Talk:University of Missouri–St. Louis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. 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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Can anyone provide detail or substantiation for "The crime rate on the UMSL campus is among the lowest in the United States." ? Kenj0418 16:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit Revert Questions
How is "of equal standing" not reflective of reality?
- If you mean it as some sort of legal technicality -- then maybe it is true on paper, but then it should be explictly stated that this is what you mean. But, outside of the fact that they are all controlled by a common board of curators and president, I don't see how any unbiased person could reasonably believe that (for example) the University of Missouri - St. Louis is "of equal standing" as the University of Missouri - Columbia. UMC is a nationally known university, with a 150+ year history, and is also the location of the University System's bueacracy. UM-St. Louis is a much less well known, primarily commuter university that was started in 1963. The simple fact that the the University's marketing or ASUM says they are equal does not make it true, and including this statement is biased and serves no purpose. Kenj0418 04:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
The "comparison paragraph" is a subjective opinion, is factually incorrect, and provides no value other than to downgrade the subject of this article's value. Please explain why it should be included.
- The "largest in the area" portion is mentioned on the University's own site, and I don't think is in dispute. Regarding the relative prestige of the Schools in St. Louis:
- It is not a subjective opinion. The statement is "most in the area consider it less prestigious than some of the areas smaller, private universities such as...". This is not an opinion, it is a statement about the opinion of others.
- It is not factually incorrect. All three of the private universities are consistiently rated higher than UM-St. Louis. For example, on the US News ranking of America's Best Colleges 2005 Washington University is ranked #11 nationally, St. Louis University is ranked #81 nationally, Webster is ranked #25 for Midwest masters programs and UM-St. Louis was classified as fourth tier. I don't have specific evidence regarding the local opinion compared to national rankings, so if you would prefer the article be edited to read "it is generally considred less prestigious...", then please do so.
- The paragraph does provide useful information to those reading the article. The relative ranking of UM-St. Louis with regard to other local schools may be common knowledge to most in St. Louis, but is probably not as generally known outside the area. Also, it hightlights the fact that the Univeristy of Missouri - St. Louis and St. Louis University are not the same institution, which may confuse some people not familiar with either institution. (Similar to confusion that Washington University sometimes has with the University of Washington).
- The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide the University (or anyone else) with a free marketing site. It is to provide balanced, neutral encyclopedic information. The fact that the paragraph detracts from UM-St. Louis may upset you, but does provide balance to an article otherwise filled with text that sounds like it was lifted directly from the university's marketing. Kenj0418 04:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, I hope that we can easily clarify our differences:
The original statement read as follows:
“Established in 1963, it is the youngest of the four campuses of the University of Missouri System. The three other branches consist of the main campus in Columbia, as well as campuses in Rolla and Kansas City.”
UM-Kansas City, UM-Rolla, and UM-St. Louis are not adjuncts of UM-Columbia, and UM-Columbia is not a “main” campus. All four campuses have the same standing in the University of Missouri system. This is not a "legal technicality". When deleting that incorrect information I added clarification with the “of equal standing” statement… I fail to see how that is biased or how it “adds nothing of value” to the article given that it is both true and addresses incorrect information in the previous version.
- I agree that the use of the word 'main' in the version you quoted is incorrect. 'Oldest', 'original', 'largest', and numerous other adjectives would have been better there. However, the "of equal standing", without additional qualification gives a false impression.
Further, where the University System’s offices are located, the campus age, or the fact that some of them are “comuter schools” does not change this. If I wrote that UM-St. Louis was of equal stature, history, or about the size of their athletic departments, then I would agree that such statements would not reflect reality… but I did not.
- Webster's define standing (relevant definition): "a) length of service or experience especially as determining rank, pay, or privilege b) position or condition in society or in a profession; especially : good reputation c : position relative to a standard of achievement or to achievements of competitors"
- So "of equal standing" isn't correct either. Since the campuses are clearly not of equal in the regards described above.
