Talk:Georgetown University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Intro

Whoever keeps using a colon in the intro paragraph, please stop it, your phrasing is awkward. Also, it is ridiculous to preface Georgetown's excellence with "Catholic" it is a universally exceptional institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.176 (talk • contribs)

School of Medicine

The school ranks down in the forties for medicine by U.S. News. Simply because it is selective (most medical schools are) and affiliated with a well known school does not make necessarily make it high performing. Also, in comparison to the other divisions mentioned, it stature is out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.82.201 (talk • contribs)

SEE response below...

Introduction

I have redone the opening to address what I think are some salient problems. Positing that Georgetown is amongst the nation’s best universities without citation is a problematic. This is not acceptable in terms of how articles on wikipedia are written with respect to institutions of higher learning (“Georgetown University is globally recognized for the strength of its academic programs,” is impermissible). Such a claim must be sourced – see the University of Chicago for a good example. Moreover, this is not just meaningless rule mongering. Georgetown does not make the same standout case for itself that Stanford or Columbia for instance achieve in terms of - all around - excellence. Rather, its stature is inherently more nuanced. The ‘Times’ and ‘Economist’ rankings are incorporated into nearly every other major American school’s opening or rankings section, and they seem salient here. Also, disaggregating the divisions seems important, as Georgetown has quite few that are lagging in performance, such as its business school, medical school, or its Ph.D. programs. That being said, the fact that the school is seen by Americans, the case would be hard to verify globally, as highly prestigious, as well as politically influential, is worth noting in the lead. I did not have the time to look up surveys, New York Times articles and the like, but several citations for each would be valuable here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.103.204 (talk • contribs)

In terms of the business school "lagging" in performance; it's actually very much on the upswing. The University is building a new $80-million home for McDonough and in one recent metric, the MBA program jumped from in the 38th to 19th in the country in the last year as per the Wall Street Journal. Source: http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=18825 141.161.109.120 02:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

19th is pretty bad considering how large MBA programs are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.213.83 (talk • contribs)

Whoever keeps using a colon in the intro paragraph, please stop it, your phrasing is awkward. Also, it is ridiculous to preface Georgetown's excellence with "Catholic" it is a universally exceptional institution. Also, Georgetown's reputation is at least and I would argue more global then that of Columbia. Georgetown has a higher % of international students and has certainly graduated more foreign heads of state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.176 (talk • contribs)

No one said that it wasn't an excellent school - but that is a personal judgement and is not allowed per Wiki policy. See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Also see, Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism --Strothra 00:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This poster, I presume in medical school, continues to insert the same material in the introduction. Should we consider blocking the IP on vandalism grounds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.82.202 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

It is not subject to NPOV, all the rankings you cite state it objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.176 (talk • contribs)

Rankings refer to specific categories, not broad generalizations as you are attempting to make. --Strothra 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The Times and Institute of Higher Education rankings are both aiming for a comprehensive asessment of the university, and if you look at what they find, Georgetown is not much of a standout. I don't care to get into an edit war over this, but as it reads the introduction is just horribly contradicted by the facts. Georgetown lacks the serious, graduate level research agenda that top tier institutions do. However, it is very politically influential, and certainly turns out a fair number of prominent alumni, and hence I would argue to keep the Catholic line, but yet find some sources that speak the schools unique position as being substantially more prominent in a meaningful, social networking way than in terms of hard academics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.226.164 (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
It is a shame the opening has now been entirely drawn down on account of one users clear violation of Wiki Policy. Effectively, this article is redacting information in order to achieve academic boosterism by a back door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.226.49 (talk • contribs)

Endowment

The Washington Post ran an article a few weeks back about Georgetown's endowment and listed it at $850 million. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100832.html. I was wondering if anyone had a recent and reliable figure to substantiate either the $850 or the $741.1 listed in the wiki article.


SWQ

1. The SWQ is, in fact, a 1000+ bed facility. The original plans for 750+ bed were modified when demand for oncampus housing turned out to be higher than expected.

2. Unless someone can establish a clear correlation between failures of US diplomats to know foreign languages during the early part of the 20th century and the establishment of the SFS, I don't think that the comment belongs in the article -- in consultation with one of the Deans at Georgetown, as well as with the library staff, we could find no clear link between the one and the other. Please correct me if I am wrong.

3. The major divisions between available degrees are to be phased out over a period of 3 years, beginning in the Fall of 2005 and ending in the Fall of 2008. This plan will be announced at the beginning of the Spring semester in 2005.

