Talk:Brown University/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Archive 01

Contents

Is the New Curriculum overrated?

I think it's a bit too much that half of the history section, for a university that is 240+ years old, is devoted to this subject. With apologies to older Brunonians (I'm B'97) I just don't think it is as important as it may have seemed in the 60's. Though Brown has fewer formalized requirements than other schools, I think for most students the effect is not much different (though one's GPA is a little clunkier w/o the +/-'s) as they are well aware of what will be expected of them in graduate school or the professional world. Pres. Simmons' priorities seem to be to improve brown's finances and develop top notch research centers, not to promote some idea of "self determination". Although the University still pays lip service to it I think the New Curriculum is fading in importance. Perhaps someone can modify the history section? Kurtosis 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Brown interviews

What should I ask in my Brown Interview? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EKN (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't exactly the place to ask; e-mail me (via my userpage) if you like. --Mgreenbe 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance Rate

For 2004-2005, the Class of 2009 registered a 14.6% acceptance rate. That's pretty good. But several authors keep changing this section in the text to say, "6th" lowest in the country among doctoral research universities. This is factually incorrect. In the same admissions cycle, Harvard-Yale-Princeton-Columbia had lower rates. Meanwhile, MIT's rate was 14%; Stanford hovered around 12%. So at the very least, this ranks Brown 7th, so long as we use Carnegie's index which excludes regional liberal arts college, the military academies and the music institutes. Those who ignore this fact distort Brown's relative statistical standing vis-a-vis other elite colleges.

For proof: http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/resources/early2005statistics.html

Keep in mind in terms of the acceptance/yield ratios Brown is also not in the top five. The "bolt" rate--i.e., the percentage of students who bolt from a Brown admissions offer to another school's admissions offer given acceptance into both--for every dyad (e.g., Brown-Harvard, Brown-Yale, Brown-Princeton, etc.) is skewed towards the non-Brown institution, EXCEPT for the three Ivies not mentioned thus far: Brown-Cornell; Brown-UPenn; Brown-Dartmouth, in which the bolt rate favors Brown significantly. This is nothing to be ashamed of, but please, Brown fans, don't inflate the eliteness of the school by inventing statistics. One place may not be much to argue over: but it is a statistical lie, and Wikipedia has no place for such blatant fabrications. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.254.147 (talk • contribs) .

The above argument is baseless because it is based on unofficial numbers. An example: Harvard's acceptance rate is listed at 10.3% overall, while the Harvard webpage begs to differ, claiming the official rate to be 9.2% (http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/prospective/applying/stats/index.html). Admissions percentages can be interpreteed many different ways. I agree that they should not appear on ANY college articles for this reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.16.12.112 (talk • contribs) .

Josiah Carberry

The "Josiah Carberry" reference is a little spurious--he deserves a page in the Wikipedia, sure, but should he be one of only two people mentioned in connection to Brown here? 24.61.43.104 05:02, 18 Oct 2002 (UTC)

Agreed... but he really does deserve a wikipedia page, so why take him off? Can you think of people who should be added to the Brown page? We certainly could do so. Should we add the last few presidents (EGG, etc.)? They hardly seem that relevant. Actually, more than people, we should really add the New Curriculum. In fact, maybe I'll add something on that now. Tom 14:35, 19 Oct 2002 (UTC)
Hrmph, now User:Someone Else has taken Mr. Carberry off without explanation (or rather, by calling it "misinformation"). "Misinformation" isn't quite the work -- perhaps a misplaced joke. On the other hand, this joke is an important part of Brown lore, documented, etc. (the library actually had an exhibit about Mr. Carberry not long ago). Perhaps if I come back to this page and organize/expand it, I can put it in under Brown traditions/myths. Thoughts? Tom 23:54, 3 Apr 2003 (UTC)
Someone, put in an obviously fabricated story after your encyclopedic entry on this subject, and, though it is funny, I feel I must deleate it to deter any miss information. Sorry funny man (who I assume was not you). Mike 23:44m 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

POV in Atmosphere at Brown University

Memento, I don't mind if you revert changes, so long as you can justify the reversion. As for instance, by your citing Women's Wear Daily. However, I think you also added back in some things that are merely opinion. Do you think you could either find cites for them or remove them, please?

