Lifestyle

Under 99 Gazillion Served: Hodad’s Burgers

Nestled in the heart of Ocean Beach, 30 minutes from UCSD lies a burger joint primed to give In-N-Out a run for its fast-earned money.  It’s hard to ignore the allure of Hodad’s “world’s best burgers” — founded in 1969, it’s a critic’s darling, named one of CNN’s Top 5 burger joints last year and featured (read: gushed about) on Guy Fieri’s Food Network show “Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives” only two years ago. ...

Boring us to Death: The Haunted Hotel

We may have outgrown trick-or-treating, but for those interested in dodging the typical booze-and-slutty-costume fare, The Haunted Hotel — located 25 minutes away from UCSD in the Gaslamp District — may be the perfect solution. Open from Sept. 24 to Oct. 31 (7 p.m. – 11 p.m. on Sunday, Wednesday and Thursday and 6 p.m. – 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday), this walk-through freakshow is the longest running haunted house in San Diego, and was featured on Travel Channel’s “America Haunts IV” in 2009. ...

Equestrian Club

When Sarah Simpson tells people she’s on the Equestrian Team, she usually hears the same response: “Equestrian team? So do you guys, like, sit around and ask each other questions?” ...

Dick’s Last Resort

The moment you walk into Dick’s Last Resort, check your dignity at the door. Look up. A pair of panties emblazoned with I heartDicks hangs on the wall. I went to the restaurant for a birthday party and, though I really should have known better, I had no idea I was about to pay for everyone to be, well, a dick to us. The décor is reminiscent of a rowdy sports restaurant, exaggerated by the hundred bras that line the bar. Some have names, some have numbers, and some look like they’re 20 years old. Surprisingly, I liked Dick’s- — it was deliciously gaudy and occasionally just delicious. ...

CALPIRG

[caption id="attachment_18671" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Michael Ciaglo/Guardian"][/caption] You’ve met them before — on Library Walk, in class, outside Geisel. You lock eyes with them for a split second, recognizing the clipboard and bright student-org shirt. Before you can escape, they say the dreaded words: “Have you pledged CALPIRG?” In other words, “Would you like another $5 line item on your quarterly eBill?” But winning over student donors isn’t the hardest part of their job. Since 1975, with the help of professional lobbyists and attorneys, the California Student Public Interest Research Group has undertaken causes ranging from healthcare reform to hunger and homelessness. They petition lawmakers, protest at public events, lobby in Sacramento and Washington DC, write letters and make phone calls to elected officials, as well as raise awareness in the more immediate community. CALPIRG is an offshoot of U.S. PERG, and has student charters at all the UC campuses except for UC Merced, as well as at USC and Santa Monica Community College. All the student charters hold a joint conference every quarter, where they discuss current events, brainstorm campaign strategies and prioritize which issues to focus on for the coming three months. Any student can attend, but only the executive committee — composed of a chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer and a few representatives, elected by student members of CALPIRG — has voting power. As with any such large-scale organization, the hot topic of the night is always the budget. This Spring Quarter, the bulk of CALPIRG income will go toward a campaign for affordable education; in fall, it will mostly go toward a campaign for global warming solutions. According to CALPIRG executives, 20 percent of their funding comes from grants and outside foundations, while 80 percent is raised through the pledge system — in which CALPIRG volunteers ask student passersby to fill out a pledge card that adds $5 to their quarterly bill on Tritonlink. “They know us as the people with the orange stickers, and they think that’s all we do — ask for money — but we get results,” Warren College senior and CALPIRG Vice Chair Tania Herrera said. The pledge system was instated in the late 1970s, after CALPIRG condemned various companies responsible for chemical spills — companies in which some members of the UC Board of Regents had stake. The regents decided CALPIRG could remain on UC campuses if they could convince 20 percent of the student population to pledge under contract every year. Although CALPIRG-hired campus organizer Adam Gosney declined to comment, Herrera approximated that 5,000 UCSD students pledge CALPIRG, generating roughly 75,000 dollars a year. (On average, 30,000 students pledge yearly on a statewide level.) Another $18,750 is raised through grants and outside foundations — totaling 93,750 a year. UCSD’s charter divides its budget so that 30 to 40 percent pays Gosney’s salary. About 55 percent is used to hire professional staff — lawyers, lobbyists, scientists and advocates — to pressure lawmakers and special interest groups. A remaining 5 percent goes toward overhead costs like rent and materials. Students work for free — as volunteers or interns. “What makes us different from other groups — and what makes us so effective — is that we have professional staff working full time,” said Tiffany Rezvani, Eleanor Roosevelt College freshman and media coordinator for CALPIRG’s affordable education campaign during Winter Quarter 2010. In addition to the professional staff, funds also go to purchasing office space and materials like stickers and T-shirts. When they aren’t fundraising, most CALPIRG student volunteers spend their time raising awareness on campus. Eight different campaigns are currently underway, including the Textbooks Campaign — which shoots to make textbooks available for free on the web — and the Public Transit Campaign, a push for more state funding toward public transit and completion of the UCSD trolley extension. UCSD student-volunteers traveled to the Los Angeles Courthouse last October to make La Jolla Shores a protected marine area — a measure that a California State Panel passed the next month. In addition, in light of recent fee increases, these same volunteers have been approaching candidates for the upcoming California governor’s race at public forums, pressuring them at the podium to make concrete statements on their plans for keeping public education affordable. “We’re out there giving students opportunities to act in that moment,” Herrera said. “Whether it’s signing petitions — whether it’s making calls, writing a story or volunteering — it’s on-the-spot kind of stuff. If you see us, we’re up to something you can get involved in right there and then.” In CALPIRG’s quarterly internship program students commit about 10 hours a week in exchange for four course credits. There are also numerous short-term volunteer positions available. Everyone is welcome at general body meetings, held Tuesdays at 7 p.m. in Room 203 of the Student Center. Visit www.calpirgstudents.org/ucsd for more information. ...