I'm going to implement revisions in reference to 1 and 3. I also want to make the tiniest of grammatical alterations. I'll leave 2 open for discussion, but I really think that a comment like the one currently contained in the article needs to have some substantiated material that we can refer to and possibly link in the article.


History

The history section should be expanded; should information on the Jesuit suppression (restored in 1814) be moved to the lower section, out of the lead para.? Thanks Dpr 10:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

added alumni listed in the SFS article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_A._Walsh_School_of_Foreign_Service) but not found in the Georgetown University article.

changed "famous alumni" section header to "notable alumni" --Classwarrior 22:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the "Catholic" Harvard ... -- Excuse me? (You are excused)

Where do you get off calling Georgetown the "Catholic" Harvard? If he/she gets accepted to both the former school and the latter, he would absolutely go to Harvard regardless of his religion.

Georgetown can never be a Harvard. I understand you wanna make Georgetown univ. look good, but please do not insert an absurd, off-putting remark on the page.

Either a current (Philippines, Jordan) Future (Spain) or an immediate past (United States and Portugal) Head of State or Government for five of the hundred most populous and three of the thirty most populous nations in the world, is a Georgetown alumnus. Your comment is the absurd one and indicates a degree of ignorance and/or prejudice that is simply amazing in 2005.

(This was not my comment but, my son-we live in a suburb of Washington, is currently being tutored by a former Harvard undergrad who transferred to Georgetown's Foreign Service School so apprarently things aren't as absolute as you would like to believe.)

Harvard is the world's best university, but it does not exceed Julliard in music, CalTech in physics, West Point in military science, Notre Dame in football or Georgetown in diplomacy. It is not "absurd" to describe Juillard as the "Harvard" of Music or West Point as the "Harvard" of Military Service. It is not out of line to say that Stanford is the "Harvard" of the West, Duke the "Harvard" of the South or that Georgetown is the "Catholic" Harvard. Any institution that legitimately manifests world class excellence can be described as the "Harvard" of its particular milieu, when the term "Harvard" is a synonym for the best in a given area. This is an article for God's sake, and an apt description is an apt description.

Any person looking objectively at Georgetown's international relations faculty (which includes a former Secretary of State, former CIA Director and former Presidential Advisor for National Security Affairs ), would make themselves a fool by not acknowledging the excellence of Georgetown. A young person who wants to make a career in the diplomatic, intelligence or international think tank and policy-making communities, would have to seriously consider Georgetown to any other institution in the world, and it would not be "absurd' for that young person to choose Georgetown over any other institution.

--Above exchange is written from 199.207.253.96 and 199.207.253.101

It is Wikipedia policy to write articles using Neutral Points of View and a statement calling Georgetown University the Harvard of Catholic Education is considered a biased point of view. Unless you can cite it as a quotation from a Georgetown University publication acknowledging itself in that manner, then the comment should be omitted from the article text. --Gerald Farinas 18:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Georgetown does not have to look good since it is good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.50.51 (talk • contribs) .

One could even plausibly argue that given the range of the influential positions held by its alumni and the quality of its student body and faculty in early 2006, Georgetown is among the handful of the most politically influential universities in the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs)

"Harvard" as a term denoting a paragon of education is nearly as crusty, overwrought, and ultimately archaic as the stiff and ostentatious courtship practices of the nineteenth century. Any honest research and appraisal reveals that the "ivies" are clearly resting on their laurels. Jesuit schools, on the whole, through adherence to great book rigors, far exceed the now whimsical and often agenda oriented cirrucula of ivy schools. Further, claiming that Harvard is the best school in the "world" (think: Oxford, Sorbonne, Cambridge, Rome, Beijing, etc.) reveals a provincial and jingoistic ignorance certainly not indicative of fine education.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.59.235 (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth, I understand the logic behind using the Harvard analog as a relatively objective standard of comparison, and agree with it (for what it's also worth, I turned down Harvard for G'town. And I'm not Catholic or Christian at all, so it's not even as though a religious factor counted). Mohsin.Siddiqui 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I went to Georgetown. I'm familiar with Harvard. Georgetown's not Harvard, and it does not want to be. While a statement like this cannot really ever be proven, I can say that I have met a large number of Georgetown students who were admitted to Harvard and chose Georgetown. I can point to just as many students who transferred out of Harvard and into Georgetown. Anecdotes aren't everything, but they're-you're excused-quite helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.148.153.29 (talk • contribs)

-- Regarding the "no one chooses Georgetown over Harvard" debate, I can point to my freshman year roommate who did. He got a 1570 on his SAT (before they adjusted the scale in the mid or late 90s) and chose the SFS, where we both were, over Harvard because the education in SFS affords different opportunities for internships, etc. that aren't available in Boston. He did, however, go to Harvard Law School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.94.138 (talk • contribs)