In particular: Some consider Brown to be the "happiest Ivy."

-- who? And isn't this just a an opinion, and an opinion students at other Ivies might vociferously contest?

The curriculum [...] promotes an atmosphere where students are sincerely interested in their work

-- how do we objectively distinguish the sincere interest of Brown's students from the (presumably) insincere or less sincere interest of students at other universities? Are all or even most students at Brown sincerely interested? Is this a fact or is this Brown boosterism?

on the basis that students on campus seem to have the strongest sense of personal style

-- did Women's Wear Daily actually say strongest sense of personal style? What, precisely, determines a "strong sense" of style, and what distinguishes a "personal style" from a public or an impersonal style? Is this fact, or opinion?

they strip off their clothes and, once nude, run out from the elevators all through the library where students are dutifully writing papers or preparing for tests

-- are all students writing or preparing, or are some or most lounging about or present to see the amateur strip show? The students are "dutifully" writing papers? How do we know they're doing it dutifully, or is this just purple prose? Could they be "desultorily" writing papers? or "dispiritedly" writing papers? Or "doggedly" writing papers?

the streakers gleefully hand out the highly-caloric treats to all bystanders.

-- "Gleefully", perhaps. but "the highly caloric treats" is something straight out of a freshman creative writing class; why not just say "donuts", or "snacks"?

The naked donut runners, it should be noted, are not known for their physical fitness- and are proud of this fact.

-- "it should be noted"? Why should it be noted? thus is pure filler to make the sentence sound better, and again, belong sin a creative writing class and not an encyclopedia. While it does seem likely the students are not known for their physical fitness, why not simply say they are "out of shape"? And how do we know they're proud of that? If they chant "we're proud to be wimps", then say that -- that's a firm, objective statement of fact. But "are proud" is the writer's inference. When in doubt, Wikipedia should sound more like a newspaper article, and less like a Chamber of Commerce press release.

Though Brown, like most Ivies, leans liberal

-- I know this is a truism, but is it true? If so, how do we know?

students on campus have a wide range of political beliefs, and seem engaged with most political topics.

-- They "seem engaged"? How can you tell. Eschew broad generalization; prefer facts: "70% of Brown's students volunteer in political campaigns" or the like.

the naked donut runners dash across campus to the Sciences Library ("SciLi")

-- do general readers who aren't Brown students care about the slang abbreviation for campus building -- enough to include it in an encyclopedia?

where they repeat the process for Brown's more technically minded- and equally wide-eyed- students.

-- is "technically minded" a mushy substitute for "science and engineering majors"? And are they really equally wide-eyed- [sic]", or is this more creative writing?

Donut runs vary in number of students participating and in number of donuts purchased. In the 2000 donut run, for example, nearly twenty students participated with numerous full boxes of donuts; in the 2004 donut run, however, only a handful of students participated, with small bags of donuts. Student turnout for the runs will vary as well, depending on how secretive the runners are. In the 2000 run, the students were caught more or less unaware, while in the 2004 run, there was a huge turnout crowding the room at least half an hour before the runners arrived.

-- this is a lot of information for an event that "only a handful" of students participate in. Does it really deserve this much attention? So much attention as to give the number of participants in specific years?

I hope I'm not being discouraging to a new wikipedian; please understand this as constructive criticism, and please do continue to make your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. But please consider making those contributions less "purple" in the prose and more concrete in the facts.

