Talk:Philosophy, Politics, and Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bill Clinton 2 Latin 3 Duke and Carolina 4 List of universities that offer PPE 5 Canadian offerings 6 Details of random PPE programs... 7 Oxford comma: not appropriate (Requested Move)

[edit] Bill Clinton

How sure we Bill Clinton didn't get PPE degree? I've read several sources that he did graduate (well, if my memory serves me correctly...). I'll check later in "My Life" but perhaps someone can provide refs? Mikkerpikker 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin

I'll need to check, but when did Oxford stop requiring Latin 'O'-level for admission (to any course)? Is it, in other words, tryue that the introduction of PPE meant that people could read philosophy without having to learn Latin? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The requirement was dropped in 1960, but it was a requirement to have either a Latin or a Greek 'O'-level, thus the introduction of PPE did result in people no longer having to learn Latin, as they could do Greek instead. --User:Antoniosteve (User talk:Antoniosteve) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (GMT+1)

[edit] Duke and Carolina

Duke and University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill do not award degrees in PPE. At Duke it is a certificate program and a minor only at UNC – Chapel Hill. They should not be included in the list for American universities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.106.44 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 March 2006.

[edit] List of universities that offer PPE

There seems to be a bit of a fight about which universities that offer PPE to include in the lead. Maybe we should create an article List of universities that offer the PPE degree and move all of them there? Mikker ^... 12:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian offerings

Wilfrid Laurier University now offers an honours BA in PPE, based on the Oxford model. I've added it to the list in the text, after South Africa.

[edit] Details of random PPE programs...

I've just reverted edits by User:Aliwalla on PPE at UCT because I just don't think it is notable enough. (For the record, I did PPE at UCT). What this article shouldn't become is a long list of random material on what the various PPE programs are like at various universities. I think including the Oxford PPE makes sense (because it emerged there) but I think all the other detail about PPE programs should go. Mikker ^(...) 02:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

—UCT is one of the top 250 universities in this world, and the premier tertiary institute in Africa. To not describe it an only describe the Oxford degree smacks of HUGE elitism and goes into much deeper issues. My opinion is either describe them all and their nuances or describe none. Remember this is supposed to be global encyclopedia. Also, the course is described at LSE, York and Jerusalem, why not Cape Town? I wont rerevert until i hear your response. --Aliwalla 10:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct, if the LSE, York & Jerusalem details can stay, so should UCT's. But what I'm saying in my post is that none of them should be in this article. Wikipedia is not a list of random material like details on course structures. It seems clear to me that Wikipedia's notability guidelines rule out inclusion of detailed information of this type. On the Oxford PPE: perhaps you're right - maybe what we need is a history of PPE (including bits about PPE structure at Oxford) and then a general discussion of PPE course structures. What I want to avoid, you see, is this article becoming 'At York PPE works like this, at UCT like that, at the University of Australia it is done in another way, Jerusalem prefers yonder structure...'. And the reason I think we should avoid this is that PPE (or programs called PPE - there is a difference) are offered in hundreds of universities around the world, and there seems no obvious stopping point to adding content if you let any of it in. Mikker ^(...) 01:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

agreed and adjusted, by the way, isn't the course offered at Rhodes as well? --Aliwalla 16:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm... I have no idea. Back in the day when I applied to college & researched a bunch of unis, UCT was the only one offering PPE. It may well have, so too has Wits (or whatever it's called now) I think. Mikker ^(...) 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford comma: not appropriate (Requested Move)

Can I strongly urge this page to be moved to Philosophy, Politics and Economics (ie without the second comma), and this page become the redirect, rather than the other way round?

I am fully aware that I'm stepping into a trans-Atlantic minefield here. But bear me out. Despite the name, the Oxford comma reads oddly to anyone British in simple lists - although I appreciate the reverse is true for the American reader. That argument will never be resolved for all Wikipedia. But for this article it should be clear that we should follow the usage of the University of Oxford, which is to only have one comma in the name of the course. They invented the course, and most of the article relates to the Oxford version.

Does anyone agree? I'd shift the page myself, but fear messing it up. In the meantime I've cut the offensive comma from the first par. ¶ 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree - The page title is a effectively a proper noun, so it should be quoted exactly from the original (i.e. Oxford). The Psychology, Philosophy and Physiology degree sets a precedent. (P.S. how do I indent?) MickO'Bants 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Please check WP:MOS and WP:NAME. If these support the change then, whatever, I don't care... Mikker ^(...) 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote from WP:MOS: "If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used." WP:NAME is less specific, though it does say "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" and FWIW WP:NCA makes reference to "the preferred usage" as the guideline in the case of use of full stops. Looks like this vaguely supports what we're suggesting. ¶ 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Mick - start with a colon. ¶ 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone else objects, I really don't mind making the change. Honestly, I doubt most people would even notice. Mikker ^(...) 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, I've put in the request. What'll happen now? How exciting! ¶ 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: pointless move to more ambiguous title. Bubba ditto 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to best close this. As I see it, there's neither consensus to move, nor a policy imperative either way. So leave as is I guess. I've removed it from WP:RM on that basis. Andrewa 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No consensus, but a 3-1 majority in favour, at any rate, which is a start (especially considering it's a pretty arcane issue)... Bubba, I disagree that it's pointless, because the aim is to be more accurate in reflecting the original name of the course. And I dispute that it is more ambiguous. The lack of a serial comma can become ambiguous ("I would like to thank my parents, President Bush and Mariah Carey" being the example) but in this case it isn't. You could possibly say that without the comma the list refers to a) Philosophy and b) Politics and Economics; but this would require the comma to indicate that the list has only two items (as in eg the headline "Bush requests lower tariffs, taxes") and that isn't proper British English as lists in British English as a rule never have just two items separated by a comma. ¶ 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously... there are more important things in life. It has been closed so... let it be :). Mikker ^(...) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)