Talk:Bergen County Academies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bergen County Academies article.
Article policies
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
High This article has been rated as High-Importance within Schools.

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bergen County Academies

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous section

[edit] SAT and scores

Anyone wanna fill out the template to the article (i.e., find out BA's average SAT scores and figure out how to upload a picture of the school logo)? --Classwarrior 02:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did those SAT scores come from? Do we have a source? They seem to be way too low.

Response to the SAT issue: they're not all that low from my memory. The best source for a current BCA student to use are the school profile sheets that they send out with college application packets. //Ewalt


Since profile sheets are sent out based on Academy (rather than for the entire class), I am skeptical that any numbers exist schoolwide. That said, they don't see unreasonably low, especially because 2004-05 was the lowest SAT year the school had ever had. 4Bs 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what's changed, but to my knowledge, the SAT averages which were publicized were generally based on CEEB code, so Sci/Eng had one average, Business was separate, Medical was separate, and the Careers had one average. By this split, either my year ('03) or the one before it, Sci/Eng had the highest average in the nation. Jonpin 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni

In case you haven't been following the news, we at the Academy have our first notable alumni. Kaavya Viswanathan, a current sophmore at Harvard, has just been accused of plagiarism for her book "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life", which she wrote while a student at the Academy. It's all over the web, but here's the NYT link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/books/26book.html?ex=1303704000&en=46bf0d6991bad677&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). Should it be put in the article?

Response to the Kaavya issue: I don't think that's really appropriate. Her actions don't reflect (I hope) anything about the school in general. Perhaps if we started a "notable alumni" section, it would make sense to include Kaavya's plight. My next comment is going to raise some bias flags... but I think the media focus on Kaavya's failure is somewhat deplorable. Does envy of people like Kaavya make us happy when they fall? I suppose that's neither here nor there. --Ewalt 02:16, 27 April 2006

Perhaps. Having known Kaavya when she attended the Academies, I could have predicted her fall. She, like, sadly, many others at the Academies, spent much of her time building up the appearance of briliance rather than actually working. And, in her case, it worked for quite a long time. That said... OFF TOPIC. 4Bs 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I question whether going to the IMO qualifies someone for inclusion in the "noteworthy alumni" section. We are all proud of Hyun-Soo and the other students who went to the various olympiads. Yet none of the others is included here. Wikipedia articles on schools such as Stuyvesant, T.J., and IMSA do not mention their olympians. Perhaps we should wait until one of ours wins a Nobel Prize. Davost 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see Davost's position. -- Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was Meetu removed from the "noteworthy alumni"? This should have been discussed before it was done. She has a significant presence on the internet. If no one objects I'm going to restore her.Davost 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc

The "prestigious" IB programme is nowhere near as big a deal as the schools stellar Math team or student research opportunities, this article (and more importantly and tragically, the schools homepage) need to be rewritten to reflect the strengths of this actually impressive school, in my opinion. Plenty of mediocre schools have IB, and this is no mediocre school. //Jugander

I will maintain that yes, this article was made by students of the Bergen County Academies, amongst those people who cannot be identified as 'unbiased'. As a BCAer myself, I suggest that all BCAers immediately cease boosting or degrading their own or any other academies. The keyword of an encyclopedia article is objective. We only need to provide the most basic information, without any judgments on the levels of education or trivia on certain teachers or random facts. // Kazastankas

Since when is "battlebots" a boy's athletic activity? I thought it was an engineering club/project seeing as they assemble fighting robots. OK, I've been trying to make minor changes here and there, but one thing keeps coming up that has to change: the superlative adjectives, unsubstantiated boasts and general editorializing must stop now. Encyclopedia articles contain facts, not opinions.

I have added a section on the Arts at the Academies. While BCA is an academic institution, I personally have found that the arts program at BCA is quite surprising good and better than most high schools. Therefore, I think it deserves a separate section. Feel free to edit/add info to it.

[edit] Professionals Everywhere and All the Time!

>"The theater arts deparment puts on professional-grade plays and musicals each year on the school stage, which is a professionally-equipped auditorium that seats 1,300 and is rented out to outside professional groups regularly."

