Talk:New York University Stern School of Business
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This obviosly should be merged Stern School of BusinessSr903 02:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nyuseal.gif
Image:Nyuseal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
There are a lot of external links in this article; while all of the organizations are notable in their own way, should the list be limited to the larger of the on-campus organizations? Ank329 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rankings
How about presenting the rankings just as one would normally do with stocks? The latest three years of rankings, a running three-year average ranking and the change from last year's ranking. I think the analogy with stocks should ring true to most people who visit this institution's page.
I imagine people that actually do care to look at these rankings are interested (a) in attending the school or (b) seeing how their old school is doing. Those two reasons likely account for most of the eyeballs on the section! Potential applicants likely care about their future investment of time and money. I think that they will appreciate the proposed format. Are eight-year old rankings even important to anyone? Alumni may well want to see how their school stacked up the year that they graduated. So, too, might their potential employers.
For sure, I see self-interest being attached in so many different ways to these rankings. Are countries ranked? No. Are hamburger chains ranked? No. MBA programmes certainly make much of their rankings in their self-promotion efforts. These schools are self-interested, too. Wikipedia always links to an institution's page, doesn't it? Advertising belongs there. Is Wikipedia the place for promoting institutions? That's a clear "No".
The ranking info is normally all true, verifiable and may well have been uploaded with the best of intentions. All the same, lots of other editors with agendas want to manipulate Wikipedia pages. How objective is an editor who is full of school pride? How bitter & envious are the students from other closely-but-lower ranked schools? Doesn't this ring true, too? Present company is excepted, of course!!
So, let's talk about reorganising the rankings sections on MBA pages (Incidentally, I added this post elsewhere, as well). Maybe the convention should be for schools to put all rankings on a separate rankings page, and then link to it. Perhaps, the rankings should have separate sections for comprehensive apples-vs-apples rankings versus the specialised, more-narrowly-focused ones. They are proliferating these days! Maybe this information should not even be on any Wikipedia page. Anyhow, it seems to me that future, current and former students all benefit as their school's fortunes rise and vice versa. Conflict of interest are three nasty words that I see all over these MBA pages of ours. Let's talk about improving what we have (or are we already at the peak?). Let's start a precedent. COYW 23:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
