User talk:DTORGERSON
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't want any of this conversation on my own page. Do what you will with it.COYW 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Again
I have not read a response from you regarding our latest exchange. I'm happy to reply to your response if you posted it somewhere else. Regarding your latest post on the Schulich talk page, I sincerely do not know what your talking about. If you have something that you would like to say/convey to me, please do. Do it in a public forum or in private, whatever suits you...I'm happy to respond either way. I hope that you are well and that nothing has happened to prevent you from responding.Dtorgerson 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The third and fourth rankings are from unpopular publications. Just a few well known publications should be used. Use the same ones other schools use like BusinessWeek.
[edit] Quick Reply
I apologize but I do not have time this week to address the entirety of your latest entry (I am getting married). However, I will respond to the topics we were debating. However, there are two exceptions to the off topic issues you raised to which I will respond. I have never received money from the Schulich School of Business and I am truly sorry if I hurt your feelings in changing your work. None of my changes were meant as personal attacks against you. I certainly don't take anything you say personally. My comments about raising the bar were simply to save us both time.
Rankings Yes, you explained yourself. However, other than telling me that you think it ought to be so, you have provided no evidence that it should be so. I have. You may not agree with collective wisdom. However, your confusion with the historical notion of the Church's sway over the many through the control of knowledge with the economic concept of the wisdom of crowds provides clear evidence that you do not understand what collective wisdom is. You can use your favourite research tool (Google) to find out. I encourage you to do so.
Your confusion aside, please provide me with your criteria as to what ranking is placed into which ranking heading. Is it geography based? Is it population based? Is it ethnicity based? Since a "simple differentiation" adds value then you must be able to provide a simple criteria for to ascertain which ranking falls under each ranking heading. So far the criteria appears to be "things you think should fall under each heading."
I appreciate how providing evidence for your point of view can be "tiresome." However, it's what separates a good rhetoric from intellectually lazy rhetoric.
Gupta Consulting Since company sponsored research is "it is a nasty business" and since Gupta Consulting is a company, then the Gupta sponsored ranking must be of "a nasty business." I'm not sure what that means but perhaps you would like to change your argument to "company sponsored research is a nasty business unless it supports my argument, then it's great research."
If you are seriously asking why the Aspen Institute and the World Resources Institute serve as more credible research bodies than Gupta Consulting then you need to take a first year university course in research methods or a humanities-type course where you are taught what constitutes a credible source. Please try to understand that this has nothing to do with my opinion of the rankings. You need to understand concepts like "peer review" to appreciate the credibility of a source. I suggest you Google, "peer review."
Aside from your contradiction on company sponsored research and what constitutes a credible source, there is the issue of the credibility of the Gupta ranking itself. To their credit, they acknowledge in the report that the ranking is statistically invalid. I suggest you read the report again and if you do not understand why this is so, give the report to a friend that has taken a high school statistics course and ask her to explain it to you.
[edit] An attempt at a response
We both seem to be meandering through off topic issues a little. I don't recall any mention about Corporate Knights magazine or its rankings. Perhaps you confused it with Grey Pinstripes? If you haven't already, have a look at the Grey Pinstripes ranking, it is not affiliated with CK.
I'll try to bring things back to the original debates: the title for the rankings section and whether or not the rankings should be in one section.
I feel that the Schulich page should follow the convention(s) set forth by the other editors and authors of similar articles on business schools. I wish to follow their collective wisdom. The top twenty schools use the term "Ranking(s)" I feel this best serves the interest of all readers because it is consistent. Readers know that they will find ranking information in the same place in the articles. Your argument appears to be that it is important for readers to know that certain rankings are "Global" and others are not. You appear to disagree with the collective wisdom. Is this the case? If this is not the case, could you explain your argument to me?
Sometimes collective wisdom is flat wrong. Speaking of flat, the earth used to be flat, don't you know. Oops, sorry, it was never flat, collective wisdom was really collective orthodoxy. So... in other words, I do not care what one thousand other schools have on their pages. So-called "Best Practices" are the enemy of independent thinking and progress. Nobody ever writes about "Better Practices" I notice! Anyhow, all this is to say that you have yet to write a worthwhile argument in support of your single catch-all 'Rankings' header.