California Primary Election Voting Guide

Don’t forget to vote on June 8. There will be on-campus polling places at Price Center East, Muir College’s Half-Dome Lounge and Warren  College’s Student Activity Center. GOVERNOR Republican Candidate: Steve Poizner On the surface, there is little that distinguishes the Republican Party’s two leading gubernatorial candidates from one another: Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman are both noted business leaders, have plenty of personal wealth to bolster their campaigns and have committed to slamming the other in extensive ad campaigns. The priorities they’ve outlined so far aren’t too different, either. Both candidates have stated their intent to crack down on immigration reform, pursue tax cuts and reduce state spending in an effort to remedy California’s ailing economy. But a closer examination reveals that — while Whitman is declaredly in support of many of the same fiscal proposals touted by Poizner — she has put almost no effort into fleshing out any real plans for implementing and maintaining the type of budgetary reform needed to re-establish our state as a sustainable economic powerhouse. Poizner, on the other hand, has spent much of his campaign honing a well-defined, step-by-step plan to boost internal revenue and cut from California’s bloated state bureaucracy. His most notable proposal — a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut that would reduce personal income tax and state sales tax — is a bold move designed to stimulate individual spending in California’s darkest financial hour. Though it’s pretty shortsighted to slash from two of the state’s most important revenue sources, Poizner at least has a plan. The way Whitman’s running her campaign, there’s no telling what she might do if she snatches the governor’s seat. Aside from his irrationally conservative budget proposal, Poizner shows a few other red flags. He’s a staunch proponent of harsh immigration regulations. He’s said he would dramatically limit access to public universities for illegal aliens, and recently declared his support for Arizona’s iron-fisted new immigration laws. Poizner has also shown himself to be more of a social conservative than he’d like the state’s left-leaning voter base to think, supporting California’s ongoing ban on gay marriage and opposing marijuana legalization. It won’t be social issues that define the Republican primary race, though. With the state economy in shambles and a legislature incapable of forging any effective solutions, the candidate who comes out on top is going to be the one who demonstrates clear ideas for how to whip California back into shape. In that respect, Poizner is our man. Democratic Candidate: Jerry Brown Son to a former California governor — and lifted into the position himself after the Reagan regime — Democrat Jerry Brown was born for this stuff. After 40-plus years in state government, he is a living caricature of the steadfast liberal “nice guy,” with a husky-voiced sincerity and track record that makes him hard to pick apart as anything but the real thing. At this point, though, Brown’s status as default Sacramento nobility gives his second stab at governorship an air of sketchiness. He’s been too cocky to release a single game plan for the coming term, meanwhile flicking all other legitimate Democratic contenders out of the race with a lifetime of special-interest connections to back him. Still, even if all we have to go off are Brown’s past accomplishments, they are groundbreaking and many. Brown gave the Cesar Chavez worker-rights movement a leg up by refusing to send state troopers in to break up immigrant protests — essentially bringing agriculture into the mainstream push for labor rights. He also halted the growth of Pacific Gas and Electric, forcing the power mogul to run energy-saving campaigns instead of building more plants. Of the six remaining candidates, not one has a scrap of Brown’s experience — nor, for that matter, a fighting chance in Monday’s Democratic primary. Immigrant rights and energy conservation are still two of the hottest issues on the table, and Brown proved to us long ago that his heart and head are in the right place regarding all that which matters most. U.S. SENATOR Republican Candidate: Tom Campbell Tom Campbell’s strengths lie in his thoughtfulness and experience. Though his fiscally conservative proposals to curb federal spending may not make for the fastest path to economic recovery, we can rest assured that — given his academic and political experience — they are at least informed enough to transcend cheap bids for support. More importantly, his surprising support for the right to abortion and gay marriage suggests he is more concerned with expanding social liberties than pushing a moral agenda. He may still want to throw his weight behind privatized medical care and the construction of a physical barrier along California’s border with Mexico — overly simple suggestions to complex problems — but overall, he’s less extreme on social issues than main Republican contender and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Fiorina has proven quite the staunch conservative: She not only wants to keep the Guantanamo Bay prison in business, but is responsible for what is quite possibly the most absurd