Thanks! orthogonal 23:28, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a past naked donut runner, I can say I don't think the shape of the naked donuters deserves mention at all -- it doesn't really matter if your insult is direct or backhanded. I also think the naked donut section should be shortioned and incorporated into a sub-section on traditions which would include the much older tradition of Josiah Carberry, which was previously deleted from this site. Other bits of lore might include the myth of the Carrie Bell Tower....Tom 00:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No offense meant -- and none, I think, given by me. To clarify, I did not originate the Naked Donut Runners business, or their (lack of?) shape. The original entry was "The naked donut runners, it should be noted, are not known for their physical fitness- and are proud of this fact.", which I changed to "The naked donut runners profess to be proud of their poor physical fitness." My aim was merely to remove the POV you complain of, and what I think is somewhat overwritten prose. I do agree with you that the Naked Donut Ramble is disproportionately detailed and should be shorted (or deleted) and perhaps moved. But I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt and take its importance -- and claims about physical fitness -- at face value. orthogonal 00:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed -- didn't me to aim at you, as I did recognize your take. You can see where it would be mildly amusing to hear wikipedians tweaking the phrasing of a description of a college tradition :) I'll see what I can do about making this part of a more general (brief) section on traditions at Brown. Tom 11:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not the original author of any of the statements in the Atmosphere at Brown section. My only contribution was the Women's Wear Daily citation. Also, if you had actually examined my version, you would have noticed that I had retained many of your changes.
In particular: Some consider Brown to be the "happiest Ivy."
-- who? And isn't this just a an opinion, and an opinion students at other Ivies might vociferously contest?
---- Notice how I changed it from Brown is generally considered to Some consider Brown to be?
The curriculum [...] promotes an atmosphere where students are sincerely interested in their work
-- how do we objectively distinguish the sincere interest of Brown's students from the (presumably) insincere or less sincere interest of students at other universities? Are all or even most students at Brown sincerely interested? Is this a fact or is this Brown boosterism?
---- As per your request, I removed it.
on the basis that students on campus seem to have the strongest sense of personal style
-- did Women's Wear Daily actually say strongest sense of personal style? What, precisely, determines a "strong sense" of style, and what distinguishes a "personal style" from a public or an impersonal style? Is this fact, or opinion?
---- Original article here.
they strip off their clothes and, once nude, run out from the elevators all through the library where students are dutifully writing papers or preparing for tests
-- are all students writing or preparing, or are some or most lounging about or present to see the amateur strip show? The students are "dutifully" writing papers? How do we know they're doing it dutifully, or is this just purple prose? Could they be "desultorily" writing papers? or "dispiritedly" writing papers? Or "doggedly" writing papers?
---- Your change was retained.
the streakers gleefully hand out the highly-caloric treats to all bystanders.
-- "Gleefully", perhaps. but "the highly caloric treats" is something straight out of a freshman creative writing class; why not just say "donuts", or "snacks"?
---- Your change was retained.
The naked donut runners, it should be noted, are not known for their physical fitness- and are proud of this fact.
-- "it should be noted"? Why should it be noted? thus is pure filler to make the sentence sound better, and again, belong sin a creative writing class and not an encyclopedia. While it does seem likely the students are not known for their physical fitness, why not simply say they are "out of shape"? And how do we know they're proud of that? If they chant "we're proud to be wimps", then say that -- that's a firm, objective statement of fact. But "are proud" is the writer's inference. When in doubt, Wikipedia should sound more like a newspaper article, and less like a Chamber of Commerce press release.
---- Tom removed this in his latest version.
Though Brown, like most Ivies, leans liberal
-- I know this is a truism, but is it true? If so, how do we know?
---- If you were a student at Brown, there would be no doubt in your mind that the administration, faculty, and student body are overwhelmingly liberal.
students on campus have a wide range of political beliefs, and seem engaged with most political topics.
-- They "seem engaged"? How can you tell. Eschew broad generalization; prefer facts: "70% of Brown's students volunteer in political campaigns" or the like.
---- As per your request, I removed it.
the naked donut runners dash across campus to the Sciences Library ("SciLi")
-- do general readers who aren't Brown students care about the slang abbreviation for campus building -- enough to include it in an encyclopedia?
---- Your change was retained.
where they repeat the process for Brown's more technically minded- and equally wide-eyed- students.
-- is "technically minded" a mushy substitute for "science and engineering majors"? And are they really equally wide-eyed- [sic]", or is this more creative writing?
---- Your change was retained.
Donut runs vary in number of students participating and in number of donuts purchased. In the 2000 donut run, for example, nearly twenty students participated with numerous full boxes of donuts; in the 2004 donut run, however, only a handful of students participated, with small bags of donuts. Student turnout for the runs will vary as well, depending on how secretive the runners are. In the 2000 run, the students were caught more or less unaware, while in the 2004 run, there was a huge turnout crowding the room at least half an hour before the runners arrived.
-- this is a lot of information for an event that "only a handful" of students participate in. Does it really deserve this much attention? So much attention as to give the number of participants in specific years?
---- Tom removed this in his latest version.
Next time please examine the latest revision first. MementoVivere 17:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, when I wrote this I was examining the (then) latest revision; changes may have been made while I was working on it, or between the time I put it on your page and then copied it here. But, in any case, I think you (and Tom) have done an excellent job is addressing my questions, and an excellent job with the Brown article in general. The article is, I think, much stronger for your efforts. And thank you for having the intellectual honesty (and patience) to address each of my complaints individually -- that's truly rigorous work, and reflects well on you. orthogonal 17:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is the Nazi Party "Political"?