I chose Georgetown over Princeton and know many who chose Georgetown over Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, etc. Also I am not Catholic. It is simply ignorant to say that anyone, regardless of religion, would absolutely go to Harvard over Georgetown "if he/she gets accepted to both." (Incidentally, I also know many who were rejected by Georgetown but who got in to Harvard). It is equally ignorant to make statements like "Harvard is the world's best university." Obviously that is a totally subjective question. Georgetown is an excellent, prestigious school, and it is very difficult to get into. Please do not make uneducated posts.

Avoiding the Invevitable

I understand Georgetown follows Jesuit beliefs, but some of their policies seem a little old-fashioned and problematic, for example...

Because of Georgetown’s Jesuit identity, birth control is not available on campus. Furthermore, none of the on-campus stores carry condoms; the closest place to get such products is CVS on Wisconsin Ave.

When 15-20% of students at Georgetown already have STD's, how could having these things more available hurt?

info taken from the College Prowler guidebook; Georgetown University - Off the Record

  • Condoms are available free of charge in Red Square from the unofficial student group "H*yas for Choice" a few days a week. Wisconsin Ave isn't more than a 10-15 minute walk. Fightindaman 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


12.150.160.194 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of how GU's catholic character influences its pursuit of its educational mission should receive some additional discussion. For example, in 1992, Georgetown revoked the status of a group called Hoyas for Choice. This organization had been accredited with the Student Activities Commission, but this accreditation resulted in a controversy. See the Ignation Society website, http://www.tboyle.net/University/G.U._Choice_Files.html for a description. The result of the wrangling was that Hoyas for Choice had its status revoked.

It appears that, to date, H*yas for Choice, a successor to Hoyas for Choice, has not received accreditation, funding or membership in the Student Affairs Commission (the governing body for student groups). See "H*yas for Choice Submits SAC Application," The Hoya, Tuesday, April 1, 2003 or "H*yas should not be funded", Georgetown Independent, 4/2/03, available at http://www.thegeorgetownindependent.com/media/paper136/news/2003/04/02/Editorials/Hyas-Should.Not.Be.Funded-405472.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thegeorgetownindependent.com.

Such content-based censorship on students' rights of free speech and association seems incompatible with the educational mission of a first-rate institution.

12.150.160.194 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The school has the option to give money to whomever it chooses. The use of contraception is immoral according to Church teaching and as such the school has decided that it does not want to fund the distribution of contraception on campus (nor provide funding for a group which condones the practice of abortion). While I may disagree with their value judgment, I don't think that the school should be forced to fund causes it does not believe in. If some students put together a group called "Hoyas for racial segregation" would the Univeristy have to give them money too? Fightindaman


___

I don't disagree that there is no way to force the school to do anything different, and you may be right that one should not even try. That is not, however, the question here. The question is whether the choice the school made is interesting from the prospective of the reader. Perhaps this comment would be better made in relation to the "Student organizations and media" section. I'll move there.

___

As someone who worked in the Office of Student Programs when Hoyas For Choice lost recognition, I have to say that the question of recognition by the university turned on whether or not Hoyas For Choice was a discussion group (permissible) or a group that would take pro-abortion action (forbidden). The decision was not made by students of the Student Activities Commission, but by an administrator, John DeGioia, though I can't recall if he was still dean of students or if he was already the provost at the time. DeGioia found that Hoyas For Choice was no longer simply speaking about choice, but had begun taking pro-choice actions that the university found objectionable. That's why Hoyas For Choice lost recognition-- it wasn't what they said or wrote, but what they did using university resources. DeGioia wrote a letter about his decision that the Hoya newspaper printed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preserved killick (talk • contribs)

Georgetown in Maryland pre-1871?

Wouldn't Georgetown have been in Montgomery County, Maryland before Georgetown was absorbed into DC in 1871 (See History of Washington, D.C.)? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the history?

K: You are correct, and it might be worthy of note. The Georgetown Seal is an anachronism in this respect, with the Latin around it "Collegium Georgiopolitanum ad ripas Potomaci in Marylandia" or, for non-Latin scholars, "The College of Georgetown on the shores of the Potomac in Maryland."

