Talk:Cornell University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Cornell University is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Cornell University appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection Cornell University is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
Peer review Cornell University has undergone multiple peer reviews by Wikipedia editors which are now archived. These may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject on Cornell University This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornell University. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
To-do list for Cornell University: edit · history · watch · refresh

Archive


Contents

[edit] Gap between the history section title and section content

Is there anyway we can fix this problem? I believe that the root of the problem is the footnote section in the university info-box.Cornell010 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just dealt with it. Please comment on the List of People page, about images. —mercuryboardtalk 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The history section has a rather glaring change in scope. The paragraph about the 1969 incident is fitting for a longer and much more detailed listing of historical incidents that have shaped Cornell policies. In its current location, it's been shoehorned in between "the first students were admitted" and "over the twentieth century, many changes", which seem to go together much more smoothly but at a much vaguer level.

Could this be rearranged to either minimize/outlink the incident or make it part of a longer and more detailed timeline? Right now it breaks the flow something awful. (Yes, I know, "fix it yourself", but I know nothing about Cornell and I'm thus poorly qualified for this task.) Mana Gement 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery Section?

See Penn's gallery section at the bottom of the article. I think it adds a nice touch and with carefully selected images the section can showcase Cornell's beauty as well as prestige. Some photos of Cornell have a way of exuding prestige and accomplishment.

--angelrendon 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endowment Numbers

There is a loose reference to "5 billion dollar endowment" in the article on the new investment chief. This would mean that the endowment grew from 3.77 to 5.0 billion (~33%) in one year, which smells of error. Nevertheless, rabid alumni post the number everywhere, inserting it in lists of numbers otherwise referring to 6/2005 values (and falsely inflating Cornell's rank). In contrast here is a specific reference to 4.4 billion in investments under Cornell's control as 0f 8/20/2006 (from Cornell itself). This seems like a more expected, reasonable growth of the endowment. It's clearly from Cornell and it's more precise. Why not use it? Or at least acknowledge it in a footnote? Or should we pick and choose what information to show to make Cornell look strongest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.68.223 (talk • contribs).

My only question about this comes from an earlier discussion of endowment. I'm no economist or investment specialist, so when "long term investment fund" (or whatever the exact lingo was) is used, I don't know if that exactly translates to the same thing mentioned by other college endowments. What we need to know, it seems to my ear anyway, is exactly what is included in the $B 4.4 number... and whether this same number is reported for other colleges, or they use a different number in THEIR discussion of endowment. Anyway, I only submit that it is really hard to tell whether we are comparing apples with apples, or some other fruit. Isoxyl 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm ok with keeping the 5.0 on this page; but I have a strong feeling the 4.4 is correct, and we'll see this come out in a month or two as schools start leaking their year end values. Anybody else?

[edit] Dear Uncle Ezra

Would Dear Uncle Ezra be worth mentioning in the article? --Kjoonlee 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the main article, but it might be worth its own separate article. I believe Columbia's equivalent service has its own article.--Xtreambar 06:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annual Endownment

Execuse me. What is the annual endownment. To be precise: What amount of money does the university spend in a year on their expenses. I think this a more interesting figure than the whole endownment. Please add it to the page.

[edit] A couple things before it goes on the main page

I'm not sure about the notable alumni section... its a lot of linkage and, when read all together (i.e. not just from a copyediting or writer's perspective), is pretty dry. Anyone else agree? Someone should find a friendlier picture than Wolfowitz, but that's just personal taste. ;)

The other thing is, has anyone ever heard of Cornell notes? Perhaps it's not significant enough for the already-extensive article, but this note-taking format is widely used and to my knowledge has been adapted to many academic programs, one of which is used throughout the state of California, so it should probably get a mention somewhere IMO. Paliku 16:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article will go up on the main page in the next 24 hours. I encourage people to read over the page again. Though little has changed in the past couple months, a once-over wouldn't hurt. --Xtreambar 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Too late - it's on the main page already. Great job folks! I've watched this page for many months now and you've made excellent progress. --ElKevbo 04:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell Sun mentions FA status

The Daily Sun wrote about the FA-of-the-day-status of the Cornell University article. Again, good work, everybody! JDoorjam Talk 07:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Impressive. Raul654 14:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

How does one get the coordinates to appear at the top of the page? I would like to add them for another university page I am working on. Thanks! --Daysleeper47 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The {{Geolinks-US-streetscale|42.448510|-76.478620}} line at the bottom of the article adds the coordinates to the top of the page in addition to the geolinks at the bottom of the page. ~Kruck 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial Revolution?

