Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education: Difference between revisions

Higher education Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Werdnabot Template:WPUNI sidebar

In light of the discussion above as well as a new debate at Talk:Johns Hopkins University, I think we need to clear the air about how we're going to go about deciding what rankings merit inclusion or not. The JHU debate centers on including or excluding the Forbes rankings on the basis of its supposed methodological unsoundness and thus reliability or notability for inclusion. The issue of assessing the notability of university rankings has never been fully discussed in my view and I'm not comfortable with the editors of each article adjudicating which rankings to include or not include given the obvious potential for these discussions to give undue weight to only positive rankings. I'd like to begin what I'm sure is a spirited discussion about amending WP:UNIGUIDE to more explicitly establish what rankings should or should not be included in an article or infobox template. This primarily concerns US universities, but there is also a proliferation of international rankings as well.

• Do we exclude rankings based upon lack of notability? How do we establish this notability?
• Do we judge methodological soundness as a measure of reliability for the source and for inclusion?
• Do we exclude popular but unreliable rankings but include potentially non-notable but more reliable rankings?

Feel free to add more questions below or discuss the preliminary ones I've proposed. Please also notify other editors of this discussion here. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean this as a defense of ranking systems, which all have severe intrinsic flaws. But the Forbes system would almost certainly receive a failing grade in any decent first-year graduate research design course:

1. Using post-graduate debt loads and graduation rates as stand-alone measures of quality essentially guarantees that schools attended by the less well-to-do will be relegated to the bottom of the rankings. Obviously, if a researcher chooses to consider such issues, the least he or she could do is to measure these variables in some sort of socio-economic context, that is basic social science. The Forbes system does not do so.
2. And speaking of basic social science, the use of a self-selected sample such as RateMyProfessors.com is simply preposterous. It merely displays what a small, unrepresentative sample have reported to some snarky website. (And no, the fact that all schools face the same problem doesn't level the playing field; awareness and use of RMP may vary significantly between campuses, and organized efforts may be mounted by various student groups.) Furthermore, the use of internal faculty evaluation by many universities voids the legitimacy of using RMP even further.
3. As for using Who's Who in America, even a cursory level of research should have revealed Tucker Carlson's brilliant takedown of the entire Who's Who enterprise. Carlson's article, after all, appeared in FORBES MAGAZINE! (http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0308/063.html).
4. Using salary surveys on payscale.com based on self-reported data by a self-selected group of alums. Not only is it not a scientific sample with no effort being made to verify possibly inflated salary claims, the data also takes into account only alums with terminal bachelor's degrees, so schools where a high percentage of graduates go on to graduate and professional programs will effectively be penalized by having many of its highest-earning alums pushed out of the data.
5. Glaringly absent, in all the Forbes focus on outcomes and satisfaction, is any consideration of selectivity. If you ignore selectivity (scores, class rank, admit rates), you are ignoring how the most capable students, the ones with the greatest range of choices, have voted with their feet and with their parents' wallets. The "votes" of every student - not just a self-selected few who report to payscale.com or ratemyprofessor.com - are aggregated in the selection metrics. So I think these (or other data reported in the Common Data Sets, such as freshman retention) are more reliable indicators of quality (as used by the ranking systems of USNEWS and ARWU) than the metrics Forbes uses.
6. Finally, as I have articulated above, Forbes mixes cost-related and quality-related factors in a very unprincipled way. This is an unorthodox way to rate things, whether we are talking about cars and washing machines or universities. Better to separate cost from quality in order to expose how much extra value one gets for extra cost. This ranking hides that. The criteria mixes outcomes with satisfaction and performance factors, but the outcomes (Who's Who listings or top salaries) are not necessarily the ones most sought by individual students or schools (even assuming they are entirely attributable to college quality, which they aren't).TennisGrandSlam (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, argh! Well, I noticed this and couldn't resist, although I'm not sure how much I can contribute to a meaningful discussion. Here's my dilemma: while I often tolerate rankings in Wikipedia articles with reliable sources, I really hate rankings. I hate rankings for the same reasons most people who hate rankings do: I feel like it's just a way for magazine to make money and support the status quo, for popular schools to stay popular and rich schools to stay rich. I guess there's something very Darwinian in that, but I don't think it's really good or natural selection, either. I think it's odd that schools like Daniel Webster College can be top-tier one year and on the verge of bankruptcy and loss of accreditation the next. And even if every single third- and fourth-tier school went bankrupt and defunct this weekend, you'd still have third- and fourth-tier schools next year -- they'd just be schools that used to be top-tier. I'm not sure there's any real benefit to the ranking, but maybe I'm just not competitive enough. I actually like the NAICU U-CAN method of presenting information on face value, and I'd love to see Wikipedia eschew rankings in university articles in favour of that method (a great way to avoid some WP:BOOSTER issues, I suppose). But I realise that'd also be quite unpopular, and I don't feel as though my argument is either new or terribly cogent. I suppose that I just wanted to contribute, since it feels like I haven't been around much lately! --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, I completely agree! I would readily vote in favor of a policy to eschew rankings entirely in Wikipedia university articles.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Forbes rankings goes, if it can be verified by other people (not just our own deduction) that Forbes is unequivically not reliable for what it claims to be reporting (significantly moreso than USNWR and other rankings), then we shouldn't use it. That being said, this raises the question: if we use rankings in articles to sum up the quality of institutions, are rankings published by newsmagazines really the most reliable source? I would argue probably not, although many people would argue differently. I feel like if we list them, though, we're inherently endorsing the rankings as reliable indicators of quality. That being said, I have a hard time thinking to ban rankings from all articles, because I think they do have some value in conveying the nature of an institution (prestige, mostly), although whether the good that does outweighs the bad of shrouding the basic description of an institution in rankings madness is questionable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm arguing for getting rid of rankings (I admit that I'd like that, but I'm mostly arguing for the sake of argument here), but I disagree with the whole "I think they do have some value in conveying the nature of an institution (prestige, mostly)" because of the whole WP:PRESTIGE issue. Selectivity, for example, can, to some extent, be determined via Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which doesn't rank. On the other hand, USNews lists Southern Nazarene University as "selective" in the new 2010 rankings -- but it's an open admissions college. I realise it's my own OR, but that doesn't sound at all reliable to me. And, if prestige is important, I'm sure we can find plenty of books and articles that aren't concerned with ranking to back up "real" prestige. So, thoughts? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this conversation dead or do we really think that banning rankings use is a great idea? I can start planning a party if it's the latter. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a foregone conclusion that a blanket ban on rankings would not be accepted by the community. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we honestly going to put Forbes rankings out here? Hopkins dropped like 70 places to like 140-150 this year. How much credibility can you put on a ranking that allows a school to fluctuate +/- 75 position slots per year. Forbes even wrote an article back in 1999 on how flawed the "Who's who in America' list is... Now they are using it as a part of their core methology for the Forbes ranking. I think a graduate student could have developed a better ranking system than Forbes. lol --Phead128 (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the issue as I see it: no matter how questionable rankings are, they a) seem to be popular -- although I'm more a fan of trying to find out than assuming the foregone conclusion -- and b) seem to factor into verifiability. That is, to say that they're unreliable based on what we have so far mainly seems to constitute WP:OR. That said, if there's some way to determine that USNews, Forbes, &c. do not constitute WP:RS then we'd have a shot at taking them out. That's the only way, if you ask me, and until we can prove that then I don't see how there's any way to exclude any of them. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any ranking being published by a major and otherwise well-established organization has the presumption of reliability and is also necessarily notable even if their methodology is as unreliable as counting how many times the letter "Q" appears in the student roster. It's not our place to nitpick methodologies because every ranking methodology is necessarily imperfect. If you want rankings in the article, you don't get to cherry pick among the notable ones. The matter at hand remains how to establish notability, not reliability. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Forbes tends to be the exception when it comes to both notability and reliability. LOL. United States Air Force Academy > Yale, Stanford, and MIT?72.81.233.92 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes improved their methodology in 2009. To me, the main reason for rejecting a college's particular rating is if that school has an internal course evaluation system that would displace widespread use by that campus of RateMyProfessor.com data, which is used for 25% of the Forbes ranking. Many schools have course evaluation programs that predate RateMyProfessor.com, so students don't participate in that website. As a result, the student satisfaction on those campuses would be understated in the Forbes rankings. Absent some reliable source which argues that "Forbes does not accurate rank University X", we should include the Forbes rankings in the rankings discussion of University X. Racepacket (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a rewrite of Union College being completed at User:Eliphaletnott/Union College. An informal peer review (or at least a read-through and some copyediting) would be great. This is this user's first article, and he's done a fantastic job. If you have some free time, a little effort put into reading this over would be great. We want to go live soon. upstateNYer 13:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The phrase "began the first popular demand for higher education in America." before ftn 1 is hard to believe, although I have not read the source. Harvard was founded in 1636, are you implying that Harvard did not satisfy "popular demand" for higher education in America? Racepacket (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Break up the first paragrah after ftn 2 and start a new paragraph on fraternities. Move that fraternities paragraph to History section.
• The second sentence of the Academic Programs section uses the phrase "general education program." To avoid confusing the reader, start the Academics section with an explanation of all of the college programs. (If the general education program is what a student gets before he declares a major, say so.)
• In the Undergraduate Research section, the phrase "what has been termed "the linchpin" of the Union education." is awkward. Do you mean what Union College considers to be "the linchpin" of its education experience? 66.173.140.100 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure that "By 1974, women's sports finally emerged as a regular part of the intercollegiate athletic program." is worthy of inclusion in the article lead, though perhaps very significant expansion of the Athletics section could change this. Shanata (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m asking for assistance with shaping my employer’s University page, American_Intercontinental_University ,to be more consistent with how other universities are represented. A number of users are focusing efforts on expanding the Controversies section. As a relatively new member of Wikipedia, I would appreciate any help in understanding what is and isn’t a neutral POV. Allegations, though factual, can be leveraged to shape perception if they are used in quantity. Any suggestions for how to approach this fairly? S.Malekpour (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Ithaca College student. I'd love to really improve our page, as right now it isn't at all comprehensive and really doesn't reflect the scope of the college, but obviously I can't do it myself due to conflict of interest issues. The college has Start status with WikiProject Universities- it really needs work, and it would be great to get it more accurate before the admissions push for next year happens. I'm not sure this is the right place to post this, but I figured its worth a shot. Please let me know what I can do to get this page looked at and edited while avoiding conflict-of-interest stuff. Thanks so much! ICLucyG (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the declaration that you've made here represents a good start in reducing the possible problems with Conflict of Interest, but given that you are trying to improve it before admissions push indicates that you do have some. I'd try reading through the WP:COI for guidelines. I would say that the following would make sense to try to work with COI issues: 1) Put an Ithaca College Userbox on your userpage like User:AmethystAngel. 2) Put a mention on the Talk:Ithaca College that you are making changes and that you are a Ithaca student. 3) Try to use similar colleges (like other members of the Empire 8 sports conference) as a guide to what should be added. 4) Drop us a line back here to have other users look it over.Naraht (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. I would differ slightly, however, in that it would be better to look at Featured college and university articles and use those as models. It would also be good to spend some time reviewing our article guidelines as they should be helpful. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What they said. Furthermore, I think that a lot of people editing college articles have some degree of affiliation with them (including myself), and that doesn't necessarily present a conflict of interest as long as you make sure your primary goal is to write a good, descriptive, and informative encyclopedia article. I would also suggest reading through WP:BOOSTER for a bunch of things to avoid. Good luck with the article! — DroEsperanto (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be safe to assume that almost every editor of a college and university article has a superficial COI owing to their status as a current, former student, or some other kind of affiliate. The COI issue becomes more pernicious if you are an employee being paid to edit Wikipedia pages in your professional duties or your motivation is to make the article an adjunct web presence (the Wikipedia article should reflect what the university says about itself) rather than a neutral encyclopedia article (all Wikipedia articles about colleges should be written similarly, seeWP:UNIGUIDE). As other editors have stated, it is absolutely crucial to not let your pride in your alma mater influence how you write about it (see WP:BOOSTER).