POV quibble: The list of notable Brown alumni is broken into categories. "Louis Redding - first African American to practice law in Delaware" is categorized in "Government / Law / Public Policy " But "George Lincoln Rockwell (1942) - founder, American Nazi Party" is relegated to "Other". Surely founding a political party, even an abhorrent one, is a form of politics or public policy. Or is the category written narrowly (including lawyers and political figures, but under the name "Public Policy" rather than the ore obvious "Politics", in order expressly to exclude Rockwell while including more palatable politicians? It's perhaps a minor point, but we must be especially careful to avoid POV that reinforces our majority societal views.-- orthogonal 21:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Citation

User:Memento Viveri replaced my citations list with external links -- why? Is this preferred on the wikipedia? It seems to be less informative and makes it more of a PITA for outsiders to find where the sources were. Also, the source I listed for my additions gave me information/back-up on most of the current traditions (naked donuts, sex in the scili, etc.), so it's not quite accurate to just list it after the first paragraph of traditions. I have noticed that the "sources" section format is rarely used, but I assumed it was preferred to the links. Tom 23:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it's contextual, and there are some circumstances (e.g., when you just want to provide confirmation for a single fact and the fastest, best way is by linking to it inline) where you'd definitely want to go with linking it out, and others (e.g., where you refer to a single source multiple times, and/or where it's useful to the user to be shown bibliographical information) where you'd definitely want to go with a "Sources" section, and some hazy gray areas. If you feel there's been an actual loss of useful information, you should change it back. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia practice seems to be to use the "External Sources"; where cites to sites are used, they are in the form [[htpp://example.com footnote number]]: "Google is a great place to search [1]"
Note that that's a singly bracketed link followed by a space and the displayed text, "[" "url" "space" "displayed text" "]", which is surrounded by two brackets that are not Wiki markup but are actually displayed:
"[" "[" "url" "space" "displayed text (generally a footnote number)" "]" "]"
-- orthogonal 00:11, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's actually not always the practice. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Cite your sources#Web sites (not from periodicals). I should also point out that one factor in deciding whether to use a link or a bibliography-style source-list is whether you want the casual user to actually follow the link, or just to be aware that a source is there. I know that you supplied that material originally to provide authentication for claims made within the article, so I understand why you'd list sources at the bottom; however, it might be the case that these are links people will want to click through to. ::shrug:: -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I put the sources back. Actually, I combined the link and source-list. It seems to me to give the best of both worlds -- an instant click if someone wants it, and a reference that will help someone find the permanent print sources if the web source disappears. Hopefully this works out -- I'm also glad that I noticed and that I remembered the old source I'd recorded (which had been erased without explanation). Tom 02:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Looks very professional -- I especially like your guarding against the ephemeral nature of the internet by giving "dates retrieved". Good idea. -- orthogonal 03:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Breaking Article up

I notice we're getting a notice about this article being too long. I also notice that the vast majority of that length is in the form of lengthy lists. Perhaps one or more of these lists could become its own article? Any thoughts on which one(s) should be split off -- List of Brown Alumni, List of People Associated with Brown, etc...? Tom 13:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Following what's been done on the Harvard University page, I went ahead and moved the list of Brown faculty and alums to Brown University people. --Tom 22:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BACH