The city/town of Georgetown, Maryland was abosorbed into the District of Columbia when DC was created in 1790. It was then the independent city/town of Gerorgetown, DC. When DC was created, it consisted of multiple counties and municipalities, Georgetown, Washington city, Washington county, Alexandria city and Alexandria county. The Alexandrias retroceded to Virginia in 1846. In 1871, the city of Washington took over the entire remaining District, mergering with Washington county and the city of Georgetown, DC. This is modern Washington, DC, with Georgetown as a neighborhood rather than a separate city within DC.

Georgetown Medical School "Not Competitive" Comment

Someone has placed the comment that Georgetown Medical School, which accepts less than 5% of its applicants,is "not competitive." Whatever Georgetown Medical School's standing is in a magazine survey, there is no question that its level of competitiveness is extraordinarily high and that many gifted undergraduates would prize a place there to study to become a physician. Competitiveness refers to the competition and resulting quality of the student body and the ranking in the magazine is irrelevant to this criterion.

I agree with this response. Georgetown University School of Medicine receives the 5th highest amount of applications out of medical schools in the United States (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2006/2006school.htm). This means that one out of every 4 applicants apply to Georgetown every year (there is usually between 30,000 and 35,000 total medical school applications). More people apply to Georgetown than Harvard, John Hopkins, or Duke. The acceptance rate is also lower than Harvard, John Hopkins, or Duke (all private national schools). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.60.92 (talk • contribs)
Gross admissions numbers tell you very little. Using sheer volume of applicants or GPA is not a great measure of institutional success, insofar as they do not take into account who is applying nor where these GPA are coming from. A much better indicator from US News is peer assessment scores on academic quality which consider in part students (Harvard - 4.8, JHU - 4.8, Georgetown - 2.9), as well as those given by residency directors which focus almost exclusively on students (Harvard - 4.7, JHU - 4.6, Georgetown - 3.5). It is precisely by these criterion, arguably the most insightful of the entire ranking process since they get behind the numbers, that the final composite scores pan out the way they do (Harvard - 100, JHU - 80, Georgetown - 44). Saying the medical school is highly ranked by looking at applicant volume is akin to saying it is popular with students, but that is not what the article context is attempting to convey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.190.154 (talk • contribs)

Stone Throwing

Just a piddling thing, and I'm not an idiot so I realize this is an expression, but I have a problem with this "stone's throw from the Potomac" line. There's no truth to it. I live on the corner of campus closest to the Potomac, and I definitely couldn't hit Potomac from there. I have a slightly above average throw, I'd say, as well. I think you'd have to be Achilles or something to hit Potomac with a stone from campus. Even the canal would be difficult... I doubt I could do that even- Likely I'd end up hitting a car on M St. / Foxhall. So I say "overlooks the Potomac" would be better. I really don't want to change it myself though.

You can hit it from the car barn (sic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.68.176 (talk • contribs)

GIRA

http://www.modelun.org/gira/index.html is listed as an organization under Georgetown University however the front page of the site says:

"GIRA is not affiliated with Georgetown University"

not sure if I am missing something but any confirmations/digressions would be nice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.182.176 (talk • contribs)

  • Answer: first off, possibly b/c of your comments, GIRA was correctly removed from this page. GIRA goes out of its way to say that it's not affiliated with Georgetown b/c of legal liability (they host large conferences). The confusion is understandible b/c its membership is almost 100% current Georgetown undergrads, and b/c its board overlaps with that of the Georgetown International Relations Club, which is a University-sponsored club.--M@rēino 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Creation of a Faculty Section

I removed the following passage from the history section due to the nature of the paragraph referring to a specific faculty appointment. This information is best included in a section about Georgetown University's faculty and not one intended to highlight the history of the institution. In addition, this information only refers to faculty that have joined the School of Foreign Service and should be balanced with the major appointments in the University's other schools.

During the Fall 2004 semester, Georgetown announced the appointment of former-CIA director George Tenet to the University teaching staff. Tenet joined other distinguished Georgetown faculty including former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Ambassador at Large Robert L. Gallucci, and former Prime Minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar. - unsigned comments by 141.161.121.52

I moved the paragraph about faculty to a "Faculty" subheading. Feel free to improve it. --Aude 16:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I added Andrew Natsios (USAID Head Administrator) to the list of faculty. Tlaktan 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Visual Appeal of Picture By Campus Section is ... Somewhat Lacking

This is mostly an aesthetic issue, but it has bothered me for months: couldn't we have a picture other than that horrid law campus shot for the introduction of the main campus? Maybe an internal shot of Dalghren quad or the Main quad in bloom or something of that nature ... it's a bit discordant to be speaking of fountains, cemetaries, trees, flowers, and ivy, and to have a shot of a concrete monster heading up the article.

All due respect to the Law School graduates, of course ;) But I know there are better shots out there ...

