Talk:New Jersey Institute of Technology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hmm, i got to put down a copy of President Fenster's bio and note him down for being the president of the univesity for 20 effing years :) -- George Marselis, Alumni, '01, '02 (BS CompSci/Applied Math)
Contents |
[edit] Someone from within NJIT keeps changing the article
128.235.*.* is njit's IP subnet. someone from within the school keeps on adding new items to the article, effectively creating a PR campain for the school. I suggest, whoever it is (Hi, Kevin), should register before messing around anymore with the main article. i'll ask for admin help on this matter. Project2501a 14:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Let us not forget
with 18-21 credits a semester, you just have to. Project2501a 19:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "A very blackly populated"
Is that necessary? That's also gramatically incorrect.
[edit] Organizations at NJIT
Do we really need to have a list of organizations for this article? It seems a bit... Excessive. Like, would you really find this kind of information in an encyclopedia? I don't think so. So, from me, one vote or request to nuke that entire section... It'll be done in the new year if no one else gets around to it. --Htmlism 13:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Student's GPA and SAT scores
Could someone add the GPA and SAT acceptance rate to be able to study at NJIT?
[edit] Template:Infobox University
Why use a static table instead of Template:Infobox University? richardc020 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone kept changing the template, thus the static table. Pridepol 04:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- User:NetBot does the changes. Its purpose is to update which is neither erronous nor harmful to this entry's credibility. Most to all major universities use Template:Infobox_University (i.e. Rutgers_University, University of Michigan, UCLA, etc.). Are there objections before reverting to Template:Infobox_University? I also propose deleting Notable Alumni unless one can cite precedent or post criteria. richardc020 20:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Male-female ratio
I GO to this school. We do NOT have a 3 to 1 ratio of men to women. Point of fact, the actual ratio is 9 to 1. I am going to edit that to reflect fact, not some fantasy.
Where is the proof? If you cite it, so it will be. OFFICIAL info released by the school says 3:1 see Official Info or More Official Info. Pridepol 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
NJIT's official information is just that. OFFICIAL. As in "written by the administration to make the school look attractive to potential students". Revealing the 9:1 ratio hurts the application rate of both genders.
I would have to agree with the above. I have been going to NJIT for the last 3 years and it is FAR from being an actual 3:1 ratio. I remember a couple years ago it was said to be 17:1. Granted there appears to be more girls coming into the school now, but it's just not 3:1, official or not. -DM, 04:20, 9 June 2006 (EST)
Okay, I *was* a girl at NJIT, and while there weren't many of us, it's not nearly as bad as your guys make it out. 4:1 is quite accurate, and more were coming each year. They just don't want to associate with 90% of the males who attend the school. Also, you have to count the certain groups who we all know only talk to each other and live in the comp lab... they are still female.
- HEY! I used to live in the CompSci computer lab! oh, wait... No, seriously, NJIT info is just that, official. NJIT has a history of hyping up their quotients. We didn't make the Princeton Review of "worst schools in the US" just for the hell of it. Project2501a 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- you graduated five years ago. I graduated one year ago. In my four years, the number of females on campus increased by at least 50%. Trust me, 4:1 is ACCURATE. Yes, NJIT sucks, bur for other reasons.
[edit] Branding
Pridepol, you also keep editting out a change that mentions the controversy over the NJIT Brand. I can produce copies of the campus newspaper for proof that a controversy existed at the time.
Maybe it would be better to begin a new section such as “Comments” or "Opposition to the Branding Effort" where the opposition could be mentioned. The reason I keep editing it out is because 1) The reason for the opposition to the Branding effort is not explained, simply mentioned 2) It does not fit well in the “History” section especially as an addendum to the last paragraph 3) It was not cited. If there was such a strong opposition to the branding effort, it would be an injustice not to explain it in a well written, well documented, detailed section or paragraph. Pridepol 04:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