Imitation is truly the highest form of flattery. The featured articles should be your first jumping off point. In many sections, you could possibly copy their structure wholesale and simply replace the relevant content and statistics or combine the best of two different FAs that are particularly suited to the college. Finally, always read the article as though it was for the some rival institution. If there are dubious or disingenuous claims, take them out. If most of the content is talking about how great the school is; talk about what the school actually has and does. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say that all of the comments/suggestions after mine are improvements on what I said and I have learned quite a bit myself.Naraht (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much everyone, I'll definitely take a look at all of those sites. I am actually hesitant to edit the entry myself, because I don't know much about the guidelines for COI and I don't want to step on any toes or rules before I'm confident that what I'm doing is following the rules. If I was looking for someone else (say, from the wikiuniversity project) to edit so that I could avoid COI entirely, how would I go about doing that? Can I ask someone to take a look at the article, or is asking in itself a COI issue? Thanks again! ICLucyG (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to know all the rules to edit: just BE BOLD, and if you make any mistakes, someone else will [[meta:Eventualism|eventually] fix them. I know that at first, all the different policies and guidelines can make your head spin. Just start editing, and you'll figure them out eventually. And as stated above, your status as an Ithaca student shouldn't prevent you from editing the article yourself: just go for it! Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any specific questions.— DroEsperanto (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article seems to be a copyvio from the university site and most of it needs to be completely rewritten. The lists of faculties and college, being strictly factual and impossible to present otherwise can probably stay. It's also unreferenced but there probably are references available.