I have already explained my own side. I have written why a simple differentiation is better. For you to ask again is tiresome. What specifically don't you get? My way is an improvement and I have written why it is so. Similar pages would do well to consider following suit. From my stated rationale, both the the CK article and the (similar) Aspen Institute one that I confused it with ought to be separated under their own header. Here is a 'for instance': Some architects could rank schools according to how nice the buildings are... That would be very good info, and should also go under the "Other Rankings' rubric and not the general comprehensive rankings header. Any ranking according to special interests, especially narrow ones like sustainability, must be kept apart.
And if you don't get it, dtorgerson, it is STILL up to you to make your own case before editing. For my part, I will still desist from changing back the headers in order to let you (a) make your point; or ,(b) change things back by yourself. That is the extent of the civility I can extend to you-- and it is more than I have seen from you. My poor spelling, rough demeanor or perceived personal attacks are, separately and collectively, off the point. Make yours now.
The Indian article, too, deserves its place because you haven't proven your point about that, either. Why is the Aspen Institute any better than Gupta Consulting? (Vested interests, anyone? Oh...PLEASE write that.) The Aspen article is sponsored research (!), and the sponsors are shown for all to see. The Indian article that did not strike you as good enough. All righty, then! Now address sponsored research. I had never noticed it about that Beyond Pinstripes article, so thanks for shining a spotlight on it. If you don't have an opinion about company-sponsored research, then here is mine: it is a nasty business! Kindly reconsider your position on ReportED. Come January first, I am going to erase all the 2005 rankings, anyway.
Frankly, it is incumbent upon you to explain any of your changes, especially when you are called out on them-- like now. You can write about Stanford and Harvard all you like. Since you want to compare, it is now your responsibility to tell us why you went up in the rankings to find comparisons rather than twenty or thirty steps down the other way. Was it just a random choice? Arbitrary, eh? Why Stanford? Stanford has no more sway on Wikipedia than, for examples, the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale or CEIBS. A school is a school; a page is a page. They are all equal on here. So, what is your reason in referring to more universally well-known and well-respected schools? You have to explain. Have you noticed that the UofT does not have any rankings section? Shall we scrap the whole thing then?
When you write about collective wisdom, I have to take pause, because you seem to have neglected collective norms in other important ways. Don't all the norms suit you? You thought nothing of revealing your name, e-mail address and your agenda for the Schulich page (true info or not). Your agenda is now a matter of record, FGS! You are now here changing things here to suit your objectives!
Things have been lost in a lot of minutiae and not-so-thinly veiled personal attacks that do nothing to add value for either of us. Can we raise the dialogue up a notch?
(Whatever,... Do you want overt personal attacks? I've been chiding you until now. I take having my work erased personally. Now I've read and seen more so I am not really fussed.)
I provided my information in the interest of keeping things above board. I am an alumni and therefore my edits deserve greater scrutiny. Business schools and their students have a poor reputation when it comes to ethical behaviour and I feel it is necessary for us to hold ourselves to a higher standard if we are to regain (attain) trust. Despite the numerous problems that Wikipedia has endured due to anonymity, I completely respect the wiki model and your desire to remain anonymous. I have no expectation nor desire for you to share your information and/or bias.
(Sorry, but this is neither naive nor misplaced integrity. I cannot prove it but I believe you broke norms in order to gain advantage. true or not, it is a possibility... and you opened the door to it. I think you wanted to get some respect for yourself and your edits by revealing a name (Yours?) and connection to the school(yours?). There are lots of possibilities, but that seems likely. Have you ever received money from Schulich? <--- That's a serious question.
Since you aspire to be fair, balanced and above-board alumnus, why not write the details about the invitation-only student feedback sessions at Schulich. Surely, the facts that the place was criticised for having dirty toilets and no stock-trading simulators are as important as, say, the school motto. You were there at that very meeting, a source tells me. On that point of the motto, how "international" is Schulich? Leaving aside Indian and Chinese students, what are the demographics? How many Islamic students study there-- compared with other schools. Indonesia and Pakistan are big countries right beside India and China. To my knowledge, well,...I won't say what I have heard but I do hope that you, dtorgerson, follow up and get this info up on the page post haste. If not,why not? The school motto is very good, so why not more details?
