Talk:The Princeton Review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Miscellaneous discussion
Agreeing with all comments below--I've worked for The Princeton Review for awhile, and there are a lot of errors in this article about how it works. I checked the articles for the competitors to The Princeton Review, and their pages contain no criticisms NOR any strategy information, just basic information about the companies. I will be editing this article when I can to include accurate information. I also will remove the section on strategies as it is a violation of intellectual property and from what I recall of the agreements that any employee or student of The Princeton Review signs, it cannot be posted here without explicit permission from Princeton Review's legal eagles. I'll take care of all of this ASAP. - Vespered 11:30, 2006 April 11
To the anon editor: your contributions are welcome, but it seems you have an axe to grind against the Princeton Review and are looking to put your opinions in the article. Your contributions have a definite "point of view" slant that we try to avoid here at Wikipedia. If you wish to contribute, you must bear this in mind. Your additions regarding the current state of the company in the last two paragraphs need definite souces. Otherwise, they are not acceptable. -- Decumanus 02:15, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
I work for the Princeotn Review both as a teacher and full time. I won't act like there are no QA issues, but the information about how TPR's 200 pt score guarantee works is COMPLETELY wrong. The info here is misleading, and the facts about it are plainly contrary to this, as seen in the Enrollment Agreement that all students must sign. Score improvement is scored from any PREVIOUS OFFICIAL test, and the diagnostics are NOT used in the guarantee except if the student has never taken a SAT or PSAT.
I am also somewhat concerned that some of the information in this article is technically protected as intellectual property owned by TPR. While the quantity posted here is not much, further expansion of the "techniques" section would render buying a TPR book redundant at best. Please contact me if there are any thoughts on this.
[edit] Rankings
I came here looking for the Princeton Review rankings ("Biggest Party School," "Best Campus Food," "Cutest Campus Squirrels," etc.). I'm pretty sure it's the same company as the one that does the test-prep courses that are the subject of this article. 24.63.206.145 03:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Techniques section
I'm not sure this section really belongs in an encyclopedia, since it's essentially a list of tips for taking tests. Cordless Larry 11:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since the SAT has been taken by so many persons, (it is perhaps a sociological phenomenon), and since some people have believed that it measures aptitudes or even I.Q. (please see the SAT article "The success of SAT coaching schools, such as Kaplan, Inc. and the Princeton Review, forced the College Board to change the name again. In 1990, the name was changed to Scholastic Assessment Test, since a test that can be coached clearly did not measure inherent "scholastic aptitude", but was influenced largely by what the test subject had learned in school." and "John Katzman, founder of The Princeton Review, argues in an interview for Frontline (PBS) against its status as an IQ test."), it is interesting to see what a major critic has to say specifically about how it can be "tricked", and therefore how it is not a test for aptitude nor intelligence. Another Wikipedian 21:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV paragraphs
The first two paragraphs of the "Description" section are wildly non-neutral. I don't have time to fix this at the moment, but clearly they are in serious need of revising in light of the NPV policy. Kelandon 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Those paragraphs were completely unsourced, and apparently added by one IP editor. I removed them from the article as apparent original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Working for TPR section
User Audacity reverted the information I provided on Working for TPR. User classified this as useless spam. I disagree--I believe the content is of value, and is helpful in understanding the unusual culture of the company. Further, though Audacity took no issue with the POV, I strove to write the article NPOV (indeed, I worked for TPR and have no love for the company, but I wanted to give a neutral viewpoint).
Again, I do not see the section as spam. I read the spam guidelines, and saw nothing I wrote as being violative. However, I am relatively new to editing articles, so if a majority can demonstrate that what I've written is spam, I am open to changing/removing it--jlculp
- I think a vote is necessary with this addition. Personally I don't really think the information, regardless of it's validity, is all that necessary. For instance, if I worked at McDonald's I wouldn't be writing about working for McDonalds, albeit there would be much I could write about and tons of interesting and/or disturbing things to report. It really doesn't belong in an article about the company--or at least to the extent that you have done. This is the chief reason I think that your information was viewed by Audacity as useless spam. b_cubed 23:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- jlculp, I didn't read the info that carefully at first, but now I see that you were writing with a neutral POV, so your additions weren't spam. The reason I classified it as spam is that spammers often post lots of unverifiable material that promotes their company - e.g., "Employees of the Princeton Review are highly satisfied with their salaries". It's the kind of stuff you would find in promotional materials. While your info is not blatantly promotional, most of it still violates Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- I'd rather not vote, since voting is evil. jlculp, it would be great if you could look through the information and find good sources for whatever you can, and remove the rest. Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I took it all out. Put it back if you find sources. Λυδαcιτγ 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