campaign attack ad of all time (Google “Tom Campbell wolf in sheep’s clothing”). We’ll stick with the lesser of two Republicans, thank you very much. Democratic Candidate: Barbara Boxer Now gunning for her fourth term as senator, it’s become increasingly clear that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has gotten a little too comfortable in her legislative high chair. Though she’s been a steadfast advocate for key progressive policies like environmental regulation, educational reform and the right to choose, she’s never been the most creative or dynamic state leader. Her careful record as senator indicates she’s likely to follow whatever new plan her Democratic counterparts come up with next rather than pursue an issue relevant to her constituents. Regardless, Boxer’s only opponent — Slate Magazine blogger and political author Robert “Mickey” Klaus — is a long-shot contender for the Democratic nomination. Though we feel there’s always a need to challenge a politician who’s offered little in the way of flexible or energetic leadership, Klaus has yet to demonstrate any ability to transform from pensive writer to swift politician. So, with a bit of reluctance, we offer our endorsement to Boxer. Come general-election season, no matter her Republican opponent, Boxer will be as good as it gets. YES ON PROPOSITION 13 What 13 Would Do Encourage property owners to make their buildings earthquake-resistant by offering them a tax break. Why You Should Vote ‘Yes’ The safety-first measure is the closest thing to a no-brainer on the primary ballot. This has been a particularly lethal year in earthquake history — and our famously fault-lined state should take heed. That’s why Proposition 13 — probably the least contentious measure on the ballot — is both timely and necessary. Currently, after a building is renovated for seismic safety, its property value (and tax) can be reassessed after 15 years. Though lawmakers may exempt certain buildings from this time limit to encourage property owners to sure up their structures, those renovators who are not exempt still face a spike in property taxes once the 15-year limit is up. Prop. 13 would eliminate all time limits, so that renovations relating to earthquake safety would only affect a building’s property value after it has changed ownership. Most importantly, it would encourage property owners to make their buildings more earthquake resistant. If you want to slim your chances of being caught in a dilapidated brick building next time the floor starts trembling, vote ‘Yes’ on 13. It’s only a matter of time before the big one hits. YES ON PROPOSITION 14 What 14 Would Do Eliminate two-party primary elections by introducing an all-inclusive ballot; only the top two candidates would advance. Why You Should Vote ‘Yes’ It’s an admirable step toward making the primary system a little more democratic. Proposition 14 is an ambitious dreamer of an initiative. It aims to disintegrate the crippling partisanship in state politics that has bogged down the legislative process in California for far too long. The way our primary system functions, only those voters who are registered as Democrats or Republicans (or who request a ballot from either party in advance) are eligible to participate in the election — causing candidates to reach out to supporters at the most extreme poles, who are generally more likely to show up for the first round. Proposition 14 would change all that. Instead of receiving separate ballots, all voters — regardless of party affiliation — would make their choices on a long list of all the candidates. The two who received the most votes would advance to the general election. While some proponents of the measure — such as Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) — assert it would bring about the end of fractional partisan politics, it’s hardly that kind of definitive cure-all. Political allegiances won’t disappear anytime soon, nor will incessant partisan bickering. What Proposition 14 could do, though, is still worth noting: The measure would involve more swing voters in the preliminary stages of the race, requiring politicians to reach out beyond their most loyal bases if they wish to advance. In the end, we support any effort to democratize our election system, regardless of any freak upset it may cause down the line. YES ON PROPOSITION 15 What 15 Would Do Provide provisional public funding to state campaigns and levy an additional fee on lobbyist funding. Why You Should Vote ‘Yes’ Candidates without financial backing from special-interest groups might finally have a chance at a campaign. It’s no secret: Special interests command California’s electoral system. Outside campaign contributions of up to $600 million make most politicians into the servants of powerful unions and corporations — rather than the voters who place them in office. Proposition 15 is a small step toward eliminating this all-powerful and abusive system. The measure would strike down California’s ban on public financing of elections, instead starting up a pilot program to offer funds to candidates running for secretary of state, and eventually other offices, if things work out. Best of all, the funds would be raised by charging Capitol lobbyists — not taxpayers themselves — additional fees for their