Talk:St. John's College, U.S.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Current Collaborations: McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School

More refs required to support this articleVictuallers 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the St. John's College, U.S. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

  1. February 2005 – July 2006

Contents

[edit] Diversity (figures)

I recently deleted the top part of the student body section, this section spoke of the lack of diverstiy at St John's as compared to other higher ed institutions and cited a figure for the caucaisan population (first 90 some percent then changed to absurd 99 percent).

The link that was provided as support for the figure, contains (at today's date ) no information concernign racial makeup of the student body.

Also I feel that unless there is overwhelming evidence that comporable colleges have a much higher racial diversity or there is some special reason to highlight St John's racial make up (such as late intergration or lack of support for, neither of which I believe to be true ) I do not think the paragraph should stay in current form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.171.68 (talk • contribs) 18:32, August 14, 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph was a highly reduced version of a comment someone put in a while back about "apartheid" on the Annapolis campus (the discussion is in the talk page's archive). I cut it back, and found the citation page, which does say "Minority representation is about 8% college-wide." However, the point about comparison with figures at other colleges is taken, and on reflection I don't think the paragraph is really necessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I did miss that, I was looking for something like a table break down and overlooked it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.171.68 (talk • contribs) 23:26, August 14, 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that St. John's College was the first school south of the Mason-Dixon line to desegregate yet still today they have trouble getting racial minorities to apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.220.218 (talk • contribs) 11:06, December 5, 2006 (UTC)

If we can find a source for that (St. John's being the first school south of the Mason-Dixon line to desegregate) it should probably be added to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I know they boast about their being the first to desegregate south of the mason-dixon line in one of their admissions brochures. Here's a page from their alumni department that makes a mention of them having the first enrolled black student in a private college south of the mason-dixon line (http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/alumAssocMain.aspx?page=6832). His name was Martin Dyer, he graduated in 1952. The page the link goes to reads, "Martin Dyer A’52 (Annapolis, class of 1952), BVG (Board of Visitors and Governors) member and the first African American student enrolled in a private college south of the Mason Dixon Line..."
That wording doesn't mention the desegregation specifically but their promotional material does. Though I haven't had much luck finding a source with google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.220.218 (talk • contribs) 5:29, December 8, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy/www.theunexaminedcurriculum.com

It's about time someone added a note about theunexaminedcurriculum.com. I know Phil, and as a former student of St. John's myself, I think its fantastic that he created an website full of academic criticisms of the college.

Sorry for not signing in earlier. If anyone wants to add something to the short sentences about theunexaminedcurriculum.com that I provided, feel free. Maybe we could add more quotes? See ya! Johngabberstein 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The site is well constructed, and Torres' arguments are thoughtful and worth consideration. However, I'm not sure whether the site is notable or not. Has it been discussed in any major publications, even on the St. John's campus? If it's just the opinion of one former student, I'm not sure whether it merits inclusion or not, no matter how valid Torres' criticisms may be. On the other hand, if this site is the focus of a larger conversation about the merits of the Great Books program (or lack thereof), it should be included here. If Torres and/or his website have discussed or published elsewhere, it would be good to have a citation showing that it's not just the work of one dissatisfied individual. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


I am suprised by the inclusion of http://www.theunexaminedcurriculum.com in the body of the entry. It is a personal site, made by one very committed individual who seems to have been personally affronted by the St John's Curriculum and hence writes in very emotional and bombastic language criticizing the so called new program, which the college has followed since the early 20th century. I feel that the criticism section of the entry is rather long and already contains information that is superfulous ( e.g. - quotations which while included in an essay on the topic do not actually refrerence the college - S Hook essay). I certainly do not feel that the personal website of a pertrubed former student merits inclusion in the article, were he to graduate from college and become very notable there would be a reason for inclusion. As it stands the mention of said person and his website should in my opinion be deleted, I would even argue against keeping a link. For if this personal website remains included I fear it is only a matter of time until we have demands from the nascent publisher of www.thebestcurriculum.com .

What exactly would be wrong with that? Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the following wiki rules are relevant to think of concerning the current question.


4- Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
5- Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete

Personal website creation due to a current event (in one's life) is not notable (again unless the publisher is of some great interest), otherwise it is what a pamphlet or self made poster is in any other age. Something I personally would take strains to avoid even if I agreed with the conlusions, certainly not worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedia of human knowledge.

70.32.2.149 04:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ao


Apoligies in advance, for I do not think I read easily and I also do not think this current question is really spending our time on. I have reverted/deleted the mention of the said website and link to it. I did this after sludging through it and noticing opinion presented as fact, I think you could call them lies since I have a feeling their author knows that they are not true. I did not delete because the author has opinions I disagree with or even due to what I mentioned above, but because the author feels the need to include false statements in his quest.

Here are a few examples or peruse the website yourself.

from http://theunexaminedcurriculum.com/Outline%20of%20Arguments.html

The point that I would like to make, though, is this: St. John’s accepts some 85% of its applicants, and when deciding that 15% of prospective students to be rejected the primary criterion is “How effusive is the applicant’s extolment of the program is in his or her admissions essay?” So if you want guaranteed entry into St. John’s College, be sure to dedicated most of your essay to discussing just how “superior” the St. John’s program is to those of contemporary academic institutions!

The use of quotations of in the excerpt above is to my mind arbitrary. The reason for rejection of students is not outlined and it cannot be stated as fact. The use of style elements as window dressing seems rather suspect.

I believe this is under the "Arguments" page, and arguments by their very nature do not consist of a mere presentation of facts -- facts are given on the website in the margin. Thus, the statements quoted above are not given as fact; rather, they are -- like all of philosophy -- an opinion. The point is to provide an apparatus of argumentation to make the opinion cogent. This particular example, though, is fairly accurate, since Phil and I both (I agree with many of his points, and indeed left the college for many of the same reasons) discussed the matter with the head of admissions at St. John's in Annapolis. This is really beside the point though -- something to be forwarded to Phil himself. Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


http://theunexaminedcurriculum.com/Biography.html

This is despite all the sensational rhetoric propagated over the years by advocates of the St. John’s program, who claim that the college’s curriculum was adopted for no other reason than because of its inherent “superiority” (a word St. John’s is fond of using) to the increasingly specialized academic institutions that train more than they teach their students. As a matter of fact, though, the St. John’s program was born out of desperation, not inspiration.

I am not sure what sensational advocates are meant but the college's own history calls the implementation of the new program, one last desperate measure. (see below excerpt from http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1101)

I don't think Phil meant that the advocates are sensational, just the the rhetoric propagated by them is "sensational." Indeed, if you have ever taken a tour of the college (or attended!!!), you will find this to be the case. The actual history of the college is something even most "Johnnies" don't know about. Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Depression brought deep financial trouble. The board had invested heavily in Annapolis real estate during the 1920s, even mortgaging college buildings. When the stock market crashed and their investment opportunities evaporated, there was not enough money to meet operating expenses.
Back to the Top


The New Program
Rather than close the school the board decided on one last desperate measure. In 1937 they brought in Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanan, two academics who had revolutionary educational ideas, to completely revamp the curriculum. Buchanan, who was appointed dean, thought that the traditional liberal arts could be used as a formal structure for learning; he devised a course of study with the great books as the basis for discussion classes. Another important feature of his plan was the inter-relatedness of the disciplines; he proposed a college with a unified, all-required curriculum and no departments or majors.

My reason for deletion.

  1. Not notable (neither author nor website)
  2. Soapbox (for Author's view after a bad experience)
  3. Untruthful or close to it statements
  4. Unlinked by other sites, hence not notable

http://www.google.com/search?as_lq=www.theunexaminedcurriculum.com (JROWE concern, also not in Google search, I think this means it was created very recently and is not linked)

I am deleting but I would like to hear from those that disagree.

