Talk:Cooper Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reputation

Alright, so then you do not mind that we keep it? As far as I can tell you have given up that discussion. Which is fine by me, I am more then happy to consider this matter closed. I assume you agree with keeping it as non-doctoral then? The attitude is simply because I find this whole conversation to be strange. The source says one thing, and you and presumably others are trying to change it. Now to change the meaning of a source would imply some motive for doing it, I am trying to figure out what the motive is. According to you the motive is that people trying to choose an undergrad engineering school should consider Cooper Union (thanks for the heads up btw). This is fine, and I am inclined to agree. US News is inclined to agree, however as I have been trying to point out, there is a difference between a doctoral and a non-doctoral school. Students should not apply based off the assumption that they are the same thing, which is why US News rates them differently. This is also the reason why this wikipedia article should say the same thing, because they are not the same. Cooper Union is a top non-doctoral school, however if a student wants a doctoral school they should consider something else. It is plain and simple, but as I previously stated it seems that you agree now with keeping it as non-doctoral.

-Someone Else


At least we're getting somewhere now. The point I was trying to make with the "apples to oranges" statement is that that is the reason that US News doesn't compare them, which does not mean they defy comparison at all (which is a silly idea, isn't it?). No of course I didn't undertake my own "subjective empirical study." Again, man, whats with the attitude? That's what doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'm trying to have a discussion here that results in an agreement, but I'm not gonna keep doing it just to have you mock me with your responses. If that's what you're here for write on my talk page. If you "can't imagine" something about it, why don't you go there and check it out yourself? I'm sure Feynman's lectures were spectacular to witness first-hand, and Feynman's intelligence and research certainly had something to do with his ability to come up with them. There's also something to be said for Professors who devote their lives more specifically to teaching, a breed of Professors to be found more commonly at 4-year colleges. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with the US News article, which is something I guess I should have made clear before. To say that as a student choosing where to get his or her 4-year undergraduate engineering degree, The Cooper Union would (should?) probably appear in the top 10 choices (when choosing based on quality of the undergraduate education), is something completely different than what is contained in the US News article. Please stop second-guessing my intentions, I am not trying to falsely raise the reputation of my undergraduate college (a fact that is evidenced by my continuing this discussion w/o editing).

-Spudcrazy 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. it's "Cooper Union" or "The Cooper Union," not "Coopers Union" or "Cooper's Union."


Well, firstly, it was changed to 'non-doctoral' a month ago I believe, it was only recently changed back, so my changing it to non-doctoral was an edit to bring it back to its former glory. However the truth comes out it seems, you are a graduate of this school and so want to defend it. You my friend, are breaking wikipedia rules by stating something that is not supported by the article. I cannot imagine how self-important you need to be to imply that Coopers Union is not only one of the better non-doctoral schools in the nation (as the source says), but in fact is one of the better regardless of distinctions. Where do you base this off of? Do you base it off your own subjective empirical study that 'employers like Coopers Union', or do you base it off the fact that you got into grad school? I am sorry but these do not count as valid sources and are therefore ignored. Only what the source says is valid. And in fact if you want, hell, to bypass all of this arguing lets just put the name of the article in US News. Then there can be no argument any more, as everything stems from the source. So lets just say, 'according to the US News article 'Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (At schools whose highest degree is a bachelor's or master's)' Coopers Union is arguably one of the top universities' Is that fair? Because if that is not fair, then it is clear you are merely trying to upgrade the world view of your university, when such a view is I hate to say it, not supported. Id love to hear your response to this however.

Can Coopers Union students really do research as they see fit? For instance, as an undergrad I worked on designing Quantum Dots for Quantum Computing research with a famous professor in his field, I won't mention names but the school is top 3 in Materials Engineering. So could a Coopers Union student do something like this, and if so where are the facilities? Do the students then get free reign to go to Columbia to help professors with research? Forgive me if I find this unlikely.

Back to the question that you wish to impose, instead of the real question which is of course if saying it is a top school in general is supported by the source, is Coopers Union a top school in general? Once again I cannot imagine that it is, look at the top 5-10 engineering schools. There is a reason why they are on that list, years and years of solid research coming from their professors, professors who write famous books that are then used in every classroom across the country. Just look at Berkeley, when Kittel wrote his Intro to Solid State Physics, that soon became the standard bible for solid state physicists. When Feynman wrote his lectures on physics for Cal Tech, this too became extremely famous. University of Illinois is an incredible school, the first LED's were invented there and from then on they have a reuptation of immense EE and ME research and teaching. MIT has many fine books that are extremely well known. Stanford also. Georgia Tech also has many books, and much research that is world renowned. These are some of the top 7 according to US News for graduate engineering, (I didnt comment on Carnegie Melon as I figured it was redundant). There is a good reason why they are included in the top 7. Just because Coopers Union might have decent professors, does not make them in the class of these schools. Kids all over the world know these schools and some even aspire to travel to the US to study in them. It is silly to me, and arrogant to try and imply that Coopers Union somehow fits into this top 5, especially when US News clearly has the caveat that Coopers Union is a top school not supplying doctorates. Do your professors ever come in and start off a lecture with a research problem they are current working on? Do they ever get feedback from the students on how they would solve this particular threshold current density problem he is having with his solid-state laser? I doubt it highly. I realize once again that you wish to raise the level of your school up, but you got into a top 10 graduate school, be pleased with that as that is no small accomplishment.