3x "professional" is hardly necessary. "Professional-grade plays" seems inherently POV, "professionally-equipped" changed to "well-equipped" (What, was it equipped by professionals? Uses the same equipment as some professionals? Isn't that a huge range anyways?). "Professional groups" remains, since that's easily verifiable and also meaningful. Icewolf34 14:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schedules, Math, and Stereotypes

I've added sections on scheduling, math, and academy stereotypes. BCA follows what is already a fairly unusual schedule with several unique modifications, and its math curriculum, for those who place high enough in freshman year, introduces topics that are explored in Columbia University's 40— level math classes. As for the academy stereotypes, I hope I have discussed them as stereotypes, rather than as factual information in the body of the article. This is my first major edit, so please do review my work. 0702034 11:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The last edit added Data Structures to the last stage of the calculus sequence, which previously had only Topics in Advanced Mathematics, but in my opinion this is not warranted. Strictly speaking it's not even a math class, but rather AP Computer Science AB with additional topics. 0702034 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be wise to rework the parts on the schedule conflict and academy stereotypes. They look a tad unprofessional to me. I like the math rework though - very complete //Davrol

I agree with Davrol in that sections of this article appear unencyclopedic. -- A Wang (talk/contrb.) 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABF should be in the first superset, Selectivity

This section is now obsolete, since "supersets" and "selectivity" are taken out of the article.

As a Science student at the Academies, I can truthfully tell you that ABF does not enjoy a lighter schedule, especially not in the junior and senior years. Between the IB curriculum and the in-house economics and management classes, the usual Business schedule starts out busier than the Science schedule. Of course, students can and many do compensate by reducing their electives, but that's an option available to everyone. I'll wait a bit, but if no-one objects, I'm going to change this. 0702034 05:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this? Check the edit around 7:36am 11/17 by me. Objections? -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled that anyone would bother to change "highly selective" to "selective," but since it's been done let me point out that in recent years the Academy has accepted 20 - 25% of those who have applied. For purposes of comparison, the Cornell page says "Admission to Cornell is extremely selective. For the undergraduate class of 2010, the admission rate was 24.7%." I'm not sure what "highly selective" means, but it does seem like an appropriate term for Academy admissions. Davost 04:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advert

I thing that this article has the potential to be a very good article--- However, it currently reads more like what one would find in the school's brochure rather than an encyclopedia & doesn't back up anything with references. Bgold4 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Advert-like passages have been removed or revised. References shall pop up within the next months, I am sure. How is it? May the "advert" tag be removed now? -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 23:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I meant to remove it earlier this week but forgot... nice job with the changes you made! I went ahead and removed the tag Bgold4 04:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
After reading the article again, I feel the tag should be added again. Some sections have no purpose; it is just to let people know that they exist, etc. -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superintendent's cabinet

First off, sorry about the consistent misspelling of `superintendent.' I noticed you caught that right away. Secondly, all of the information of the original superintendent's cabinet section is from Bart Piela's article in the Academy Chronicle. Perhaps if I preface it all with, ``As Bart Piela discusses in the Academy Chronicle..." I could bring back the point about the selection process? I do think it's important. 72.88.135.171 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It there a reference on the web about this cabinet? I understand that the group exists, as I read the Academy Chronicle with Bart Piela as the author of the article. Is that a good reference? How do you cite it? If you know how, just go ahead and add it! Just cite it properly if you know how. -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that Student Council, Class Council and Superintendent's Cabinet are sufficiently noteworthy that they belong in an encyclopedia article. Davost 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Davost's position. I may consider the section for deletion. -- Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 04:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Academic departments' section

For several reasons, I'd like to delete the section 'Academic departments'. First, it doesn't add much at all to the article, since it's really just a list of regular high school course topics. Second, I think it's a stretch to say that BCA has 'departments', in the university sense. For example, Senior Experience is not a department, it's a class. Third, this article is long and needs to be tightened. Objections? Will delete in a few days unless there is opposition. jugander (t) 17:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that they are called departments, believe it or not. The section may be deleted. However, it deserves mention somewhere in the article. In other words, go ahead and delete it, but it is best it the department names are mentioned somewhere else, if possible. -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 18:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the entire "Academic Department" bullet does not belong here. BCA does not have departments in the sense a college does. There technically are no department heads, just Program Managers, if I am correct. This list seems arbitrary and out of place. I have never seen a list of these departments in my time at BCA. -- f(x,y) (talk/contrb.) 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't support keeping the bullet, BCA does have academic departments in this sense. Each academic department has a chair (e.g. Mr. Holbrook in math), and from my discussions with different teachers, the departments do seem to exist as rather separate entities. My larger question: Is such a "Trivia" section fitting for an encyclopedia article in the first place? Ricky 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Although there are no chairpeople, academic departments do exist. They hold meetings, make recommendations for curriculum and teaching assignments and have clearly defined memberships. AP placements are done by the departments as are the freshman language placements.Davost 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia is no longer in favor of trivia sections, so I moved the academic departments blurb to a new "Academics" section. This new section now includes the "Math" content. If there are any other notable departments, they could be mentioned here. I think this also fixes the fact that a department listing is not trivia otherwise worth mentioning. --Scottalter 07:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extracurriculars