(actually the very able JROWE deleted as I was writing my treatise)


70.32.2.149 05:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ao


That site hasn't been in the entry for very long, and as you can see I've asked some questions about its inclusion. If it is indeed merely the reflection of one (non-notable) individual's opinions, it probably shouldn't be in the article. For now, I'll move it to the "external links" section. If anyone wants to make an argument for the site's inclusion in the body of the article (that is, an argument beyond "I know Phil and I think it's great that he made a website"), please do so and we'll try to reach a consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I don't think it even merits a link. Incidentally, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Torres was the editor who tried to insert a section on "St. John's apartheid" a while back (see the archive), since theunexaminedcurriculum.com notes the racial disparity at the Annapolis campus in much the same language as that editor's addition. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about here, but the "racial disparity" at, in particular, the Annapolis campus, is indeed very conspicuous. It is so conspicuous that just about every St. John's student has remarked at some point, "You know, there really is an old-fashioned feel to this college!" Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources we could use to back this up? Anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient, I'm afraid. I was referring to an earlier debate, in which an anonymous editor added some text which is very similar to some of the arguments at www.theunexaminedcurriculum.com.
Incidentally, the article did have a mention of the racial breakdown of the St. John's student body until recently; the discussion is above, if you'd like to reopen it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the website is an extension of a much larger debate about the St. John's educational philosphy, and should be kept on at least as a link. Indeed, St. John's has been the subject of tremendous debate over the years, and until now there has never been a single resource that summarizes the arguments presented in the past, as well as new arguments, for the problematicality of the St. John's program. What do you guys think? Johngabberstein 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


(actually the very able JROWE deleted as I was writing my treatise)

I agree that there are similarities with what the website contains and previous entries that were subquently removed as unworthy. I would like to see link removed even from external links. ( I changed the heading as it will no longer fit other controversy)

I see that the external link was also removed.

70.32.2.149 05:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ao

I wonder whether the "criticism and controversy" section gives undue weight to critics of St. John's. I'm loath to remove accurate content, but the neutral point of view policy does say that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." I'm not sure how we can determine how widespread or notable the views in the "criticism and controversy" section are, but I do think that the current presentation is somewhat disproportionate. There are a couple of possible recourses: we could summarize Hook's arguments further (by, for example, cutting the Courant quote and leaving Einstein and Russell — Russell in particular should be kept because it's clear he's speaking about the St. John's program in particular ["They read Harvey!"]). Or we could balance the criticism with arguments and/or quotations from educational experts such as Loren Pope who have praised the St. John's program (see here for a taste — ideally we would quote from and cite his books themselves). I'll muse further on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New sub-section for ease of editing

We shouldn't be debating the legitimacy of Torres' arguments, but whether they reflect a significant view about St. John's, and how that could be determined. As 70.32.2.149 points out, a Google test doesn't show any other sites linking to theunexaminedcurriculum.com, which tends to indicate that the site isn't very notable. Although I suppose an argument could be made that Torres is compiling noteworthy views opposing St. John's philosophy of education, I think that most of those views are already mentioned in the "controversy and criticism" section. The "new arguments" John refers to are unfortunately beyond Wikipedia's purview, unless they are commented on in a wider context. As long as it's just Torres presenting the arguments on his own website, it's not notable. If we can show some evidence that the arguments are reflecting a larger debate, that might help make the argument for keeping a link to the site.

One example: on the site, Torres mentions an essay he wrote for Peer Review Magazine. Was this essay published? If so, that would be more noteworthy than the website alone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to JGab...
I think that a website that is a proper overview of the "debate" concerning St John's college's new program would be something wikipedia should link to. But, this site is not an overview of the debate, it is a personal website which was created because of one person's bad experience at St John's.The site contains only criticism, it is not notable as of yet, and I agree with Jrowe that we already have an inmbalance towards criticism in the article.
Part of the problem, I think, is that the sources cited in opposition to one another (barr hutchinson vs Hook, Russell etc) are talking about diffrent things. One side about preperation in science the other about what industries need and perceived religious concerns, I think we could do better by finding quotations by Barr or Buchanan (the new program founders/or current members of faculty) addressing the specific criticism included. This would make for a more readable and more interesting section in my opinion. As of now it would seem that the critics are talking about one set of problems while the defenders about another. The boyer quotation I think could go as it adds very little except boyers opinion, or I would like to see it expanded beyond boyers opinion (except I think the section and article is already bloated).
70.32.2.149 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ao
I could find some better more context appropriate quotations responding to criticism, this I think would make the criticism section seem less one sided by virtue of a real debate. I have seen a number of books at the library published by St John's College when it had a press that I think would have something of the sort. I will try to get to this with haste.
And for the reason that the website and boyer quote really can have no respectful response I think they are inappropriate for the article (boyer I'm sure actually may have something more than opinion, but not the excerpt currently presented.
70.32.2.149 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ao
It would be great if we had a bit more context for the Boyer quote. I agree that as a bald statement of opinion it seems jarring, but if he had a more extensive critique of St. John's it would probably be worth including. The quotation also needs a page number from the book for a full citation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick comment: the theunexaminedcurriculum website is quite remarkable. I think St John's can really feel both pride and annoyance that a student who objects to it's love-it-or-loathe-it approach takes such a considered approach. While the [[Great Books] approach was criticisms, few colleges are able to help develop critical thinking in any form. --Duncan 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stjohnsforum and theunexaminedcurriculum.com revisited, and cocaine investigation