The article says that Cornell was conceived after the American Civil War in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. According to the Industrial Revolution article, that was over, by the most liberal interpretation, by 1840. Am I missing something here? Right now, this rather jarring statement is on the front page of Wikipedia!--Wehwalt 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute the "fact" that the Industrial Revolution was over by 1840, at least here in America. The Industrial Revolution can't be measured in years alone -- it differs for each nation. It might have been over by 1830 or 1840 in England, where it all started, but it took longer to get started -- and thus finish -- in other places such as the U.S. From the U.S. perspective, the Industrial Revolution probably didn't get underway until at least the 1830s or so and probably didn't "end" until well after the Civil War (perhaps even to the turn of the century). Thus, Cornell University's founding "in the midst of the Industrial Revolution" is a reasonable statement. Now, why the Industrial Revolution is relevant is another question ... --CPAScott 16:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public or Private

As it now stands, the article does not adequately explain how a university that was originated by the New York State Senate as a land-grant school came to be a private institution. Sylvain1972 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Public versus private isn't as black or white as you make it out to be. My school (the University of Delaware) is public, but privately chartered, although I don't know all the legal implications thereof. Raul654 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Components of the University are public (e.g. the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations) while parts are private (e.g. the College of Arts and Sciences). --128.84.217.166 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's all private. Several of the units are contracted with the State of New York to provide services on their behalf, but the University is wholly private. See the archives for a very thorough discussion on this point. JDoorjam Talk 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Some private but state-funded colleges inside the private university, exactly. ⇒Bayerischermann - 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, there is a very helpful discussion in the archive, thanks. It would be nice if it could be incorporated in the article itself. However, I am still curious as to how a land grant school came to be private. Sylvain1972 14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The land grant status does not actually have anything to do with whether a university is public or private, and in Cornell's case is only tangentially related to its state-supported colleges (the statutory colleges are not the "land-grant" part of the university). The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act was intended to foster teaching of agriculture, engineering and military tactics; each state was given a grant (30,000 acres of land per representative) on the condition that these fields were taught at the land grant colleges. The grant could be split between different institutions or used in one place; it could also be used toward establishing a new university (or universities). Most of the state legislatures used the grant to establish or strengthen a public school, but I don't think there is any reason to infer that the institution receiving the federal grant was necessarily a state university — it just happened that the states decided to give the money to a public institution. btm talk 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Continuity

The section below demonstrates a disturbing lack of continuity: There is a detailed account of the situation of the university in the middle of the 19th century immediately proceeding a description of racial strife one hundred years later.

Is there nothing noteworthy (at this level of detail) to report over the interveening hundred years?

I am reluctant to modify the text myself. (It is currently the article of the day). Better I let those who produced the article take charge of surgery.


The university was inaugurated on October 7, 1868, and 412 men were enrolled the next day.[9] Two years later, Cornell admitted its first women students, making it the first coeducational school among what came to be known as the Ivy League. Scientists Louis Agassiz and James Crafts were among the faculty members.[8]


In September 2006, David Skorton formally became Cornell's 12th and current presidentOn April 19, 1969, more than eighty members of Cornell's Afro-American Society took over the student union building, Willard Straight Hall.


--Philopedia 22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I concur. I have wondered why no one else is bothered by the sloppy history section. I wrote the first two paragraphs and took the last one from an old version of the lead paragraph. What's up with the WSH takeover taking up half of the history section!?--Xtreambar 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


I support the comments above. The WSH takeover "takes over" the history section. We need to trim it down to a more succinct and appropriate length.--Parenthetical Guy 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

I have been comparing the current edition with that of the September 14th (last before the September 20 editions), and found some differences... The reference to the "Sylvester Lloyd" incident is newly added. Almost the only source I could find for this was the one cited (http://www.deltasigmatheta.com/hazenews/haze01.htm), with less than a dozen other webpages citing the source mentioned. Nor could I find any mention of one Sylvester Lloyd on the Cornell website (page search and people search), so I'm slightly skeptical about whether or not this actually took place. Would someone please confirm it with an independent reliable source? The founding date has been changed from "April 27, 1865" to "April 27 1865"; is the deletion of the comma appropriate? The caption of "Big Red Planet" has been changed to Mars. I think I prefer the title of "Big Red Planet" because it ties in better with the context. What's every else's opinion on this? Mimson 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endowment (again)

Cornell has made public its endowment stats for fiscal year ending 6/30/2006, and the value is 4.3B as noted in http://www.alumni.cornell.edu/endowment.htm.