I am not sure whether the constituent colleges are notable in the sense that the Oxbridge college are-- they seem to have been founded on the traditional UK model, and I think they might well be. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've long had (unvoiced, I think) concerns about the "Affiliations" parameter in the University infobox. It seems vague and not very useful given the long list of affiliations most institutions cultivate. Today I was reminded of these reservations when I reverted some vandalism to Hofstra University. Thoughts? --ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's come up before at Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 3#Extraordinarily bloated. It works when it lists the major organisations universities are members of, e.g. the Russell Group or the 1994 Group, or to list federal universities such as London or Wales. These are fairly major organisations and a core part of the institution's identity. It shouldn't be used for every single obscure organisation the university if a member of. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have likewise used it to list affiliations with major inter-university organizations such as Association of American Universities, The Consortium on Financing Higher Education, etc. or if it's a member of a larger organizing body such as a state university/trustee system. I agree that it should not be used to exhaustively list every affiliation, only the major ones that would possibly merit mention in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. That Hofstra collection is far, far too long. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it shouldn't list every accreditation agency/body as Hofstra appears to do. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a recent round of edits removing logos in infoboxes under justification of WP:MOSLOGO. The recent wave or logo removals seems to target logos that might primarily be identified as informal or athletic logos. These logos are often used also by various universities themselves as identifying marks of the institutions as a whole (see this photo), or similarly, by third party publications. Therefore it would seem to me that their inclusion would be appropriate, especially since, depending on the institution, these are often the most publicly recognized marks of a university. It is my understanding of fair-use that if the logos are to be used for encyclopedic or identification purposes, they can be included. Previously, in what seemed the existing consensus, based on their long standing inclusion in many university article infoboxes, including several that have reached FA status, that such justification for the inclusion of such logos would seem appropriate based on their utility in helping to identify the institution. Can we come up with a consensus for inclusion or removal of the popular or athletic logos of institutions within the infoboxes of the university articles? CrazyPaco (talk)

Centralized discussion on this topic is available at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_with_University_of_Pittsburgh_article

Unfortunately, an administrator's noticeboard is not the place to reach WP:consensus or engage in dispute resolution per WP:DISPUTE. Comments regarding this issue would best be served by discussion here or at other relevant wikiprojects. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:
1. Is is against WP:MOSLOGO, WP:FUG, or WP:LOGO to have individual appearances of multiple, different, current-use logos for the purposes of identifying an institution in an infobox?

2. Are "popular" or "athletic" logos useful for identifying the institution that is the topic of an article?

3. Can it be assumed that "popular" or "athletic" logos are not used to represent the university at large, and are specifically restricted in their use for specific sub-components of the institutions in question (e.g. athletic teams)? CrazyPaco (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty consistently supported a policy that would allow for the use of only one logo in a university article, under the assumption that the non-free content criteria promotes limited use (don't use two when one will do). Whether one uses a logo or a seal or a wordmark or whatever, they all serve exactly one purpose: identifying the university using an image designed by the institution. I think including an athletics logo is acceptable when used in identifying the teams in the infobox. Is all that clear? Esrever ^(klaT) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I think there is some misunderstanding here. WP:MOSLOGO seems to lump trademarked images and copyrighted images together when that simply isn't the case all the time. The example cited is inaccurate too (the IBM logo is a PD image ineligible for copyright). It then redirects the reader to read the non-free content criteria completely ignoring the trademarks that are not copyrightable and other PD images (such as flags).

Let's throw on top of that that this is a guideline, not policy. WP:IAR applies in spades here.