I have reinserted stjohnsforum.com and theunexaminedcurriculum.com in the external links section. With so much chatter about St. John’s on the internet, it seems inappropriate for the external links section to link only to the college’s official website and to a page dedicated to listing other colleges with great books programs. The official St. John’s website is a public relations (or propaganda) tool of the college. It is reasonable to balance this link with a website critical of the college. Many entries on Wikipedia contain links to sites critical of their subjects, including the entry on Wikipedia itself. If it is claimed that theunexaminedcurriculum.com isn’t significant enough or its author isn’t important enough to be included as an external link, an alternative site critical of the college should be proposed. Failing that, one must conclude that theunexaminedcurriculum.com is the most notable site currently known criticizing the St. John’s curriculum.

As for stjohnsforum.com, it was considered important enough to be reported in the Washington Post even when the site was small, with few members and comments. Now the site has grown tremendously, and its existence has impacted many people. While the unexamined curriculum mostly criticizes the academic nature of the St. John’s program, many of the comments on St. John’s forum focus on administration policy and conduct toward its students.

I have also restored the cocaine investigation to the body of the article. It is often newsworthy when one student is expelled from a college under controversial circumstances. It is even more notable when students are expelled in mass, especially when there is an accusation that students not guilty of drug use were pressured into naming others or punished for failing to do so.—Purple Seal 19:12, 21 October 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Purple Seal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Let's look at what Wikipedia's guidelines have to say about external links. The section on "what should be linked to" says:
    • Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one.
That covers the college's official site. So far, so good.
    • On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.
This would seem to support the inclusion of at least one site critical of the college. But let's also consider the section titled "Links normally to be avoided":
    • Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
That guideline says that "bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet" are generally not considered reliable sources, and "self-published sources" are not acceptable, except when written by a "well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise". The former would seem to exclude stjohnsforum.com; the latter is a strike against theunexaminedcurriculum.com.
But before we leap to judgment, let's go back to Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. The next category listed is:
    • A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to.
Purple Seal, I assume that you are the editor who has attempted to include this information on previous occasions, using other accounts. We don't know what connection you have to either of these websites, but it seems at least probable that you have a close connection to at least one of them, if not both. Since Purple Seal (talk • contribs) is a single-purpose account, we can't judge your reliability or truthfulness. We can't exclude these sites on this basis alone, but it can and will be a factor in the decision made by more experienced Wikipedians.
The next category of "links to be avoided" is:
    • Links that are added to promote a site...
It seems highly likely to me that both of the debated sites would fall into this category. A Google links search to find pages that link to either stjohnsforum.com or theunexaminedcurriculum.com comes up empty both times. ([1], [2].) This suggests that the sites are not widely known outside of a very small community. (Stjohnsforum.com has only 78 members, only 30 of whom have posted to the site; and indeed, a majority of the posts appear to have been made by a handful of forum members.) Another argument against inclusion.
Finally, there's this:
That's a clear argument against stjohnsforum.com. So the tally is one argument for inclusion of some site critical of St. John's, and two to four arguments against inclusion of these particular sites. That brings us to Purple Seal's assertion, "If it is claimed that theunexaminedcurriculum.com isn’t significant enough or its author isn’t important enough to be included as an external link, an alternative site critical of the college should be proposed." I disagree with this interpretation of Wikipedia policy. The onus for providing reliable sources for an article falls on the individual adding those sources, not other editors who challenge them. If these websites are judged to fall short of Wikipedia's bar for inclusion, it is not the responsibility of the article's other editors to find others that do. If no site capable of passing the tests of reliability and noteworthiness can be found, the only logical conclusion is that there is no such site, and none need be linked to in the article.
This article's "Criticism" section gives more than adequate voice to notable critics of St. John's and the Program. If a critical site that supports these views and is compatible with the reccomendations at WP:EL can be found, such a site should be linked. However, stjohnsforum and theunexaminedcurriculum are not such sites. Accordingly, I am going to remove them.
The cocaine investigation and student expulsion is another matter, and one that I don't feel strongly about. The Washington Post article is a good source, and the incident was doubtless significant for students attending the school at that time. I'm not sure how significant it is for a general overview of the college, but I'll defer to the judgment of other Wikipedians on that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Josiah Rowe has four arguments against inclusion of stjohnsforum.com and theunexaminedcurriculum.com. First, links to sites that contain original research should normally be avoided. He has a valid point. Both stjohnsforum.com and theunexaminedcurriculum.com contain original research. However, Wikipedia’s guide to external links says, “Except where noted, this list [of links normally to be avoided] does not override the list of what should be linked.” Wikipedia’s guide to external links says, “If an article presents multiple points of view, it is useful to provide a link to prominent sites dedicated to each point of view.”