As for the EMBA ranking, I don't recall a cited EMBA ranking. If I deleted it, it was a mistake. I do recall an uncited "top-school" type reference but since there was no citation for it, I removed it.
(It was about the Kellogg-Schulich tie up.)
--Dtorgerson 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC) COYW
[edit] "Worldwide" Rankings, credibility and bias
This has nothing to do with my personal opinion (as you allude to in one of your edit comments), it has to do with following the general conventions established by the community.
But, I see you're going to make me work for this. Fair enough. Other than Stanford, here are the headings from the top twenty schools according to the Financial Times:
* Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania#Rankings * Columbia Business School#Ranking * Harvard Business School#Rankings * London Business School - no heading for rankings * University of Chicago Graduate School of Business#Ranking and reputation * Insead - no heading for rankings * New York University Stern School of Business - no heading for rankings * Tuck School of Business#Ranking and reputation * Yale school of management#Admissions and rankings * Instituto de Empresa#Rankings * CEIBS - no heading for rankings * International Institute for Management Development#Rankings * MIT_Sloan - no heading for rankings * Judge Institute of Management#Strengths and Ranking * IESE#Ranking * UCLA Anderson - no heading for rankings * HEC Paris - no heading for rankings * Ross school of business#Rankings * Kellogg School of Management#Rankings - the school that offers a joint program with Schulich uses "Rankings" * Said Business School#Reputation
So, of the top twenty schools other than Stanford, "Ranking" or "Rankings" is the predominant title. None of the schools delineate between ranking types (e.g., Global, Worldwide, Schools North West of Keele and Finch). I concede your point that the Grey Pinstripes ranking is specialized but then so is the ReportEd (top schools for Indians) and the AmericaEconomia (top schools for Latin Americans) rankings. I would argue that all rankings are focused toward a group. If I'm from Asia, is a ranking for Latin Americans relevant to me? Therefore, should the AmericaEconomia report go in the "other rankings" section?
Based on the evidence you requested, I suggest we settle on "Rankings."
[edit] Who we are
I asked if you are related to the school for two reasons: curiosity and practicality. Your writing style appeared to tend toward "official" opinions: "In a recent global ranking, Schulich placed #1 in schools north west of Keele and Finch and east of the Manitoba border." Yes, I exaggerate a little, but changing titles away from accepted norms could be construed as "spin." Okay, I construed it as "spin." You may have never intended it that way.
If you work for or are close to the school, you could really help fill in some of the missing content, especially when it comes to things like notable alumni and faculty. Also, due to the copyright permissions required by Wikipedia, you could help get the school logo, etc placed on the page.
In an effort to keep things open and transparent, I am an MBA alumni. My name is Damon Torgerson and you can reach me at dtorgerson05 @ schulich dot yorku dot ca. I graduated this summer.
[edit] Report Ed
Thank you for your suggestion that I read the report. It was very illuminating. I read the article again and there is still no information about who Report Ed is. Other than an empty web site, there does not appear to be an organization behind the report.
So, back to my original argument...
I question the validity of the Report Ed ranking because there does not appear to be a credible organization behind the ranking. Do you have any information on the organization? The rankings from the Economist, the Financial Times, and even Grey Pinstripes, have credible organizations behind the rankings. What's to say that some guy didn't just make up the Report Ed ranking?
I'm sure that there is a credible organization behind the report otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't have put it in. However, since I could not find it and you provided no credible citation, I removed the ranking. I'm sure this is just a small oversight on your part and you have the source. I would hate to remove a ranking from a credible source simply because I was unable to find it.
--Dtorgerson 21:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ranking Question
Could you explain your comment "please use the CURRENT RANK + RANK CHANGE + 3-YEAR AVERAGE whenever possible."
--Dtorgerson 21:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