I'm not saying to go hog-wild and just do whatever you want, but a consistent rationale across the board to violate a guideline (which is poorly written, IMNSHO) would give you something to point at and say "we have two guidelines in conflict with one another" vs "my opinion (no matter how many people support it) conflicts with a guideline". In short, let's codify a standard in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities guidelines and then work on fixing WP:MOSLOGO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the view that there is really no policy at all. In my opinion, the use of two logos is obvious, three perhaps excessive; the seal and current primary public identity logos should certainly grace the infobox, as the most "official" and most visible (respectively) symbols of the institution, while the athletics logos may be better off if relegated to the corresponding athletics section, though they are in fact an important means of identifying universities (at least in America, where their athletic teams are an important parallel endeavor to their academics). Best of all, it looks great and rules aren't really being broken by having them, and since most of these logos are, I agree, not copyrightable since they consist purely of text, I believe the current consistent rationale to be valid and worth holding onto.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should add here that there is also an ongoing wave of edits removing the use of athletic logos from the athletic sections of the university articles as well, and it is being justified, I believe incorrectly, using Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 point 5. This may be a tangent discussion though.CrazyPaco (talk)

Actually, most of the universities have at least one copyrightable logo and use those dominantly, but most (if not all) have a trademarked yet uncopyrightable (and therefore PD) image that can be used instead. The disconnect here lies with what to do about trademarked, yet uncopyrightable, PD images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BQZip01, some of those logos look eminently copyrightable to me. The originality bar is very low, and File:Osu ath brand.png, among others, almost certainly meets it. I'm rather less keen on these additional logos appearing in infoboxes if they're copyrighted. — mholland (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:OSU mark the only thing on this that could even be considered "not letters" is the ornamentation on the "S". Ornamentation on letters is specifically mentioned as something that is not copyrightable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AniRaptor, it also must be remembered, that most seals are specifically reserved by University's for use by the University President alone or solely with his/her permission. I don't think that a seal would be more recognizable than an athletic mark or a "popular" mark, and therefore, to increase immediate understanding of the content of the article, these more popular marks should be allowed. DUKyleXY (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of the time that is true I believe. Specifically for the case of the University of Pittsburgh, the seal is also used as a logo, albeit a somewhat simplified version. This photo shows the use of both the "seal and wordmark" logo and "athletic/popular" logo together on student shuttle buses on campus. While Pitt's seal is quite recognizable on a regional basis, I would believe the athletic/popular logo is more recognizable on a national basis. Both seem to have value for identifying the institution, and both are completely different in design and service. One speaks to the formal name of the university with a simplified seal including the founding date and moto, while the other stylizes the "popular" name (e.g. "Pitt"). Such could also be the case with logos of the University of California, Berkley which would be exemplified with the "formal" and "popular/athletic" logos. In fact, there seems to be individuals out there who do not know "Cal" and "Berkley" are the same institution, as I have run across such individuals, and therefore, I believe including both logos in the infobox is informative and useful. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion on this topic has also been opened on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should trademarked sports logos be used as icons in university infoboxes.3F. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need to keep updated on staff changes - for example, within the next six months as from tonight (October 2 2009), it seems likely that Ann Tait could be succeeded in her position as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Northampton. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few neutral editors at Barnard College would be much appreciated. Some of us have differences of opinion and it's starting to get a bit heated. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been fully protected. Additional eyes and input are welcome. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 cents added. ElKevbissimo is always right. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another article that could use additional eyes and input: University of Miami‎. I have very strong opinions about what is occurring at this article (as is evident from my own participation) but I invite others to make their own judgments and help us work through our differences. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current discussion on Talk:University of Miami centers around how to treat college fund raising campaigns in the history section of the article. Fundraising generally receives little discussion in the history sections, because constant fundraising is an assumed fact of institutional life. I am not sure how Wikipedia should measuring fundraising. I believe that if a capital campaign results in a dramatic increase in endowment, it could be noted and then expressed in terms of the effect on the national ranking of the size of the endowment on the NACUBO charts. The UM campaign had raised $552 million before the October 2003 launch date, with about half of that before 2003. The initial $1 billion goal was picked so that they were half way there at the launch. As is typically the case, the goal was exceeded and $1.4 billion was raised. But the "duration" of the "campaign" is arbitrary and the start date is arbitrary. Some editors have tried to claim that this was the best campaign by a "young" university, or to compare it with other schools within Florida. I think that such comparisons are inherently misleading. I also think that it is unfair to compare schools that have an internal teaching hospital with schools that are affiliated with a separate hospital. During this time, UM acquired a teaching hospital, and $851 million went to the Medical campus. I further question how one can compare a school that conducted an eight-year long campaign with another that may have conducted two, four-year campaigns. So, to me campaign size lack objectivity, and a better measure (if one is to compare institutions) is total endowment size, total physical plant investment or dollars raised per year.