To close, you keep pointing out that it is hard if not impossible ('apples to oranges') to compare Coopers Union with doctoral schools, so then why are you trying so desperately to do just that?

-Someone else


Again, I have to disagree. I'd like to note also that in my disagreement I am not going to immediately edit the main page, as you have done. Please respect the wiki process by discussing first THEN changing.

Your statement is prefaced by "I am a grad student, I know what schools are good." Thats semi-true. I too am a grad student. I too know what schools are good. I have been a grad student at both a top 10 university and at Cooper Union, so I can compare. This is not to say your opinion is without standing. That was part of what I was trying to say - "reputation" has a value that cant be pinned down with certainty. That having been said, the source in question notes that amongst non-doctoral institutions, Cooper is awesome. It doesn't compare non-doctoral institutions to doctoral institutions. So yes, giving the impression that the source would support that statement would be misleading. That doesn't mean, however, that its not true, and its difficult to find a good source for such an intangible thing.

As to your particular argument: yes, there are infrastructure-related issues that result in cooper, like any college, not drawing Nobel Laureates to the faculty. No, it doesn't soak up tons of research money and offer major research facilities. That doesn't mean that research isn't going on or that students don't get experience. If they didn't they wouldn't be going on to major research institutions all over the US. They wouldn't have received 10 NSF fellowships in the past 3 years. Thats a huge number for such a tiny school. Any student that wants a research project at Cooper needs only say so and they'll have research dumped on their laps, not tedious meaningless research but publishable work. I think Cooper's ability to get students into grad schools speaks for itself, and I think (and many would agree) that in its ability to succeed in its mission, as a college, Cooper compares to almost any other educational institution in the country in succeeding in their own missions (as whatever - a college, research university, whatever).

So again, please respect the process by discussing before editing. I'll watch the page for your reply (and change your edit if you don't). One final note: I'm not Dean Baum, and this isn't "propaganda." Try to choose your words with a greater degree of care.

-Spudcrazy 19:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a grad student, I know what schools are good. One basic thing about a good school is that there is current research going on there. Undergrad students can work with professors and perform cutting edge research with them, this has always been an important aspect of a university. I'm sure Coopers Union is good at teaching students information, and probably has decent labs to teach them lab work. However it is not the same thing, and this is an important difference. Going to MIT or Stanford or another top 10 school as an undergrad is a much difference experience merely because their professors are world famous in their fields and are established experimentalists. This comes through during the teaching, and also when the undergrads get into their junior/senior years they can work with these professors, thus getting experience for grad school impossible to get at a Coopers Union. Also I am not sure why we are having this argument at all, the SOURCE says that it is in the top 5 non-doctoral engineering programs. To imply otherwise is propaganda and reading into the list,something that is not supported by the source.

-Someone else

As editors keep going back and forth on the general reputation of the engineering school in their edits, it is probably a better idea to simply have the discussion here. I will open with this: we're attempting to state definitively something very vague - the caliber of an institution's reputation. US News and World reports do not compare Cooper to major research (i.e. doctorate-granting) institutions for a very good reason: its like comparing apples and oranges. So no, there's not much published research that says Cooper's engineering school is better or worse than, say, MIT. Even if there were, who could agree on the basis for such an assessment? I'd settle for saying this: the Nerken school does an incredible job at training undergraduate engineers. A high school student deciding where to get his or her engineering degree should place it right up amongst the top engineering schools in the nation, regardless of whether or not they offer major research programs and grant doctoral degrees.

-Spudcrazy 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Anybody want to explain how this makes sense? "The Cooper Union began with adult education in night classes on the subjects of applied sciences and architectural drawing, as well as day classes for women on the subjects of photography, telegraphy, typewriting and shorthand. Discrimination based on race, religion, or sex was expressly prohibited." [Emphasis mine] elnerdo 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (By the way, am I supposed to add my edits to talk pages to the top or bottom of the page?)

Explanation: at the time, most women couldn't enroll for schooling due to discrimination. To call it a "day class for women" is not to be exclusive of men, but to point out the fact that unlike in most other classes at the time, women are indeed encouraged to enroll. Moreover, the subjects being taught were tailored to areas that women could learn and then expect to earn money. It provided a service to a group that needed help.