exploits. Though it is a tentative move toward making our election system a bit more honest — and still limited to just one office — the measure would offer voters a glimpse at what politics could look like once the grip of special interests is loosened and candidates are beholden to the public. Smaller, less wealthy hopefuls would at least have a fraction of a chance. Unfortunately, the measure provides for little oversight on how the candidates could spend the money they receive — potentially allowing for improper use of public funds. But campaign finance reform has to start somewhere, and Proposition 15 is a budge in the right direction. NO ON PROPOSITION 16 What 16 Would Do Require approval by two-thirds of voters for a local government to use public funds to expand or create municipal utilities. Why You Should Vote ‘No’ This is special-interest electioneering at its ugliest. Prop. 17 is an initiative of the insurance companies, by the insurance companies and for the insurance companies. If passed, automobile insurers will rake in profit by raising rates for customers who haven’t had continuous coverage for the past five years. It doesn’t matter if you have a perfect driving record, and it doesn’t matter why you were uninsured. Canceled to serve in the military? Higher rates. Canceled after being laid off? Higher rates. What if you’ve never been insured because you’re a carless college student? You guessed it: higher rates. Just like Proposition 17 — another thinly veiled piece of corporate-interest legislation on this summer’s ballot — Proposition 16 represents capitalist interests at their ugliest. (Energy giant Pacific Gas and Elecric has thrown a reported $35 million at its ‘Yes’ campaign.) The measure would change the state constitution to require a two-thirds public vote for any local government to establish or expand another public electricity provider. In other words, it would cement PG&E’s gaping monopoly on state electricity into law. Of course, the initiative’s chief proponents would have you believe otherwise. With glossy print propaganda touting the measure as the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act,” PG&E is attempting to frame the initiative as a way to empower voters. In reality, it would create a stiff roadblock for competition in the electricity industry — thereby enabling companies like PG&E to tap customer wallets however they see fit. Not only is a two-thirds voter majority exceedingly hard to come by, but it’s also a losing battle for all those public electricity providers that are legally prohibited from contributing to the “‘No’ on 16” campaign. The only empowerment that would result from this proposition is that of electricity giants — more than enough to justify our ‘No’ vote on Proposition 16. NO ON PROPOSITION 17 What 17 Would DO Allow car-insurance companies to base premiums on how long drivers have been insured. Why You Should Vote ‘No’ Insurance costs would rise for anyone who’s had a break in coverage. That means you, college kid. The proposition is sponsored by Mercury Insurance, who tried to pass a similar initiative before — and illegally surcharged its customers based on their previous history until ordered to stop in 2005. Mercury emphasizes that Proposition 17 would benefit the 80 percent of drivers who switch insurance carriers by saving them the $250 surcharge required of new customers. The proposition’s fine print, however, reveals that Mercury intends to balance out the money consumers save — and then some — by raising premiums for everyone else. Sparing a one-time charge for the fortunate many isn’t very valuable when the bottom 20 percent happens to be financing those savings. What’s more, the California Department of Insurance estimates that if this measure passes, the amount of uninsured drivers will increase by 20 percent. And if more people drive uninsured, the cost of insurance rises for everyone else. In the end, the only real winners here are insurance companies — and that’s where we call bullshit. San Diego Initiatives YES ON PROPOSITION A Staunch environmentalists might not be thrilled at the prospect of digging out another landfill, but Proposition A — which would allow for the construction of a new landfill and recycling center in East Otay Mesa — handles our waste problem as responsibly as possible. The state estimates that San Diego County will run out of local waste space within 20 years, at which point it would become necessary to transport our trash to other counties — an expensive, unsustainable prospect that would be far more wasteful than constructing an additional space for our refuse in a sparsely populated part of San Diego. NO ON PROPOSITION B It’s no wonder the San Diego chapter of the Service Employees International Union has rallied support for a Board of Supervisors term limit: They wish to throw out long-standing members who don’t prioritize union pay and benefits. But outside of this special interest, a term limit would only weigh on county operations. Just look at Sacramento. Legislators are whisked in and out of office so fast, they don’t have time to learn from their mistakes — nor begin to get along. A similar situation on a local level would clog City Hall progress and ultimately limit voters’ freedom to stick with a candidate they trust. ...