  • I can try to take something of Dahlgren. Maybe if we get a bit of snow or something. Otherwise I guess I'll wait till spring. Fightindaman 23:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I just moved the law center pict. to the pgph about the law center, and swapped position with the healy hall img. Of course, when we get better pictures, we can arrange them better. Or you think the current article can be better, be bold and go ahead and change it. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I swapped a picture of Dahlgren quad for the law center photo and moved the two pics around a bit. Fightindaman 07:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The page is looking much better; the Dahlgren shot is really well framed. I wish I had better photos to offer, but I'm pulling from only a few that I took while at GU in 2003. Didn't have a good camera then. SCUMATT 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Tulane does not apply

Tulane's admission standards, quality of alumni and student achievement , and educational resources are not comparable to Georgetown's. Tulane's acceptance rate is double that of Georgetown and its standardized test scores lag by over a hundred to hundred and fifty points, the student body at G.U. (See any reputable college guide such as Princeton Review, Fiske or US News.) Please, lets not have a statement that is not supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs)

This is credited. Comparisons should be based on the schools that are listed in such guides as overlap schools either academically or in terms of students they attract. Tulane falls into neither group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.190.154 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Need to Verify and Validate International College Rankings

Someone has placed international university rankings from two sources that could not be found in the Wikipedia, including one from an obscure university in China. Can someone verify this information? Additionally, someone needs to explain how, with the differing requirements for entrance, and differing courses of studies (some countries issue 3 year first degrees, others 4 year degrees; some let holders of masters degrees use the term doctor; professional degree courses vary in length and content etc. etc.) an apples to apples international comparison of a university with many diverse programs in one system can be compared to another. I can see where an international ranking of, for instance, MBA programs could be valid. If these rankings are pure polls, the polling needs to be vetted. Maybe the two rankings have value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.161.246 (talk • contribs)

They are extensively discussed here [1]. They are widely used by media, for instance the Economist, Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post as the standard for pan-university rankings. US News makes no attempt in this vein. They are cited in the articles for Princeton, Harvard, UChicago and Oxford just to name a few. They do, however, employ very different methodologies. I would wager a reason they are seen as useful since they contain few suprises. The good schools end up at the top year after year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.190.206 (talk • contribs)

Merge discussion: Communication, Culture & Technology

I am proposing the merging of the entirity of the Communication, Culture & Technology article (the entirity of which refers to a master's program at Georgetown) into the Academics section of this article. My vote, obviously, is to merge. --EazieCheeze 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Shizoomy 02:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder though, do we really need that much information about the programme? If it seems that including it is essential to the article, then yes, it should remain merged, but I also think that it's a bit silly to just have the one MA programme discussed without mention of the others. Is there something in particular about the CCT programme that stands out? I didn't get that impression from my friends who were in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsin.Siddiqui (talk • contribs)

The CCT program should be listed only if the other graduate-level programs are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.121.62 (talk • contribs)

Georgetown Prep and Georgetown Visitation

These high schoolds once were part of and shared campus with GU. Should they be mentioned?Sabrebattletank 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

'Center for Muslim Christian Understanding'

I read something about the 'Center for Muslim Christian Understanding', a gift of 20 million dollar from Alwaleed bin Talal for islamic courses and the removal of an evangelical student group from campus. I didn't read stuff about that in the article. Does somebody know more? SietskeEN 09:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic studies program did recently receive a $20 million donation from said prince, and the name was changed to what you have listed above. The second part is a bit off; there was an evangelical Christian group which the Campus Ministry was affiliated with, that it recently broke ties with. Fightindaman 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Chartered name

As far as I know the chartered, historical name of the University, as I have observed on plaques and documents, is the "President and Directors of the College at George Town on the Potomac" , not the "College of Georgetown" which makes no sense. 141.161.96.171 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you go here: http://guide.georgetown.edu/slideshows/slides/show11_slide5.html, you can make out that it says "the president and Directors of the College of George Town within the District of Columbia." I had changed it to that from Georgetown College some time ago. Georgetown College is probably just a shorthand reference (as well as now the formal name for what used to be the College of Arts and Sciences). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.94.138 (talk • contribs)

Founding Date

I've watched this page bounce around over the last 2 weeks from very different versions of the history. I recognize the strong attachment to the 1634 version of events, and the desire that this should be noted, and while I think my school is better than those which happen to be older in America than it, I don't feel the need to pretend that it is something which it is not. 1789 is the date the school wants, it's what they announce, it's what's in the other encyclopedias, and it's what needs to be in this one.

