvement in Perry’s (Alexander Skarsgård) death is taking a toll on them – an unnecessary verbalization of what the audience has watched unfold for seven episodes.

The finale’s focal point lingers on such feelings, and reiterates what has become hackneyed storylines this season: Madeline is still desperate to reconnect with her husband, Bonnie (Zoë Kravitz) is still thinking about killing her comatose mother and Gordon (Jeffrey Nordling) is still a pitiful excuse for a husband. Almost every character suffers from a monotonous stagnancy, illustrating the show’s lack of captivating material to sustain a second season. And when compared to the genuinely riveting character arcs of the season one, too many plot lines this season fall flat.

While the season’s storylines do eventually progress toward resolution this episode, the results often feel unearned. Celeste conveniently stumbles on a piece of critical video evidence right before her big day in court, providing an all-too-simple way to substantiate the accusations against her late husband.

Jane’s (Shailene Woodley) resolution also favors convenience over realism. After her implausibly mature 7-year-old son Ziggy (Iain Armitage) claims he can tell she wants to be with her nice-guy coworker, Jane decides she’s ready to be intimate again. The scene in which Ziggy spouts profound observations about her romantic feelings is at best a corny mother-son moment and at worst, lazy writing that undermines the show’s understanding of sexual assault. Jane’s decision to open up after experiencing severe trauma is not entirely unbelievable, but the show – and her character – would have benefited from a more in-depth examination of the healing process that led her there.

The season lacked narrative substance, but the all-star cast still managed to put forth layered, thought-provoking performances viewers have come to expect from the show. Laura Dern delivers yet another classic Renata Klein tirade, channeling a deserved, uninhibited rage that women on and off screen are too often denied. And an honorable mention goes to James Tupper, who, despite his minimal screen time, wows with his silent, on-the-verge-of-tears reaction to his wife telling him she was never in love with him.

[RELATED: Spider-Man battles monsters of expectation, grief in ‘Far From Home’]

However, out of all the A-list actors, Streep and Kidman were certainly set up to be the finale’s stars. During the court scene, Streep’s facial twitching, darting eyes and frantic head tilts give Emmy voters ample material to draw from. Kidman’s searing eyes and unwavering voice were no less powerful, proving she’s one of the few women who can shine beside Streep. Watching the two powerhouses go back and forth in a boxing match between the psyches of two damaged mothers was undeniably enjoyable.

But even the committed performances of two of Hollywood’s best could not make up for the shaky, contrived writing, which prolonged the custody battle that should have ended in the previous episode. The continuation of the courtroom drama is a glaringly obvious attempt to orchestrate a dramatic climax between two of the show’s heaviest hitting actresses that rivals the quality of the season one finale.

But the season’s largest injustice was its haphazard treatment of Kravitz’s character Bonnie. She spends most of her screen time sitting in a hospital having visions that never come true, despite her central role in the story. The final episode all but disregards her incessant dreams of water and drowning, choosing to focus more on Streep’s villainous mother-in-law rather than the character who set the entire premise of the second season in motion. Viewers leave season two much how they left season one: knowing frustratingly little about Bonnie Carlson.

Bonnie’s is one of the only storylines that concludes on a darker note, while the other plotlines are tied up with a pretty bow by the end of the episode. The finale’s uncharacteristic push toward total resolution proves less satisfying than a more authentic bittersweet ending, sacrificing elements of the realism that made season one so compelling. Both the latest episode and the series’ second season as a whole ultimately failed to justify the story’s continuation.

And although the episode’s cut-to-black conclusion might be considered a cliffhanger, the resolution of the “big little lie” that drove the narrative of the show’s sophomore season played out as disappointingly safe.

Behind The Bruin: What goes into deciding to use anonymous sources, why they can be important

The Daily Bruin doesn’t write itself. Behind every copy placed on newsstands and every story published online, lies the journalistic process of hundreds of hard-working contributors, staffers and editors. Every day, important decisions are made to determine what is reported, how the reporting happens and in what ways we can best serve our readers. This is Behind The Bruin.

As a first look into the process of producing content at The Bruin, Editor-in-chief Angie Forburger details the use of anonymous sources and deciding when and how to use them.

One of the first things a journalist learns is the power of sourcing.

Journalism is an outlet for writers to become storytellers and provide their readers with insight into an individual, issue, event or burning question plaguing society. Knowing how to write is key for a journalist. But knowing how to report – that is when good journalists become great.

It’s the duty of a journalist to openly and honestly share the truth in their reporting, and this means that sources are informed that their words will be shared and that their identities will be public. There are cases, however, when what’s said is so poignant to the source themselves that they would prefer to speak anonymously.

The question of anonymous sources – whether to allow them, when to use them and if stories can be told with them alone – has been raised at one point or another within every publication.

The Washington Post tackled this question in 1974 when it reported on one of the biggest scandals involving a presidential administration: Watergate. The Post gathered key details about then-President Richard Nixon’s abuse of power from an anonymous source who it named “Deep Throat” – details it wouldn’t have been able to obtain otherwise.

Most news organizations, such as the Daily Bruin, avoid anonymous sourcing whenever possible, as not releasing the names of sources diminishes the credibility of the story and hinders the publication’s transparency to its readers.

But sometimes there is room for an exception.

The Bruin grants sources anonymity on a case-by-case basis, which is my job as editor in chief. I make the call on whether to allow an anonymous source for a story – I ask myself whether a story would be incomplete without the inclusion of that source.