Ukulele Club

Every Friday night in Warren College, the bubbly voice of the ukulele can be heard drifting from the conference room of the Computer and Science Engineering Building — all thanks to a freshmen seminar taught by computer-science and engineering department chair Keith Marzullo. ...

SMASHBURGER

  [caption id="attachment_18485" align="alignright" width="200" caption="Daniel Yuan/Guardian"][/caption] If Plaza Cafe’s frightening excuse for beef gives you a food-poisoning hangover the size of Milwaukee, head to the corner of Prospect Street and Girard Avenue to satisfy your cow cravings. There’s a new burger joint in town: It’s called Smashburger and it’s the latest in a long line of Smashburgers known for their customizable options, cold beers and designer selection of savory meat. With a minimalist aesthetic — as the shop is too cramped to be decorated — Smashburger’s ambience screams high class In-N-Out. If it weren’t for the “smash” and “sizzle” boldly painted red on its nondescript walls, we would almost be dining in a dimly lit Abercrombie and Fitch. Smashburger’s clientele, however, quickly pulls us from the delusions of VIP dining. A Mecca for La Jolla families, the shop’s red polyester booths are usually crawling with whiney high-schoolers or snotty five-year-olds. First impressions and callow clientele aside, Smashburger’s juicy patties never fail to hit the spot. By slamming and smashing the beef patties onto the grill, chefs keep all savory flavor locked inside, await release at first bite. The fact that it’s Angus Beef makes the experience even more divine — if only because of its reputation for off-the-charts fat content. When ordering, customers can either design their own burger or try one of Smashburger’s specialties. If you need a fiery kick, try the Spicy Baja, topped with chipotle mayo and fresh, thick slices of jalapeno. Another top option is the San Diego Smashburger: a pile of fresh avocados and veggies, covered in pepper jack and slathered in sour cream. The Smashchicken is a healthier (yet still delicious) choice, in which the chicken is literally smashed into a quarter-inch thick slice — making the flavor as concentrated as can be. Although side dishes are fairly pricey— an extra $2 to $3 with the purchase of a sandwich — most are hard to resist. The Smashfries, seasoned with olive oil, rosemary and garlic, taste exactly like Mom’s oven-roasted potatoes on Thanksgiving. But skip the haystack onions and fried pickles: Though the creamy dipping sauces that come with these sides are delicious, they do little to overpower an over-whelming saltiness. And unless you like your asparagus, carrots and green beans drenched in a shower of oil, pass on the veggie fries. At the end of the day Smashburger is best known for its milkshakes, made from real Haagen-Dazs and served in tall ice cream glasses with whipped cream on top. The post-meal staple lets us fee like all we need on a Friday night is a jukebox and a maraschino cherry — a little taste of simpler times in a land of lavish modernities. ...