User:MementoVivere removed the section on BACH, saying that since it only houses 27 people it deserves removal. I would think, however, it might deserve to stay. After all, the naked party is included in this article as part of Brown tradition/culture, and this takes place in the coops. It seems like the coops represent a piece of brown culture, and I don't see the harm of their being mentioned among other discussion of student life (greek life, culture, etc.) Tom 03:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to put every piece of Brown culture in here, though. Should the world's-best-and-only skating band get a mention? ECDC? The Jabberwocks? Parietals? I think we should keep this article at a fairly high level, instead of trying to get comprehensive.--SarekOfVulcan 21:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Aren't naked parties held by all kinds of groups other than BACH (Art House, St. Anthony's Hall, even Tech House)? I think the mention should probably be removed and made more general, no? --shudder 04:36, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not there now, so I can't speak for the present, but from '97-'02, the only naked parties I ever heard about were the ones held by BACH. --Tom 10:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm currently at Brown, and there definitely are naked parties held by other groups. --shudder 01:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the parties started with BACH, but more to the point, BACH is a real part of Brown. I wasn't there when they started, but I think they were created in response to a real housing shortage, and they may have been a class or independant study for class credit at their inception. I think that the organization was entirely student run, at least for a time, which is significant - they outright owned or mort-
gaged two of the four houses they used in the mid to late nineties, they ran a food co-op, and I think that many of the members learned a lot about business and management from the experience. They also had a real culture, as much as, if not more than many of the fraternities.
I speak of all of this in the past tense, but only because I am unaware of the present state of things. I should also add that I was never a member, so other people may be albe to speak better to the actual intricacies of BACH itself, but I think they deserve at least as much mention as an fraternity or sorority.
As for the skating band - well, that does comment on what Brown is, and who we are. I don't know that any lengthy discussion is needed, but a passing reference might be appropriate. --Badger151 20:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Badger151 appears to be correct about the origins of BACH, according to their website (linked from the wiki page). DMacks 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Traditions

In the section on traditions at Brown University, surely a required feature of a tradition is that it has been running for a considerable number of years? Consequently, is it not a good idea to say when each tradition was originally established, if only to determine whether or not something should be counted as a tradition? Just because something may be amusing, such as naked donut runners, this does not by itself qualify it as a tradition. When did Brown students start stripping off their clothes and dishing out snacks in the library? 134.225.184.120 19:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know when it began but it happened throughout my time at Brown (2001-2005) and had clearly been going on prior to 2001. Can any alumni who graduated in the late 90s comment as to whether the naked donut runs happened then as well? NBS525 14:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I graduated in '97 and I never hear of naked donut runs. To my knowledge the only naked party in those days was the one at the coop. Seems like you young whippersnappers can barely keep your clothes on;-) Kurtosis 22:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I graduated in '99 and ==Kurtosis. I'd be interested in knowing more about the history of these events. User:stylobix 19 May 2006
I recall naked-donuts during at least part of my time at Brown (class of '96). I don't remember it being nearly as "organized" and as much of an anticipated regular occurance. I think we considered it a doing of Improvidence folks. DMacks 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Scandals/controversies

Should a section on high-profile controversies be included? For example, the Adam Lack case and the Horowitz/BDH thing (which I added to Brown Daily Herald). I feel like these are relevant, but they may need to be offset by things the college has received more positive attention for. – flamurai (t) 22:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to post up any stories, controversial or otherwise, that you deem important and relevant to this article. There is no need to only include positive things. –MementoVivere 19:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes! And if you write about adam lack put in this great quote from the John Stossel intervew- "Vomit on the floor doesn't mean a thing. Coulda been there 5 minutes, coulda been there 5 hours" (explaining why he didn't think the girl was drunk) Kurtosis 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mysterious Housing Plan

What is the secret of the tunnel?

Campus housing is the source of many of Brown’s most popular rumors. There is a highly mysterious tunnel system that connects a good deal of Wriston Quad around where Greek and Program houses are located. There are endless theories about the original intent of these tunnels, but rumor has it that they use to extend over a larger portion of the school. Brown is also said to have a few secret societies in addition to the well publicized organizations; these societies are said to be located near campus in mysterious Mansions. The most famous myth concerns the ominous Grad Center dorm. It is rumored to have been designed in 1968 by prison architects as a fortress in case of riots. Regardless of the building’s design intent, it is a fact that the imposing concrete spiral staircase was actually built in the incorrect orientation because the builders read the blueprints wrong.