As for the “comparison paragraph,” here is the original statement:
“It coexists in the St. Louis metropolitan area with two more prestigious private universities: Washington University and Jesuit-run Saint Louis University.”
This indincates that the school should be defined by how it relates to these two other universities. Such a defention would be to narrow because those three schools are not the only ones in the area and irrelavent because UM-St. Louis is a national university. It is potentially derogatory to other institutions in the area by their obmission. The prestigue factor is to subjective to define.
It was reinserted and motified to this:
“UM-St. Louis is the largest university in the St. Louis Area, but most in the area consider it less prestigious than some of the areas smaller, private universities such as Washington University, Saint Louis University and Webster University.”
The revision essentially has the same problem. By tacking on “most in the area consider” or “it is generally considered” doesn’t really change the fact that this is a subjective opinion… it is really just splitting hairs.
- It is not splitting hairs, it is an important distinction. See NPOV. Stating that some (or many) hold a particular opinion, and stating that opinion are different. That said, I agree with you that this paragraph is problematic. I have removed it.
Webster University’s stature versus UM-St. Louis is certainly not established in fact, the regional ranking (which is an entirely different category in US News) for certain programs not withstanding.
- Agreed
A balanced statement about how all of the schools in the St. Louis area compare would have to be considerably longer, and really should exist as a separate encyclopedia entry, if at all. UM-St. Louis, and every other school in the area, should not be defined as per its relative value simply in St. Louis.
Addressing that UM-St. Louis and St. Louis University are indeed separate institutions isn’t a bad idea, however if that is the purpose of the paragraph it probably should speak directly to it.
- I have added a paragraph for this purpose.
Finally, I do understand what both Wikipedia and an encyclopedia are. All of what I added are of my own words and were not taken from a “marketing” department. Trying to characterize my emotions or my motives doesn’t help this discussion. None of what is included in the article’s first three paragraphs should have to be balanced by other information unless you specifically believe that it indicates an attempt to over amplify its positives… which I do not believe that it does.
- It was not my intent to characterize your emotions or motives. I was attempting to characterize the content you added. I did not intend to offend, or to imply any particular motive on your part.
The four campuses are not competitors, they are complementary, and exist to provide a breadth of academic services for different demands throughout the state. They contain an equal rank within the university system and all have a good reputation.
As for one campuses position in society, there are to many variables to make such an easy proclamation. While a degree program from Mizzou might be considered greater overall, in engineering it could be more prestigious from Rolla, and more prestigious in criminology earned through UMSL. UMKC and UMSL certainly serve more diverse student populations and Columbia has the prominent Division I athletic programs. I could go on and on...
Qualitative judgments on which campus is “gooder” or the “greatest of equals” not withstanding, when defining the four campuses standing within the university system I still don’t agree that the equal standing statement is “clearly not” the case or “not reflective of reality.”
However, in the spirit of compromise on our other issue, I’m fine with the article as it now stands. The intent of the lines inclusion was to counter the incorrect "main campus" information which, with its deletion, is not really necessary now anyways.
Thank you for the discussion, and good job on the text box.
[edit] UM System seal
I need someone who graduated from UMSL (i.e., knows what the diploma looks like) to answer this: is the UM System seal on the outside cover or on the diploma itself? Any other logos? Is the UM System seal used anywhere on campus at all? Could UMSL students even identify it? Just wondering and trying to decide what to do with the infobox. Thanks.—Lazytiger 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging The Current (newspaper) in to UMSL Entry
Against merge. Though the entry for The Current could easily be expanded, the precedent for campus newspapers appears to be to leave them separate (e.g., Daily Bruin and Daily Trojan). - Quartermaster 16:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Against merge. I agree. In addition to the national precedent, other Missouri student newspapers are also separate: Student Life and The Maneater. Kirkman 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What next? Since no one has spoken in favor of a merge, can we reject the proposition? How do we move forward? Kirkman 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