What could be noted is that the date was considered to be 1788 until the 1840 yearbook, when it for no good reason was misprinted. However, since the university has chosen to recognize the date of the land deed as its foundation, and not of the slightly earlier chartering date, as is more commonly the case, the page should reflect this.

I moved the 1643 information to a separate page, currently "Founding of Georgetown University", and will add info about the events in 1789 tomorrow. I hope to extend this page to a full History of Georgetown University page one day, since the history section is already lengthy without much of what it could contain.--Patrickneil 05:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This 1643 thing seems odd to me. Maybe they planned on founding a school here, but Wikipedia says that Georgetown (the town) was first settled in 1696. --AW 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1634 is the arrival of the first Jesuits, and while they apparently had permission to found "a" university, "Georgetown University," the first of many Jesuit universities, it doesn't have substance until the 1780s. This new page tries to rely on strict fact, and I'd like to leave the "controversy" off of the main Georgetown page.--Patrickneil 04:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed --AW 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the seals were mentioned in the last edit, I would point out that the year 1789 is included prominently in both. Further, here are some sites that support 1789: Georgetown's homepage where it say "est. 1789," Georgetown's facts page, where it says "Established: 1789," Georgetown's at-a-glance page, where it says "Founded in 1789," Encyclopædia Britannica, where it says "founded in 1789," the list of founding dates world wide, Catholic Encyclopedia, where deals with this trend in historians saying "In treating of the origin of Geogetown University, its chronicles and historians are wont to refer to earlier schools in Maryland, projected or carried on by the Jesuits... and 1789 is considered to be the year of the foundation of the college, as the deed of the original piece of ground was dated 23 January of that year." If there are sites which support 1634, other than the outdated link to Coleman's 1930 book, please use them.

Besides these examples, I advise anyone considering the editing the 1634 date back in to look at the article in each of the other 11 modern languages it is written in, as they all say 1789 with no mention of 1634.--Patrickneil 16:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed again. Maybe at most we could say "the idea for founding a Jesuit school in the area first came about in 1634," or something, but then again I bet that is true of many schools - people wanted to found them years before they actually were founded. --AW 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As another user cited elsewhere, 1634 was not merely when the idea came about or when the Jesuits first arrived. It is in fact the founding date of Georgetown's predecessor school, St. Mary's City. Claiming the founding date of a predecessor school is far less dubious than claiming the date of an idea or of an arrival, and, again, as another user has noted, this in fact seems to be in line with the foundation date taken by, for example, Harvard, and more legitimate than Penn's 1740 claim, which is indeed merely the date that the idea for the university came about. For more information on St. Mary's City and Georgetown's predecessor schools, please see Coleman Nevils' "Miniatures of Georgetown: Tercentennial Causeries" (Georgetown University Press, 1934). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RotaryIntl (talk • contribs). 27 February 2007

Ok, I understand, but that school wasn't "Georgetown" University. Find a link were this is proven. I've googled "georgetown univeristy" and "1634" with little luck. I will pick up his book from Lauinger tomorrow, simply because I suspect it will ultimately be a very week support of 1634. The Catholic Encyclopedia, linked above, gives a good discussion of Georgetown's prehistory, and still declares 1789 to be the "founding date." It's not really the same as Penn's claim, where the date of it's "founding" is 10 years, not 150, before it's first student or Harvard's, which has a very strong claim to 1636.--Patrickneil 03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So I picked up the book. I direct you to page 5: "We are perfectly satisfied to keep our date of foundation as 1789, but we do hold that if the First Founders of Georgetown had been granted the same considerations and privilages that were given other institutions established under different religious auspices, the foundation of Georgetown College would be 1634- it is Georgetown's de jure." First, he recognizes 1789. Second, his lament, similar to yours, that other schools get to count older dates sounds like "since you get to lie, so do we." Again, let Penn lie on their page, and ours be truthful. Third, I understand his point that without the prior schools, you don't get Georgetown, but why not then extend it to where White himself was educated? What it tells me is that four schools which preceded the College could be separate pages on Wikipedia. You can list this "St. Mary's/St. Inigoes" school as opening shortly in 1634, then from 1640 to its closing in 1645. The next Jesuit school in Maryland opened 1677 in Newtown Manor and closed in 1703. The next in Bohemia Manor in 1745, which closed "several years later." Nevils tries hard to connect these schools into one organization, though I'm just not convinced. However I will try to further integrate this information into the Founding of Georgetown University page.--Patrickneil 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As usual, I agree with Patrickneil on this. We shouldn't be looking at other universities, just when the actual school was founded. As he points, founding a school which closes, then another which and closes doesn't seem to me to be Georgetown --AW 16:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Kevbo's edits are ok, but I think it should have more caveats - that nobody settled Georgetown the town until 1696, and the part about the schools closing. --AW 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I would advise caution in adding caveats of our own making - that way lies original research... --ElKevbo 17:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, most mark 1798, the year Neale took over, as the founding date? This too is wrong. I know no one who claims 1798, and no source that says that. Previously I changed the page to reflect that John Carrol was never "president" of Georgetown, and Neale was the first in that position, but that doesn't mean the school was founded when he took over what was then a working institution.--Patrickneil 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that was a typo. I think the most recent version is fair though. --AW 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