I think its pointless for students to put a blurb about their pet project/favorite club here. The article becomes fragmented and chunky. Maybe create a new page, BCA Extracurricular Activities? 24.168.146.16 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Creating a new page may be a bit far for now. Only the BCA article would link to that. For now, I think it is best to focus on making the article great. Your suggestion is good and a lot should be removed from the article, I agree. Comments anyone or anyone else? -- A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school site. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and, as requested, I'm reviewing this page. I'm currently giving it a grade of Start on the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and an importance of High on this importance scale.

My reasoning is as follows: This article still has a lot of uncited content and falls a bit short of Wiki's NPOV standards. As stated in the comments it reads like a brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Adam McCormick 04:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions by Addhoc

The user deleted over 15 kilobytes of useful information in this article. Addhoc deleted the government section, arts section, etc, even the ACADEMIES! Addhoc's revisions only mean good; I doubt Addhoc is trying to hurt the integrity of the article. However, the revisions are extremely controversial for this article. I reverted all the revisions, but reverted myself. Currently, I propose to leave the article alone until this issue can be resolved. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I would comment that if a section is tagged for lacking a source, then removing it, after giving other editors a suitable opportunity to find references, shouldn't be controversial. If you are going to reintroduce any of the content, please ensure that you include a reliable source. Thanks, Addhoc 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You might want to copy the useful&unsourced information that was deleted to the talk page where it can be sourced. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for recent edits, but I am very frustrated when there is a massive deletion of the article, especially when I typed (and reluctantly deleted) text that said to ignore the article for now because references need to be updated. (The site changed. All refs change.) If one have problems, feel free to voice them. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 12:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Rather than deleting all of the old references, why not just link to archived web pages (such as those in www.archive.org)? The old superintendent's updates, where many of the references came from, will probably not be put back online. The school's website has never done a good job of documenting its news/history/accomplishments, and these updates were where most of the content came from. Removing these references will only get the content deleted from Wikipedia. You won't find new sources to reference this information. --Scott Alter 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There's no reason not to use the Waybank archived versions. Indicate the date of the archive in the updated link. Alansohn 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
archive.org is a good option. However, most of the claims in the article can be referenced directly from the new site. There are people of the school itself who wish to spend some time creating these references; that's "legal". I don't want to mention names. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assess for July 2007

Well done.Very well referenced and the use of tables is good. Some improvement possible with more pictures. Please consider whether you can make GA. A Peer review may enable you to decide how you can do this Victuallers 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your advice for pictures; I have thought about that for a while. I do have pictures, but their addition to the article is not adequate; I think I might take pictures during the upcoming school year and upload them under a free license. Anyway, thanks! — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School Colors

There seems to be some confusion about the Academy colors. When the Academy was founded, it was considered important that a distinction be made between "The Academy" and "Bergen Tech." Everything was separate. The Academy had its own classes, its own buses, its own colors, its own yearbook and so on. But when the Academy engulfed the entire Hackensack campus, the need to differentiate the Academy from Bergen Tech disappeared. The teal-and-black colors are not used today and are of historical interest only. Davost 16:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So what info do we present on the page? Black and gold only? What is your direct opinion? — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 17:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We should stick with black and gold only. The history of black and teal is not sufficiently important to warrant inclusion. Davost 20:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scheduling

This section is rather confusing:

Students currently observe a form of flexible modular scheduling. Robert Aloia, superintendent of schools, suggested a new scheduling scheme to be implemented. The full school day lasted from 8:00 am to 4:10 pm and began with a 10-minute IGS followed by 24 modules (commonly referred to as "mods") that last 17 minutes; there were 3 minutes after each mod. (Each three-mod block was 60 minutes.) The schedule was criticized because it eliminated many 2-mod classes.[citation needed]

It seems to intimate that the old 24 mod schedule was Mr. Aloia's handiwork. I'm pretty sure he suggested blockscheduling. Shall I go ahead and fix this? ---- f(x,y) (talk/contrb.) 00:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

f(x,y), sure, sure go ahead and make your revisions. (But I personally feel that the description of mod times and its change is quite accurate. I think it's just the info on Mr. Aloia that can be improved.) Change/update/improve as much as you want on the article. It's nice to see you. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)