from College Prowler's guidebook; Brown University - Off the Record

I seem to remember hearing that the Grad Towers were designed to be riot-proof, rather than a fortress against riotiers. The argument was that the lack of areas of assembly in the main towers, such as lounges, etc, left no place for rioting.
I also know that some of the tunnels are either the basement areas of buildings (as under Keeney; these are accessed by a trap door in the floor of a dead end in one of the lower level hallways, or through one or two of the maintenance rooms, in the rare event that Plant Ops left the door unlocked). Other tunnels, such as those accessed via the trapdoor in the floor of the first floor men's room of the building on the south side of lower Lincoln Field (whose name I forget - anyone?), are steam tunnels, in which steam pipes (and other types of pipes, I suppose) run between buildings. These tunnels can also be acessed via some of the manholes on Lincoln field. A manhole near Carrie Tower leads to a tunnel system that quickly splits, part of it running as a crawl space in the direction of the tower, and the rest running toward and into the Hay library. This tunnel has motion detectors and alarm systems as you approach the library, and I seem to recall that it also had steam pipes.
My recollection is that the campus has a steam plant in one corner of the Aldritch-Dexter fields, providing steam to many parts of the campus, so I expect that there are many other tunnels out there for the purposes of carrying and allowing acces to the pipes that deliver that steam. --Badger151 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The tunnel running from the manhole near the Carrie Tower leads three places: towards University Hall; towards the tower; and towards the John Hay library. The motion sensors are connected to the Hay library, as far as I can tell, because tripping them summons Brown Police to the Library. The crawlspace mentioned is actually a good ways past the tower, and likely runs under Benefit Street, based on estimates from pacing it out; thus there is no access from the tunnel to the tower. -- Anonymous, Feb. 12, 2006
Others have stated that the tunnel does lead to Carrie Tower. Here is a good summary of others' experiences with Brown tunnels. DMacks 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
They were built to attact the frats back to campus because they would be fed from the Sharpe Refactory, the local dining hall, in their lounges via the tunnels. The tunnels still exist, and some are locked down more heavily than others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.16.23.171 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

"prestige" comment

Watchers of this page should see this poll about whether this page should contain a phrase like "widely considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world". Nohat 15:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WBRU

No mention of the local WBRU (95.5) radio station?

added on 07:32, 13 August 2005. --JButler 11:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Midwestern Ivy League" ?

Contributers to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:

Midwestern Ivy League

Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 04:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Midwestern Ivy League" ?

Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:

Midwestern Ivy League

Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Sidney Frank Donation

I've been told that Frank's recent $100 million donatation to Brown is not only the largest gift Brown has ever received, but also the largest single donation ever given by an individual to a university. I'm not sure this is true so I am hesitant to post it, but it might be worth checking into. 00:20, October 21, 2005

  • If this was the case, it is no longer true anyway, after the recent donation to Yale's school of music. Mgcsinc 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
A significant number of donations in the 1990s were at least $100 million. I wasn't able to find a list of large donations to universities, but apparently The Chronicle of Higher Education has one for subscribers. btm talk 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Egyptology

I'm as sad about this as everyone else (in fact more sad, considering I'm a concentrator), but Brown no longer has an Egyptology department; it is instead the Department of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies. Good luck getting the tour guides to stop saying this, but now no university in the Western hemisphere has a pure Egyptology department. Shame, shame. --Mgreenbe 17:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

is western hemisphere also Germany? Because we got at least 6 egyptology departments! kind regards GoJoe

Motto

Shouldn't Deo be spelled with a capital D in the motto?--Tamas 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The founding of Brown

I have a suggestion for inserting three sentences (Re: charter principle in reference to professional schools) into the first paragraph of "The founding of Brown" section that would appear just before the last sentence in the existing paragraph. Here is the modified paragraph:

In 1763, James Manning, a Baptist minister, was sent to Rhode Island by the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches in order to found a college. At the same time, local Congregationalists, led by James Stiles, were working toward a similar end. On March 3, 1764, a charter was filed to create Rhode Island College in Warren, Rhode Island, reflecting the work of both Stiles and Manning. The charter had more than 60 signatories, including John and Nicholas Brown of the Brown family, who would give the College its present day name. The college's mission, the charter stated, was to prepare students "for discharging the Offices of Life" by providing instruction "in the Vernacular Learned Languages, and in the liberal Arts and Sciences." The charter's language has long been interpreted by the university as discouraging the founding of a business school or law school. Brown continues to be one of only two Ivy League universities with neither a business school nor law school. James Manning, the minister sent to Rhode Island by the Baptists, was sworn in as the College's first president in 1765. GO WHARTON 18:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation for charter quotes: Bronson, Walter C. - The History of Brown University, 1764-1914, p. 500. GO WHARTON 08:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something about what's in the charter causing that interpretation? --Mgreenbe 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I'll get back to you with an updated suggestion. GO WHARTON 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the suggested paragraph update including citation, although I don't know how to do wiki citations. The references in the Brown wiki article all seem to point to other websites rather than to the page bottom. Any comments? GO WHARTON 08:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, looks great! I fixed a typo; everything else seems fine. I'm definitely cool with it going in. --Mgreenbe 09:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's in the article now and so far, no complaints. Then again, it's only been about 30 seconds since I pushed the "Save page" button. Chalk that up to my new PB - Paranoia Brunonia. GO WHARTON 18:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Brown was the first college in the nation to accept students of all religious affiliations."

Hmmm...

http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Admission/gettoknowus/ourhistory.html says:

Brown was the Baptist answer to Congregationalist Yale and Harvard; Presbyterian Princeton; and Episcopalian Penn and Columbia. At the time, it was the only one that welcomed students of all religious persuasions (following the example of Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island in 1636 on the same principle).

Penn, however, says [1]

Unlike other American Colonial colleges, the new school would not focus on education for the clergy.

and refers to it as "nonsectarian"[2]:

Penn was founded on unique grounds in the history of education. In Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin sought not only to create a local institution of higher learning, but also to provide an education that did not fit the models already established in New England and Virginia. In Europe and the colonies up to that time, such schools had emphasized the training of new clergymen. The goal of Franklin's nonsectarian, practical plan would be the education of a business and governing class rather than of clergymen.

These don't actually contradict each other, but I'm beginning to think I'd like to see some better sources for the early admissions policies of these two schools. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Latin translation accuracy

I've never taken any Latin, but isn't it supposed to be Universitas Brunensis, not Universitatis Brunensis? A Google search yields different news releases (mostly from the text of honorary degrees) for each of the spellings, but apparently Universitatis Brunensis is also a school in Brno, Czech Republic. I might be completely off-base, but if somebody with any background in Latin could clarify it'd be much appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riphamilton (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Universitatis is the genitive case, and it makes sense that it's more common (some department of Brown University). I've changed it to nominative case. --Mgreenbe 12:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I searched for a view of a diploma online or some other type of Latin confirmation. The only useful thing I found was this link. Apparently it should be "Universitas Brunoniensis." I'm changing it to that now. I'll try going by the registrar sometime to confirm whether or not this is true. Sdej 06:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I found another listing of honorary degrees which states "Universitas Brunensis" [3], which is confirmed by the Latin wikipedia, although I am no scholar of Latin. Checking with the registrar should help. InTheFlesh? 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
So when I went to the registrar's office a couple of days ago, I was told that all they had was a translated version of the diploma. No one could seem to get ahold of a standard Brown diploma in Latin. Go figure. Sdej 07:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
O tempora, O Moses. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My diploma reads "Universitas Brunensis". DMacks 02:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Haec studie nolunt mentem?

Ranking?

An unregistered IP added a sentence in the 'Academics' portion saying "Brown ranked 15th in the nation in 2006." Is this based on USN&WR? If so (and I think it is), is this a violation of copyright? I know that they especially tend to keep a tight lid on their rankings and analysis without subscription or purchase of their magazine. I have removed the uncited factoid. Thoughts? Sdej 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not University Hall

The picture allegedly depicting University Hall is incorrectly labeled. The building to the left is in fact Hope (Hope!). The building to the right (which you can barely see) is University Hall. Not knowing the intentions of the editor that added this picture to the page (whether it was to add a picture of University Hall, or to simply include a picture of a campus building), I thought it best to bring this to the attention of others rather than modify the label. -seliopou 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing Pacifica House

I'm removing the following pending provision of a good verifiable source:

In recent years, the Society of the Pacifica House has claimed to be the continuation of the Franklin Society and the sole remaining secret society at Brown.