General comment on the quality of this article (after looking into a question about possible COI postings by employees)

The following is adapted from a posting at the WP:COI/N noticeboard, which is used to handle complaints about editors who may have a conflict of interest. For example, college employees who might be writing about their own college. Those interested may refer to that noticeboard to find the complete entry here. Back in January, User:Awiseman made this posting:

The IP user User:68.98.161.246 has made more than 300 edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University and Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in a positive nature. I think the IP should be checked to see if it comes from the university. For example, there has been a discussion at the School of Foreign Service article about academic boosterism by the user. Here are their contributions: Special:Contributions/68.98.161.246. Another similar IP user has made similar boosteristic edits, Special:Contributions/68.49.15.185. Thanks --AW 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Other contributors to the COI noticeboard looked into this issue, but with inconclusive results. On the issue of whether the complaint should be closed, I read through the article to see if 'boosterism' was a persuasive problem. Editors who follow this article closely may have their own opinions, that they might want to add below.

This article is not that bad, though it suffers in part from boosterism and weak prose, as the following illustrates:

Several academic themes distinguish the McDonough School of Business and give the school a special identity among managers and academicians, including international and intercultural dimensions of the marketplace, the importance of written and oral communication, and interpersonal effectiveness in organizations.

So there is a mixture of really interesting stuff, and passages of flabby prose. There is an insufferably-long list of notable alumni. Luckily there is a separate article with a list of alumni, which is pretty well-written and not objectionable. In the recent edit history, there seems to be a dogged attempt by one particular anon to reset the University's founding back to 1634, rather than the more logical 1789. There seem to be a variety of different editors who are working on it, probably enough to keep it in check. If someone wanted to make this article a project, they could probably attempt a rewrite to make it less spammy. EdJohnston 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia: Mosaic Seal

Tradition holds? Sean McGroarty told me that his brother Brendan and another GU student started this "tradition." Brendan and his friend would leave Mass at Dahlgren Chapel and then hold open the Healy Hall doors that open out to this mosaic seal. They would tell fellow worshipers that if they stepped on the seal that they would not graduate. I would have to guess that this tradition dates to about 1992, given that Sean graduated in '95 and his brother Brendan is slightly older. If I knew how to get in touch with Brendan or Sean, I'd ask for a 'citation.' User:Preserved killick 26 February 2007

I'd say remove this, it doesn't have a reliable source --AW 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any way to verify this. I happen to know Sean McGroarty sort of--he was 2 years ahead of me at Gonzaga--and there is a long-standing tradition there of not stepping on the mosaic seal. However, I don't think there's any way to say someone from Gonzaga, whether it be Sean or anyone else, created this tradition at Georgetown.

Is it urban or suburban?

Interesting debate. It's in a city, but has some grass and such, at least in front of the main building. The rest of the campus is fairly urban though. Thoughts? --AW 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

the college board lists it as Urban. You'd have better luck chaning the article if you could find a source that terms it as "suburban". Note that it's location isn't what makes the campus Urban, nearby Amercian University is termed Suburban, but Georgetown is compact and set up in astyle that is very urban. --YbborT 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Empirical Evidence of Quality of Georgetown's IR Program

For those questioning the quality and/or notability of the international relations program at Georgetown, I would urge you to consult a biennial survey conducted by researchers at the College of William & Mary of 1,100 IR professors who were asked to name what they felt were the top five IR programs at the undergrad, master's and PhD level. Georgetown was 1st for the master's program, 4th at the undergrad level, and 13th for the PhD program. http://www.thehoya.com/news/022707/news5.cfm I think this study is sufficient to cite the fact that Georgetown has unimpeachably, at all levels, one of the best IR programs anywhere. 141.161.109.183 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

Can we get a template to go at the bottom of the page with links to all the different pages relating to Georgetown? It should include the different schools, buildings and athletic facilities, student organizations, traditions, etc. See Cornell University, University of Chicago or UNC-Chapel Hill for examples (scroll to the bottom).