Departments Balance Student Fees, State Funds, Grants

Existing within a system that weathered an $813 million drop in state funding last year — and facing another direct $7 million cut next year — the academic departments of UCSD rely on a delicately budgeted balance between university money and grants toward research in the sciences and arts. Control of departmental funding begins in the UC Office of the President, then trickles down to the UCSD office of Academic Affairs, individual division heads and then department heads themselves. According to Chief Financial Officer for Academic Affairs Debbie McGraw, her office divides the university’s pool of funds — consisting of student fees, state funds and grants — between five recipients: arts and humanities, physical sciences, biological sciences, engineering and social sciences. The divisions each house individual departments — for example, arts and humanities is composed of the philosophy, literature, music, theatre and dance, visual arts, and history departments. The size of each share varies by division and is reallocated every fiscal year. This year, Academic Affairs allocated approximately $36.4 billion among the divisions. Of this amount, about $6.1 million was allocated to the arts and humanities division, $7.4 million to social sciences, $10.2 million to engineering, $7.7 million to physical sciences and $5 million to biological sciences.  “Every department has a permanent support budget,” McGraw said. “That means that there is a certain amount of dollars that — unless someone comes to actively cut or add to it — they can count on it every year. This is a budget that is specifically set for staff and for other support needs — telephones, supplies, supporting the class labs.” McGraw said Academic Affairs bases its allocations on factors such as the number of faculty members in each division, the number of students enrolled in each division and the amount of outside grant support the divisions receive. Of all the undergraduates on campus, only 9 percent have not declared a major. Thirty-six percent, on the other hand, have chosen the social-science division — the largest of the divisions, home to 342 faculty members. The arts-and-humanities division contains 276 faculty and 8 percent of undergraduates, whereas engineering has 226 faculty members and 18 percent of undergraduates. The physical-science division has 255 faculty members and 9 percent of undergraduates, whereas biological science has only 88 faculty members but 20 percent of the undergraduates. Divisional funding is also heavily impacted by grant activity, since the science divisions are much more likely to bring in non-state funds. Unlike the funds allocated by the university, grant money is gifted to individual faculty members or research groups who seek funding from outside sources. Last year, as illustrated in the graph on page one, the grant activity total was only $360,000 for arts and humanities and $2.9 million for social sciences, whereas engineering received $46.1 million in grants, physical sciences received $28.5 million and biological sciences received $22.7 million. McGraw said that another factor Academic Affairs takes into account is need — for example, the engineering department receives the most outside funding, but it also receives the most divisional funding because of the high cost of computers, software and other equipment that the arts and humanities department might not need. “Special factors that we look at include the sciences, which have lab courses that drive certain costs, and the arts, which have performances that drive certain costs,” McGraw said. “We try to compare one against another when we figure out how much money to give or cut.” If grants are taken into account, the amount a division receives from Academic Affairs is often an inaccurate estimation of the overall money that departments are receiving.  “Arts and humanities has the three humanities departments — literature, history and philosophy — and they have three art departments: theater, visual arts and music,” McGraw said. “They have very complicated staffing needs to support their productions. So if you look at humanities versus arts, there’s not the same funding across the board. The humanities do have less. And they don’t have contracts and grants to manage. They don’t have costly laboratories.” According to McGraw, once all these factors are taken into account, each division receives a fair amount of funding every year. Once funds are allocated to the divisions, the dean of each division then evaluates similar factors — like the number of faculty members, the number of students enrolled in that division and the amount of outside grants provided — within his or her area to decide how to allocate money to individual departments. “The departments go through a similar process: They look at workload, what needs are, how many enrollments and how many majors,” McGraw said. “They try to blend it together.” According to Associate Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education Barbara Sawrey, the Office of Academic Affairs sets aside money for each department’s faculty and teaching-assistant salaries, but otherwise does not control how the divisions allocate the remaining funds. “Academic Affairs provides funding to the departments, but it is the departments that determine how to set their own spending priorities,” Sawrey said. “We do not manage the expenditures.” Arts and Humanities Assistant Dean Heath Fox said department allocations are very rigid, as there are certain pools of money that must be used for certain purposes, such as office supplies. To allocate the remaining money, the dean considers factors such as enrollment levels and varying numbers and requests of faculty members in each department. Although Academic Affairs sets money aside for salaries, teaching assistants and supplies, the deans take care of more curriculum-related expenses — like paying for services such as temporary lecturers. He added that deans gauge the “need” for certain services as requested by faculty. “We are guided by the faculty in the department and what they articulate as the need,” Fox said. “That’s the biggest factor: what support requirements the departments have. And the second biggest factor is going to be the total amount of money that’s available in different funding categories. Those are basically the two things that will guide all the funding decisions.” McGraw said she is unsure of how academic divisions will be funded in the 2010–11 fiscal year, considering the budget cut of $7 million she said will be implemented next year. “We’re trying to figure out how to allocate a budget cut of about $7 million dollars,” McGraw said. “Seven million is a big number, and we’re kind of looking at three years in the future. Whatever number each division gets cut, we’re going to give them time to achieve it. Still, it’s going to be a cut they’re all going to have to take.” Readers can contact Connie Qian at [email protected] ...

UCSD Dancesport

Last week, Dancesport — UCSD’s competitive club dance team — made its national television debut, performing alongside Niecy Nash and Chad Ochocinco on ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars.” As one of four collegiate teams from across the nation chosen to appear this season, five UCSD couples performed a samba during the College Dance Championship portion of last Tuesday’s show. They were up against Purdue University. ...