I would avoid comparisons with other institutions generally because this tends to convert the institutional history into boosterism, similar to the problem we are having with college rankings. I would welcome the thoughts of others, and hope that we could add something to the guidelines. Racepacket (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would welcome other views, as I think this is contrived boosterism. Following a unversity press release, the local paper does a story about a fundraising drive and claims that it is the most money raised to date by any college in the state in a single campaign. In fact, other schools in that state have raised more money in multiple campaigns, and other schools in that state raise more money per year than this school. What is our duty to the readers? Should we repeat the claim, leave it out, or include all of the caveats? Do campaigns (of which there seem to be a never-ending stream) belong in the institutional history section? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The UM article has just received (and failed) its Good Article review. I would welcome the assistance of other WP:UNI members to address the concerns listed. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would people agree that there are too many articles on that university, and they should be merged? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Adamson articles are little more than lists of majors or even lists of current students. I agree they should be merged with substantial cleanup. Mabeenot (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The template suggests that the author is planning to write a separate article for each building on campus, which would be overkill. Other universities have separate articles covering each college, but these college-level articles are a bit weak. One approach is to merge them and then if the article evolves beyond the list stage, split off the colleges from their separate sections. As of now, the list of degrees and programs are duplicated in the main article and in each college article, and the individual college articles have very little to offer other than the lists. I can see listing the names of the current president and college deans. Anything beyond that is over-kill and very difficult to keep up to date. Racepacket (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started merging the college articles back in to the main university article, and also trimmed the main article a bit. I also took a lot of material out of the Falcons article, but am not sure whether it should be kept on the basis of improving coverage of sport in the Philippines. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of US colleges have a separate article covering their athletic teams. There are also articles covering athletic leagues and conferences. The trouble with articles devoted to just one team is that they become prone to WP:BOOSTERISM. I would focus on enhancing and deduplicating the academic part of the article first, and the leave that athletics question to later. Racepacket (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A whole lot of work has been done on Union College. The rewrite mentioned above has gone live. I was hoping some members of this project would be so kind as to read through the article and leave any comments on the talk. The main contributor would like to bring it to GAN soon. Thanks. upstateNYer 11:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How about using this infobox:

{{Infobox US university ranking | ARWU_W = | ARWU_N = | ARWU_SCI = | ARWU_ENG = | ARWU_LIFE = | ARWU_MED = | ARWU_SOC = | THES_W = | THES_TECH = | USNWR_NU = | USNWR_LA = | USNWR_Bus = | USNWR_Law = | USNWR_Medr = | USNWR_Medc = | USNWR_Eng = | USNWR_Ed = | Wamo_NU = | Wamo_LA = | FSPI = |Forbes=

}} Racepacket (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! upstateNYer 04:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across this issue on Talk:Global University Ranking and now with the new articles Global University Ranking, 2009 and Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2009, and I'm wondering if there's been any consensus, and if not, what the feeling is, as to the encyclopedicness of lists of rankings in ranking articles or as standalone articles. Any thoughts?— DroEsperanto (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Global University Ranking website has a copyright notice on the bottom of each page, including the pages that give the rankings. I think it would be fair use to state in the individual college articles, "This college ranked Nth in the 2009 Global University Ranking." Doesn't putting the entire list in a wikitable as a stand alone article raise serious copyright issues? Racepacket (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deeply appreciate the effort and value of reproducing the top rankings here, but I think that it is a copyright violation to do so. However, reporting in the individual college articles that a single school was ranked Nth, is probably fair use. Perhaps someone could get a permission from the copyright holder to reproduce their rankings on Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_68#Should_trademarked_sports_logos_be_used_as_icons_in_university_infoboxes.3F the RfC on the issue regarding the use of iconized sports logos in university infoboxes heavily favored removal. I have over the last several days removed such icons from the infoboxes of 60 NCAA Division I schools, or about 17% of all NCAA Division I schools. I have removed 30 icons from Division II, or 10% of Division II. I have removed 39 icons from Division III schools, or about 9% of the 448 Division III schools. I have removed 14 icons from NAIA schools, or about 5% of the 290 NAIA schools. A summary of this is located at Wikipedia:Icons in infoboxes. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have a few more eyeballs on the article of this unaccredited, defunct institution? It appears that one or more alumni or other associated persons are intent on whitewashing the article. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At University of California, Santa Cruz, I've run across a situation where four editors have come to an agreement that an unofficial university logo should be used in the infobox. The logo currently in use File:Ucsc fiatslug.png is owned by the University of California Regents. It was licensed for use by an outside commercial entity. However, the logo itself is not used by the university. It is apparently prevalent on campus. There is what appears to be an official identity mark (it at least is not labeled as unofficial, while others from this source are labeled as unofficial). That identity mark is File:UCSC logo.png, and sourcing for it is at UCSC's Public Relations Office.