This below is what I can pull out. It's a lot shorter than those examples, as there simply and unfortunately is less about Georgetown.--Patrick 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
v • d • e
Georgetown University
Undergraduate
Graduate
Centers and Programs
History
Campuses
Buildings
Athletics
Student Life
Student Association • The Hoya • The Heckler • The Corp • Chimes • GERMS • ΔΦΕ • Philodemic • WGTB • GUTV • GUSIF • DCAF • Solidarity

Trivia section

Both myself and User:Patrickneil have been moving the trivia factoids into the article and deleting the unimportant ones, which is was Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles says to do. WP:TRIVIA says "As Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles suggests, trivia sections should be avoided in favor of presenting information within the framework of the article's main text. Trivia sections should not simply be wiped away, however, because some items may be useful for integration." which is exactly what we're doing - the section "Quadrangles" has the part about George Washington. The part about John Carroll is really not that important to the article, and it's in his article already. And the part about six shirts is meaningless and does nothing for the article. It's merely an interesting factoid which has nothing to do with anything else. --AW 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Healy Hall clock stuff (which I presume was added by relations of the recent thieves) to the separate Healy Hall page. I note that the article is over 50k, so anything that can be moved to branch off pages should be.--Patrick 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Traditions Section?

I find it troubling and perhaps telling that Georgetown's page still lacks a "Traditions" section, which is common in many other Wikipedia college pages. Someone should consider adding one, although it is understandable that the frequency with which traditions change on the Hilltop might prove troublesome. Do we have any traditions older than the 1970s?

62.94.49.143 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the traditions have Wikipedia:Reliable sources and they're notable, then feel free --AW 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speakers and visitors section

Do we really need this section? Many universities have notable speakers, and it just makes the article longer --AW 20:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I find that the list of campus speakers represents a central Georgetown University identity.
Georgetown students are constantly exposed to some of the biggest names in world leadership, and it is a huge benefit for students getting their education at Georgetown. More than half the list is from people that have visited in just the last year, and the list doesn't include many speakers from the last few months such as Laura Bush (http://www.thehoya.com/news/120506/news1.cfm), Warren Buffett, Mayor Bloomberg, Alan Greenspan and Charles Schwab (http://www.thehoya.com/news/031607/news3.cfm).
If you can name more that one or two other American schools that have as impressive (and recent) of list then you can make a case for it not being notable. While it might be true that other universities, such as George Washington have a few notable speakers, it is the sheer quality and quantity that sets Georgetown apart. 69.255.141.110 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Many, many schools have had presidents and first ladies and UN secretaries and Nobel laureates speak at their graduation ceremonies, as well as congressmen and so on and so forth. I really don't see this as any more notable than at any other university. And as it stands, the article is very long --AW 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how we plan on keeping this perpetually up to date. I think it would be wiser to make generalizations about speakers that have come. I know Prince Charles came over a year ago. What's the time frame we use there? I would shed no tears for the Speakers and visitors section. If you want to look to a higher authority, see the WikiProject page on Universities. They don't mention speakers either, and I can't find another University that does. Sure, we get some pretty awesome speakers, but I'd prefer a line saying: "Georgetown has a very high quality of speaker events" that is referenced somewhere, rather than a long nonsensical list of names.--Patrick 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the notability comes from the fact, as an Georgetown student will tell you, that there are extremely important national/world leaders speaking at Georgetown almost on a weekly basis at times, and they are not simply coming for special events or regular events such as commencement. During the fall term especially just this school year, there definitely was someone on the notability scale of Bill Clinton speaking almost every other week in Gaston Hall. I don't think that is a usual phenomenon at most universities, or even any. 141.161.109.183 05:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, even if the consensus is to keep it, I think there need to be guidelines. Who is important enough to merit a mention? Former prime minister of Norway Kjell Magne Bondevik? What time frame are we dealing with? Robin Williams was there over two years ago I believe. I hope we all agree some cleanup is needed here. My basic sentence would be: Georgetown University is host to speeches from many (heads of foreign countries/religious leaders/US politicians), examples include (Tony Blair/the archbishop of Canterbury/Colin Powell) and (one other). Replace subject and names as needed, but lets not have this long rambling unorganized list.--Patrick 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Qatar Campus

The fact that this article doesn't mention the Qatar campus seems a little strange. http://www3.georgetown.edu/sfs/qatar/ 141.161.96.185 10:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It does. Under the SFS section. It also now links to the Georgetown University at Qatar page.--Patrick 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)