I look at the positives of anonymous sourcing in two ways. The first is through the eyes of the reader – allowing him or her to get a perspective they may have not been able to obtain otherwise.

The second is through the eyes of the source.

If it weren’t for anonymity, many sources would not feel comfortable or safe sharing their story, whether they’re providing an insider perspective or recounting a personal experience. I want to give people that ability – if the severity of the situation warrants it, that is.

News organizations have a duty to serve their readers, which is why openness and the inclusion of detail is so important.

There is no set of criteria in which I allow anonymous sourcing. It varies depending on the content of the story, the time peg and the people involved.

The most recent use of an anonymous source in The Bruin was the story involving the removal of UCLA’s Spirit Squad director. A current member of the UCLA dance team was willing to share her experience in connection to the situation – but only anonymously.

In large part, the Spirit Squad represents the UCLA community. It stands at sporting events with UCLA written across its uniforms, cheering on behalf of every Bruin fan.

But more than being a member of the Spirit Squad, each and every person on the team is a fellow student. And I wanted to give this student the opportunity to share her story on our platform – in a way she was comfortable with.

The Spirit Squad story would have been incomplete without the personal recount from the dance team member. It wouldn’t have even been a story, as the Spirit Squad member provided the unique perspective of being at the show and experiencing the accusation firsthand.

Without her words, our publication could not have shared such intimate details with our readers. That is why anonymous sourcing is important and why The Bruin, when it’s deemed necessary, allows it.

The Quad: Astrology app breaks down what’s written in the stars in the palm of one’s hand

“What is your star sign?”

This question comes up often, and it’s not just an icebreaker question a TA might ask on the first day of discussion. Many simply divulge what they know to be their basic sun sign, which is determined by one’s birth date. However, there’s more to the study of astrology than what’s found in the back of a magazine’s horoscope section.

For those who believe in astrology, a wealth of information lies behind the simple answer of “Gemini” or “Sagittarius” – and they all have to do with the specific details of your birth, such as time and location.

As a practice, astrology is based on the movement of the planets and other celestial bodies. Reading astrology therefore tells the story of the universe, and of ourselves based on how the planets and celestial bodies were aligned in the universe when we came into the world.

Aliza Kelly, astrologer, podcast host and author of “The Mixology of Astrology: Cosmic Cocktails for Every Sign” and “Starring You: A Guided Journey Through Astrology” said that every planet and celestial body serves a different purpose.

“(Planets and celestial bodies) all behave in their own way and have different roles in the zodiac and within astrology,” Kelly said.

According to astrologers, our day-to-day personality and fabric of being comes from sun, moon and rising signs. These signs represent ego and identity, emotions, and external perspective on reality, respectively.

The remaining planets – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto – govern varying aspects of our identity. For example, Mercury, Venus and Mars are more telling of our personality. Respectively, the three represent communicative expression, love and values, and determination and action.

In order to understand how each planet and celestial body’s function is influenced by the zodiac sign that it occupies, those studying signs first have to determine which planets and celestial bodies are occupied by the zodiac. This is determined by looking at one’s natal chart.

By definition, a natal chart, often referred to as a birth chart, is a snapshot of the sky at our exact moment of birth. Calculating one’s birth chart is relatively simple: It requires a time, date and place of birth.

“Natal charts … serve as your personality blueprint,” Kelly said. “According to astrology, it is the primary, and really sole, document that we use to understand the way someone is wired, the way they behave and the way they react.”

When analyzing a natal chart, astrological houses also hold great significance in relation to one’s personality blueprint. There are 12 houses, which all reflect the Earth’s 24-hour rotation about its axis. Each house corresponds to a different theme in our lives. For example, the first house deals with our outward and physical image, and the second house is in regard to our material wealth and possessions.

When a planet enters a certain house, they energize said house. The greater the energy present in a specific house, the more recurrent we may find its themes in our lives.

But concepts such as natal charts and houses often seem overly complicated to decipher for the average person. Luckily, many tools that contain information about planetary and celestial movement exist, and offer a wide range of personalized astrological information at the user’s fingertips.

One such tool is an app called Co-Star, which harnesses data from NASA in conjunction with one’s birth specifics such as birth date, location and time. In just the last month, the app reached nearly 500,000 downloads.

“Co–Star is a hyper-personalized, social experience bringing astrology into the 21st century,” reads the company’s Twitter bio.

Despite these advancements, Co–Star still has its blind spots. The app presents astrological information from planets to houses in the form of a chart. While this is a simple and easy-to-read layout, this very same layout doesn’t paint the full picture of what natal astrology is in describing who you are, according to Kelly.

“Co–Star is an amazing gateway into astrology, but the problem with it is that it does not depict natal charts as they should really be read, which is a 360 degree circle,” Kelly said. “Everybody has all of the houses represented in their charts, but Co–Star displays it as a list.”

This layout, in turn, omits a very crucial aspect of our natal charts: houses. Some houses may not appear on one’s chart when using the app, which leads to assumptions of an empty house, and by extension, an empty, unaddressed theme in our lives.

But it’s not that black and white.

“We are influenced by all 12 of the houses,” Kelly said. “Every person is comprised of the entire 360 wheel, and every house is important and has significance.”

Perhaps the takeaway shouldn’t be that astrological apps like Co–Star can’t be trusted. Rather, they represent but one of the many branches of astrology, and therefore only one of the many ways in which the activities of planets and celestial bodies can be interpreted.

It turns out that there’s something in the stars for everyone, and there’s more to it than just your zodiac sign. Answering that “What is your star sign?” question might be a little more nuanced after all.