  • Is that an official figure? The alumni association doesn't seem to give a source and in particular does not say it is the NACUBO figure. This source says $3,777,092,000 Do you have access to the 2006 NACUBO study? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You win. It's not nacubo and I was not being strictly rigorous (not intentionally: I was just sloppy). The source is only an official Cornell release, and there is no stated connection between this release and the data from Cornell's business officers. If the Cornell alums think in good faith that the 5.0B value is still a more reliable source, then place the number back on the page.
      • Actually, I don't think the $5B figure is that trustworthy. I feel like that figure almost seems made-up. It's the least reliable figure I've seen quoted, as it has one significant figure, and the way it's quoted, its accuracy is not even that relevant to the article. I fear it's quoted simply because it's the biggest, and I'm not entirely comfortable with its use. On the other hand, the $4.3B figure is the point of the source in question, and I feel more comfortable using it, though I do wish that they'd listed their sources for that figure. JDoorjam Talk 18:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mars rover picture

Cornell helped make it, why can't its picture be on this page?

[edit] Alumni

I've removed Huey Lewis from this article for the second time. Please note that he definitely does not belong in the Alumni section since he dropped out before graduation.

Overall, the alumni section has some paragraphs that seem very sloppy and disorganized (especially the paragraphs on authors and entertainers). This needs to be cleaned up.

Bill Maher is mentioned in two seperate paragraphs. He is probably best categorized as an entertainer/comedian than a journalist (by his own account), so I have removed him from the list of journalists. User:keammo1 11:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to graduate to be an alum. Please see the previous discussion: Talk:Cornell_University/Archive_3#Graduates_vs._Alumni. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 09:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Ratan Tata is worth mentioning in Cornell Alumni list. He is one of the most influential business figures in India. I saw his name here a couple of days ago, but it's not there any more.

Ratan Tata is on the List of Cornell University People under Business. He certainly seems worthy of being listed on the main Cornell University page. If you want him there, put him there. --Cjs56 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

-Well I tried, but it keeps getting deleted for some reason.

[edit] Wolfowitz Pic

Is there a reason that the Wolfowitz pic keeps getting deleted?

Methinks perhaps vandalism? I've had to put it back the magical three times --Cjs56 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


It's an insult to all Cornellians to have his picture on this website...much as the same as any Cornellian is ashamed to admit that Anne Coulter is a graduate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.85.57 (talk • contribs).

So the picture keeps getting removed because you feel he's embarrassing? Metros232 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You kiddin'? I talk about Ann Coulter having gone to Cornell all the time. It's a great conversation-starter. Except that the alumni section is rather crowded as it is, I see no reason for the Wolfowitz photo to be kept out of the article. JDoorjam Talk 18:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all Cornell alumni would agree with your view of embarrassing.

[edit] NRC Ranking

National Research Council is the only official agency which ranks universities based on their long-term research achievments. It basically averages the perfomance of schools over a period of ten years and because of that, it is more robust (despite USNEWS rankings which could change every year).

Ten years is chosen because the time constant of change in universities is more than 10 years and hence the data is valid even if it is 10 years old (look at sampling rate and bandwidth according to Nyquist!). for more information, please look at their homepage.

The last ranking goes back to 1995 and the next one will be out in September 2007 (one year delay). Again, because of NRC method, the 1995 data is not considered old and is still the most relavant ranking among schools. Although some college students or their parents might pay attention to USNEWS because of its publicity.

It seems to be fair to have both rankings in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.225.153 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Please define "official agency" and "official rankings." Those appear to be meaningless terms invented to support your argument.
I agree that the USN&WR rankings are deficient in many ways but the current paragraph gives 10 year old NRC rankings undue weight. It should be drastically shortened or deleted altogether. --ElKevbo 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
By official I meant that it is related to National Academy of Science and also National academy of Engineering as opposed to a magazin like USNEWS, and I guess the difference between these two is obvious.
Let's simply provide the date of issuance and then wait for the new ranking to come out and update it. There is no newer NRC information; let's let the readers decide the relevance of the statistic. JDoorjam Talk 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, if you look at the history of the page (about two months ago), initially I had the date, but someone insisted that we should not put 1995 there. let's have all information and give all readers to decide for themselves.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/r/Talk%7ECornell_University_e9b4.html"