However, when I placed this (not declared as unofficial) logo at the head of the infobox [1], I was reverted [2] and told that consensus exists to use the slug logo [3].

I am, therefore, seeking wider consensus.

My stance in abstract is that in any organization's infobox, we should only be using official identity marks. In this case in particular, I think we should be using the identity mark rather than the logo, and the logo should be displayed further down in the article with some discussion as to how this logo came about, how it's used, etc. Since it appears to be popular, secondary sources could be found to support such text.

Input please? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the slug logo doesn't belong at the top of the article. Of the logos provided at UCSC's Public Relations Office, I can see the USC unofficial seal as being the top graphic and the logotype graphic on the bottom of the infobox. The slug logo is more of a fanboi image and not appropriate to represent the university. Stick it in the student activities section if it really needs to be included. -Mabeenot (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically regarding the Fiat Slug logo, both the characterization of the logo as a "fanboi" image and the assertion that it is not used by the university are incorrect. While it is not, in fact, the seal of the university, official use of the Fiat Slug logo (e.g., [4][5][6][7][8][9](at foot of page)[10]) and close variations of it (e.g., [11][12][13]) is pervasive at UCSC. The logo is listed here under "UCSC Identity Guidelines" and available for download by university web designers in three different formats.

The dilemma we faced when picking an image for the infobox header was that, on the one hand, the "official unofficial seal" of UCSC (which goes onto official correspondence, diplomas, and such) is both rather bland to behold and, aside from the printed-out name of the campus beside it, generic to the entire UC system. Its value as an immediately-recognizable identity mark is negligible. On the other hand, the Fiat Slug logo, while somewhat less official, is widely recognized in the world at large (in no small part due to John Travolta and Quentin Tarantino[14]) and is accepted by the denizens of the UCSC community as a unique, long-standing, and beloved symbol of their campus. The solution we came up with was to use the more-recognizable Fiat Slug image at the head of the infobox where it would immediately greet the reader, and then include the "official unofficial seal" with the "UC Santa Cruz" legend at the foot of the infobox using the logo = parameter— which was serendipitously the perfect spot, from an aesthetic point of view, for an image of its dimensions.

This was perfectly acceptable given the guideline for using the image_name = parameter as it existed at the time we put the infobox together. It also jibed with the then-current consensus that certain parameters of the infobox should be flexible enough to accommodate less-conventional arrangements when they were warranted. The guideline for the image_name = parameter has since been changed to strictly require the institution's "official or ceremonial seal, shield or coat of arms that is used for high profile ceremonial events such as convocation, for degree certificates, and official transcripts;" but since the change seems to have been done unilaterally by a now-blocked sock puppet acting without any sort of consensus (this was not noticed until now), I believe the pre-existing guidelines on infobox images should still be considered valid until a real consensus emerges otherwise. This is being addressed at Template talk:Infobox university#Policy on images in the infobox (a sockpuppet story). --Dynaflow babble 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find Dynaflow's arguments convincing, particularly in light of the suspicious changes made to the infobox instructions (which I just changed back). I agree that we should use the official logo in most cases but we should have some flexibility and Dynaflow has argued successfully for an exception, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dynaflow. Flexibility and latitude must be preserved. Institutional use of identifying seals, crests, marks and logos (some institutions possessing multiple variations of all four types) may differ from institution to institution in both national and regional applications. The consensus for the display of the appropriate images for an article is well served when serious consideration is given to the input from those familiar with the culture and operations of the particular college or university, thus upholding the notion of expert knowledge. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the "Fiat Slug" image is also a trademark of the university, it is the closest thing UCSC has to a distinguishing university seal. The "unofficial seal" in the UCSC style guidelines is the generic seal of the UC system. Arguments for or against either can only take place on aesthetic grounds, and while I don't have a personal interest in this, I find the Fiat Slug image charming. Amerique^dialectics 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, given Dynaflow's links to various different offices at UCSC using that logo, it seems official enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of my work on improving and wikifying community college articles, I am working on Rock Valley College. As can be viewed by the history, I have made several changes to the article by adding appropriate references and and NPOV content. However, there is a section called Rock_Valley_College#Controversy that was put together by an editor that only edits this one page. I have entered into a discussion with the talk page and the room agrees the section should be removed or rewritten. I have not edited it yet but made a suggestion for the section at on the talk page at Talk:Rock_Valley_College#A_review_of_citations_and_suggested_text_for_controversy. However, the user, Weezer4718 (talk • contribs