Second, he says that a link to a website that I own or maintain should be avoided and implies that I am probably responsible for many previous edits on the site. I certainly have no way to prove that I didn’t write many comments under many different usernames, but I don’t see the point in creating sock puppets. If I had edited many articles, there doesn’t seem much point in creating a new username to edit the article about St. John’s College. I noticed that Josiah Rowe has made a large number of edits in many different articles, so he presumably knows a lot more about Wikipedia than I do. Nevertheless, his greater experience doesn’t mean that he’s right all the time. I decided to post because I feel that it’s important to create a more balanced view of St. John’s College on Wikipedia. His accusation implies that the same person is behind both stjohnsforum.com, theunexaminedcurriculum.com, and indeed all criticism of the college. While he would like to believe that criticism of the college only comes from one source, that’s just not so. Josiah Rowe appears to have a lot of time to spend editing numerous articles. I have less time and little inclination to contribute to Wikipedia as significantly as Josiah Rowe has, but that shouldn’t make my perspective less valid than his.
Third, Josiah Rowe says that “Links that are added to promote a site…” should be avoided. It is certainly true that I am trying to promote both sites because I believe that people interested in researching St. John’s College should check out both sites. St. John’s Forum contains a lot of opinion critical of the college administration, but it also contains links to many articles supportive of the college, links to blogs written by former students of the college, You Tube videos made by students of the college, and guidebook information. The unexamined curriculum is a well-reasoned argument against the St. John’s College curriculum, which balances more readily available arguments for the curriculum. However, Wikipedia does not say that adding links to promote a site should be avoided. Josiah Rowe omitted the rest of the sentence in order to bolster his argument. The complete sentence in the links that should normally be avoided reads, “Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming.” Neither stjohnsforum.com nor theunexaminedcurriculum.com sells anything, requires payment, or has any advertising.
Fourth, Josiah Rowe quotes Wikipedia’s links normally to be avoided, “Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.” The unexamined curriculum is none of these things. St. John’s Forum is a forum, but the key phrase is “unless mandated by the article itself”. It’s hard to say what it means to be mandated by the article itself, but St. John’s Forum led to the public exposure of the cocaine investigation and is certainly part of the criticism and controversy surrounding the college.
Josiah Rowe deleted the section on the cocaine investigation, but he says that he is not certain whether it should be included. The cocaine investigation is relevant not only for the investigation itself, but also because it provides a more general example of how the college’s honesty policy is applied. Josiah Rowe is uncertain on whether the cocaine investigation should be included and has not really given a good reason why he deleted it, but I’ll delay adding any mention of the cocaine investigation, stjohnsforum.com, or theunexaminedcurriculum.com to the article for a while to give Josiah Rowe and others a chance to respond to my arguments. However, I have added a paragraph about two of St. John’s College’s controversial policies in the criticism and controversy section.Purple Seal 11:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all I haven't deleted the section on the cocaine investigation — it's still in the article, and you can see in the page history that I deleted only the links.
Previous attempts to include stjohnsforum and theunexaminedcurriculum were largely made by anonymous editors and single-purpose accounts such as Laughing mountain (talk • contribs). I did not mean to impugn Purple Seal's honesty or character, but merely to note that it's difficult to ensure that single-purpose accounts aren't sockpuppets. I didn't mean to set myself up as an authority — if that was the effect, I apologize. I'll assume good faith of Purple Seal, and simply ask: what is your connection to these two sites?
By chance, it seems that Wikipedia:External links is undergoing a major revision at the moment; my comments were based on the policy at the time, which varies from the current policy in emphasis on a few points. Since it seems that policy in this matter is being tweaked, I think that we should go with whatever consensus editors of this page can support.
I still feel that these two sites are not noteworthy, and represent only the opinions of a few disgruntled students; I feel that the Google test is evidence of that. I'm also unsure whether the criticism of the college's rules is noteworthy or not, but I won't remove it (or the cocaine investigation info) until we've heard from more voices. I'm curious whether the objectionable passages are unique to St. John's student handbooks, or if other private colleges have similar policies. (My high school had an "honor code" that resembles the Annapolis campus's "honesty policy", but its enforcement was inconsistent. I honestly don't know how common or uncommon such policies are.)
I've said my piece, and encourage other editors of this page to comment. I'll support any consensus that is reached. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The cocaine investigation is entirely out of place in this article -- it's an entirely trivial incident in the history of the College, not nearly even close to unique in the history of St. John's or any other college, and unless someone more pedantic than I wants to come up with a list of crimes and punishments over the history of the New Program (we had an attempted murder and a big LSD bust when I attended -- SO WHAT) there's no reason to keep this in here. I apply the big scissors. Emoedison 14:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Recent St.Johns graduate: the criticism section seems a little thin right...most of the science criticism seems to miss the point. I have an edition of Gallileo's 'two world systems' where Einstein advocates studying the history of mathematics and science. This is just a first impression upon reading the wiki. i am going to go back and further examine this section of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.159.123 (talk • contribs) 16:53, October 23, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Two Ideas The introductory paragraph is too long. It should be broken up, it should really end with this sentance