I put a request for references on the secret society section on March 4th. By March 6th Memento Vivire had supplied references for everything but the Society of the Pacific House, on which he placed a "citation needed" tag. No citation has been forthcoming and as DMacks has pointed out, the article on Society of the Pacifica House has been discussed in AfD and deleted, mostly due to verifiability problems.

I am therefore removing this sentence per the verifiability policy. It should not be added again unless it is accompanied by a good, verifiable source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering how successful a search for references will be. Finding documented information on a secret society would seem to me to be rather difficult. The only thing I can direct you to is their website. Pacifica house But I totally agree with your not wanting to include it without sources. Sdej 04:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not a new situation. Actually secret societies are fairly common submissions and, if truly secret, are routinely voted for deletion.
The verifiability policy says in so many words that it is non-negotiable. There are many things that may well be true but cannot be included Wikipedia. Facts in Wikipedia don't rest on the personal authority of contributors, they must be traceable to things published by a reputable source that a reader can check if desired.
If someone wants to include information about Pacifica house, they need to write a book about it and get it published (as has been done for Yale's Skull and Bones) or get an item into a mainstream newspaper or a college guide or something like that. If a reputable source has a story that says "Local legend has it that there is an institution called Pacifica House but nobody knows whether it's true," then that source could be used for a statement in the article that there is a local legend.
No source for Pacifica House? Then nothing about it may be included in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mocha link

I removed the following from the article's external links section:

This has been added at least twice, but I don't see why it is relevant unless the reader is a Brown student. Also, the link has been added by anonymous IPs, not people who have been logged in to Wikipedia user accounts. If you feel that this link is important to include in the article, please explain why here. Otherwise, I'll remove it if it's added again. NBS525 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this link seems inappropriate at this time. According to its own description, "Mocha is a new way to browse Brown's courses online" and there is no mention of making the program available for other campuses (or the code available in general), so is clearly not useful for the general public. OTOH, the anon poster is within the brown.edu IP space. DMacks 22:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Although it may sound silly, Brown students are not necessarily the only people that are interested in Brown course offerings; nor would I say that this population small enough to be of little to no importance. In fact if you think about the people that are most likely to view the Brown wikipedia page that do not go to Brown, its relevance and usefulness seems to increase dramatically. Be it BOCA or Mocha, I think it would be a good idea to link to Brown's course offerings. Of course Mocha would be preferable, since BOCA is a human rights violation. -seliopou 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to a BOCA link--it may be a travesty of a website, but it is the official word...primary source relevant to the topic at hand. Conversely, Mocha is a secondary source that is synced with BOCA on occasion, and self-described as "not supported or endorsed by Brown University in any way, and it is extremely unofficial." DMacks 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with DMacks here -- BOCA seems like it would be more appropriate to include because it is, after all, the official online listing of Brown courses, travesty of a website though it may be. NBS525 18:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing unsourced "miscellaneous traditions"

These have been marked as needing sources for at least a month, and nobody seems interested in providing them, so, per the verifiability policy I'm moving them here until someone sources them. Actually the rest of the "traditions" section is in almost equally bad shape. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous traditions

  • Seniors sleep in the Sciences Library some time before graduation.[citation needed]
  • Students have sex on the 13th floor of the Sciences Library. The restroom is usually used by all but the most adventuresome of students.[citation needed]
  • Students attempt to complete the "SciLi Challenge," a shot of liquor on each of the library's 14 floors.[citation needed]
  • It is said that a student who enters all seven of the Brown libraries during his or her first year will never marry anyone of the opposite sex.[citation needed]

SexPowerGod

There used to be a page for SexPowerGod, but it got deleted. Now the info from that page has been added here in the Brown page itself, but I think it's an old version of what had been there (I remember discussing changes to be made that appear here in their original form). Any way to dig up the last version of it and its talk prior to deletion? I have a feeling there used to be a Starf*ck page too, but don't know a good way to search the deleted-pages namespace. DMacks 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, found the Talk:SexPowerGod page, and made some changes in line with the feel there. DMacks 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/o/Talk%7EBrown_University_Archive_01_ad4b.html"