has begun to get personal. I have pointed him in the direction of the appropriate policies, but the editor seems to have an ax to grind, and I wish to avoid any edit war before it begins. I would appreciate any thoughts any one has on how to improve the suggestion, and the section mentioned, and if you do or do not agree the section violates WP:NPOV, WP:POV, WP:BLP, or WP:Universities standards. Also, feel free to tell me if I am in the wrong as well. All comments appreciated. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the author of the controversy section seems to have an axe to grind. While some mention of those controversial activities ought to be included in the article, I think the way it is currently written places undue weight upon the controversies and seems to promote the staff writers at The Rock River Times. -Mabeenot (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Could you possible place the same comments on the talk page in the Talk:Rock_Valley_College#A_review_of_citations_and_suggested_text_for_controversy section for the room to view? Thanks for the input. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. All done. -Mabeenot (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been running what amounts to a one-man task force on Community Colleges in Illinois, which has articles that tend to be under developed. My goal is to get them half of them Good Article Status over the next 12 months. As a part of this, I have designed a few samples of a proposed Footer Template of Illinois Community Colleges to accompany the articles. I would like to gather as much opinion as possible on which of the three samples proposed would be best and fit best. I am looking to be thorough and detailed, without cluttering the list. Please take the time to go to the page and review the three samples and vote on the Talk Page which of the three would be best. Please feel free to offer suggestions to improve the lists or any article. Thanks. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like Set 2 the most. It provides enough geographic reference without becoming overly complicated. Set 1 seems to have too many divisions while Set 3 lumps together colleges based solely upon whether or not its in Chicago. However, the "Special College Districts" in Set 1 does look interesting.

Pick a B-class and a Start-class article from your template that you'd like some help with. One of them might end up nominated for a future Collaboration of the Month... ;)

-Mabeenot (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this project for accredited schools only, or should Oaksterdam University be included here as well? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion is that Oaksterdam is more of an advocacy group or a community organization promoting political activism. Just because it uses the term "university" in its name doesn't make it an institution of higher education. But that's just my two cents. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have to second that notion. It is offering a class but is in no way accredited. What it does have going for it is notability. I would imagine it would best fit in the context of an article about implementation of the Michigan statute, or other article on the recent decriminalization of cannabis at the state level. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone just joined up and was wondering how people are dealing with online schools--Supercopone (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense?— DroEsperanto (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should any student life info be added?--Super (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, unless they have some kind of unusual student culture that would merit discussion. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its just that its a huge segment nowdays,I agree it would have to very unique to have enough merit to gain a write up of any kind, but if ones does I just wanted to run it by a few people to see if it was acceptable to add.--Super (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you have in mind?— DroEsperanto (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at the Student Life Section over on the Ashworth College article. It needs some work, it has way to much info that has no importance.--Super (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not super familiar with the metric system when it comes to land. I have noticed that when most university pages use the {{convert}} template with acres, the conversion is into square kilometers. ex. the University of Notre Dame states that its campus is 1,250 acres (5.1 km2). However, I know that hectares are also a form of land measurement for the metric system. Would it be more logical to have all universities state convert their land size from acres into hectares rather than square kilometers? Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Square Kilometers is the standerd unit.--Super (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The desciption of the University of Paris contains founding dates of between 1160 and 1170. Henry II of England enacted a law in 1167 forbiding English students from attending the University of Paris, much to the benefit of Oxford.Aliveinmaine (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can any members of this project offer their thoughts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Colleges.2C_schools.2C_and_departments_by_university? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]