Since 1937, the school has followed an unusual curriculum, called The New Program or the Great Books Program, based on discussion of works from the Western philosophic and literary canon. Within St. John's College


Everything that follows can be combined with other sections.

This mantains the distinction of the introduction. And looking at almost any article concerning a small liberal arts college the intro is even smaller.


See Bryn Mawr College Mount Holyoke College or almost any other college intro.

Also of particular interest is the fact that someone felt the need to include this idea in the introduction

(the new program ) was adopted at St. John's as a "survival measure."

It seems almost perfidous that quotation which describes someones opinion of the college would be included in the introduction, either a negative or positive idea such an inclusion seems to me to be a pushing of opinion. Especially when the author is not anyone of particular significance


In his guide Cool Colleges, Donald Asher writes that the New Program was implemented to save the college from closing: "Several benefactors convinced the college to reject a watered-down curriculum in favor of becoming a very distinctive academic community. Thus this great institution was reborn as a survival measure."

The problem is that one cannot really be sure that the college would not have survived had it not done X for it has survived, such a statement is impossible to prove for such a complicated idea as a college faced with financial ruin. One could on the other hand say the college was in dire straits and the action taken was this new thing X.


On the whole the intro must become a real intro, both in length, scope and inclusion of ideas. I would be happy if we could have discussion and if someone would make the changes that seem necesarry otherwise I would be happy to as well. ( I will register any day now  : ) I swear) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.89.180.9 (talk • contribs) 13:54, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

These suggestions seem very constructive. I'll take a look at it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've split most of the introduction into a new section on the Great Books program, and reworded the first mention of "survival measure". I think that the full quote is appropriate in the "History" section, though. It's clear that the college's board thought that ruin was a distinct possibility, and that should be mentioned. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/2E/Talk%7ESt._John%27s_College%2C_U.S._f1ed.html"