The academic requirements listed for the engineering school include 51.5 credits of electrical engineering. Surely these are only the requirements for E.E. majors and not for the entire school.

Yea, that was only the Electrical Engineering curriculum. Fixed it. Wow this page should really be updated with the other majors. --Syxed 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah somebody needs to step up and add ChemE and CivE. And you're totally right the architecture school deserves at least its own paragraph if not its own actual page. -Spudcrazy

I made an attempt... anyone else wants to carry the torch? I haven't studied there so I can't say much about how awesome it actually is :-) Blahm 06:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The main article lists Felix Frankfurter as a distinguished alumnus. Another article in Wikipedia shows him as an alumnus of City College. Which is it? If it's City College, better not claim credit for Cooper.

I believe he was a dropout or a transfer. To be an "alumnus" one needs only to have taken a class, not graduated. Hence many schools claim "alumni" that never received a degree from that institution.

[edit] Endowment

In case anyone is interested, this [1] is the source. --Syxed 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some sections not encyclopedic

I just stumbled across this article and did a minor copyediting sweep. I noted that the section about the Engineering program is very long and most of it is not encyclopedic, but rather a summary of the course catalogue. As a casual editor unfamiliar with the subject, I'm not going to delete it myself, but it probably ought to go. 121a0012 01:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a definition of "encyclopedic"? I'm a fairly novice editor (not signed)

Much of this information is copied directly from the CU webpage. I am a novice too! and am not sure when it's appropriate to just start rewriting entire sections of text. any advice? I think the engineering sections of this article can be more briefly summarized and links added to the CU webpage. especially the more flowery language that has been pasted. Karinajean 04:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering Department

I edited the recently added sections on CivE and ChemE, but someone should add a section about CURF or maybe another article

maybe someone should add s/t about life in cooper


[edit] engineering degrees offered

I don't know where the information for the interdisciplinary B.E. degree section in [[Cooper_Union#Other other] comes from. it's not on the website and to the best of my knowledge the only interdisciplinary degree offered is a bachelors of science in engineering. is there a reference for this? Karinajean 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and find a reference. Like most schools, the website is not very up-to-date. Those references to an interdisciplinary BE degree or IDE degree are indeed true for the time being, although the program is being re-evaluated I believe.

[edit] Can we have something about the building?

I just added the stuff about the National Historic Landmark designation. Could someone more knowledgeable than me add something about the building itself ... its architecture, construction etc.? If it's a landmark we should explain why. Daniel Case 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About that "the"

It is a common mistake to leave out the "the" in the college's name, "the Cooper Union." Prior to my edit, contributors freely swung back and forth, randomly, between remembering to use the "the" and not, so it wasn't like I had to go in there and insert "the" everywhere. I added a prepositional phrase about how the college was originally intended to be called "the Union," which explains the requirement.

Basically, the use of "the Cooper Union" is similar to the use of "the New York Times" and "the Times" but never "New York Times" or "Times," except when it is used as an adjective ("Times reporter," etc.). No one would have considered referring to the college as "Union," it would have to be "the Union," although "the Cooper Union" became standard from the day the college was established, due to how beloved and esteemed its founder was. "Cooper," as shorthand, is acceptable ("the Cooper" would make no sense), although it is only context which clarifies the use in the article of "Cooper" to refer to the college as opposed to Peter Cooper himself, which does also occur.

I continue to encounter copy, from the college itself, that similarly randomly wanders between use of "the Cooper Union" and "Cooper Union," to my chagrin. While I was an editor of the Cooper Pioneer (the school newspaper), I did my best to stop the improper usage. As a side matter, I always felt the rare term "Cooperite" (which is the real name of a mineral, and I have sometimes seen used to refer to Cooper alumni, students, etc.) should be replaced with the cute "Cooperunian," but that has never been adopted, and I don't recall having an opportunity to use it myself, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.81.220 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commas?

I'm not gonna do it, but after looking through this, and reading about the engineering department and a little further, I noticed what I thought was a lot of missing commas. I had to read a lot of sentences twice to get their meaning, and I'm pretty sure commas would remove any ambiguity. Anyone agree? Clopnaz —Preceding comment was added at 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Gan Edit

So, feel free to correct me here, but although Wikipedia is based on "sources," to purposefully add information you know to be incorrect just because you have a source for it isn't right either, is it?

Spudcrazy (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. I don't know the information is incorrect, nor do the majority of editors here on Wikipedia. It was at that point hearsay that this professor was replaced. The webpage shows the six professors, and those are the ones who should of be listed. If one has been changed there should be a reference to back it up. Simple. I know it sounds like a conservative/slow approach, but it is how Wikipedia works. Thanks for providing the reference that shows there is a new mechanical engineering professor at the school. Was it so difficult afterall? :)