Talk:Princeton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Princeton University was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 20, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Princeton University as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Icelandic language Wikipedia.
To-do list for Princeton University: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] I found this sentence

Other works include those of the John B. Putnam, Jr., Memorial Collection of twentieth-century sculpture, including works by such modern masters as Alexander Calder, Jacques Lipchitz, Henry Moore, Claude Monet and Pablo Picasso. to be annoying because it uses the words work and include twice, each, and that's not good writing. But more important, I pulled Claude Monet because I don't think any sculpture by him is part of the Putnam Collection. Carptrash 06:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "By most standards, it is the fourth-oldest institution of higher education in the U.S."

"By most standards" is a pure example of weasel terms.

It's not for Wikipedia to adjudicate this matter. The simple truth of the matter is that Harvard is really old, William and Mary and Yale are very old, and Princeton is one of a bunch of schools that were founded at about the same time.

But if we're going to get into it... the "founding" date is the date that matters and the point of institutional pride, because it governs the order of march in academic processions. Which is of course why you find disputes and creative interpretations of history with regard to founding dates, whereas there is usually little dispute about other dates, such as when classes were first conducted. So it is not correct to say that "by most standards" Princeton is fourth-oldest, because the founding date really has a special significance that is different from the others.

I once emailed Princeton on what happens when they host an academic procession, and was told that the custom is for the hosting institution to accept the guest institution's self-reported year of founding, meaning that Princeton lets Penn march ahead of them. A matter of gentlemanly courtesy.

So, Princetonians, you can decide. If you don't want to clutter up the paragraph, and you want an undisputed "fourth," you can say Princeton was fourth to conduct classes. If you want "fourth founded" or "fourth oldest," that had better be qualified as a claim, because that's what it is, no matter how justified it may be.

I'd add that even by 1818, Princeton (and the others) would not have been recognizable to any of us. Writing in 1818, a Scot, one John M. Duncan, in a book about his travels through the still-mildly-exotic North American continent, wrote:

A college was founded here [in Princeton] in the year 1738[sic], which gradually attained to a highly respectable rank as a literary institution... Academical institutions, like those of other kinds, are subject to many vicissitudes of fortune; and Princeton College, from the limited number of its Faculty, is more so than some others. In the sister establishments of Yale and Harvard, where the Professors are so much more numerous, a casual mediocrity of talent in one or two, is generally compensated by eminence in the rest; but here where a President, two Professors, and two Tutors, form the whole corporation, much more depends upon their individual abilities.
Upon the President, besides the general superintendence, devolves the instruction of the Students, in Theology, Moral Philosophy, Belles Lettres, and Logic; one of the Professors teaches the Greek and Latin languages, the other Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Chemistry.... [1]

Those five staff were teaching all of 150 students. Who knew tigers only as exotic beasts, didn't wear orange and black, didn't sing about going back to Old Nassau, and didn't try to bicker Ivy.

So it's all pretty silly, anyway. Between the early 1800s and the late 1800s, these schools transformed themselves into something clearly resembling the present-day institutions... just as the U. S. transformed itself from a nation where it was a major adventure for Lewis and Clark to cross the country, to one where you could ship goods reliably by rail and conduct business via telegraph.

It really doesn't matter whether the thin and symbolic thread of institutional continuity extends back to 1740 or 1746 or 1749. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues of mascots, staff size, or recognition seem a little tangential to the point you're making. —This is part of a comment by Sirmob , which got interrupted by the following:
They seem to be because, well, they are. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
However, I think the changes you made are an improvement, though I am dubious that the paragraph is now a bit heavyweight to be the second paragraph in the article - maybe the second and third paragraphs should be switched? Sirmob 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll try something... but if you have other ideas, go ahead. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; Rutgers was founded in 1766. Twenty years are not "a few". (Columbia's claim to continuity to its claimed founding date is stronger than Penn's; but not much. Columbia was run, after 1784, by different men, with a different charter; but this belongs there, not here. Penn does.)Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization and Good Article Review

I reorganized the article into more discrete sections (per the WikiProject Universities structure) and removed a lot of the cruft and boosterism to make the article more readable. As it stands right now, I don't believe this article qualifies as a Good article given the dearth of cited references and stubby coverage in important sections. I am putting it up for WP:GA/R so that some more sets of eyes can review and improve it.Madcoverboy 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be addressed:
  • Embedded lists
  • poor verifiability due to inconsistent and sparse citations
  • Condense or summary-style discussion of prominent buildings, traditions, fictional representations merit
  • More attention to faculty & research, current administration, departments & programs, noted alumni, important historical eras like WWII, Cold War, last 25 years)
Madcoverboy 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The issues raised at the Good Article Review have not been addressed and the result of the review is: delist. Additional comments can be found here. Geometry guy 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religoius affiliaiton at founding

The second paragraph goes to great pains to dispel any notion of offical conneciton to a religious intsitution, while the opening paragrapsh of the "History" section plainly states the school was founded by Presbyterians for the purpose of training ministers. Which is it? Shoreranger 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious contradiction; the vast majority of early American universities had some sort of religious founding, but have long since drifted away from that. So the statement that Princeton was founded to teach ministers is true, but so was Harvard, and as a generality, most other contemporary colleges. Needless to say, history doesn't dictate the current state of affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.78.238 (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pell Grant Statistic

In the student life section, this sentence keeps being added: "However, this statistic is potentially misleading, as the university offers its own aid in the form of grants." This is completely false. Pell grants are ALWAYS applied to a student who qualifies when calculating their need. Otherwise the university would be turning down thousands of dollars from the government for each student who qualifies. Say, for example, that student John Smith has $35,000 in need, and qualifies for a $2000 Pell Grant. The Pell Grant would be applied, and the university would offer it's own grant, namely $33,000. John would pay nothing (hence the no-loans financial aid policy). The only difference between princeton and another school is that at another school the $33,000 would not be all grants; John Smith would have to take out some loans. For this reason, there is nothing misleading about the statistic. Pell grants are not a perfect measure of economic diversity, but that is stated in the reference, and previously was stated in the article (I think someone removed it when cleaning up the article). Perhaps putting that disclaimer in would calm some nerves. However, it is the best metric available, and the fact that the university has a good financial aid system has nothing to do with it. Please discuss below (with references please!) if you feel I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.28.218 (talk)

{{editprotected|Please re-add the clarification removed by 68.49.28.218 (talk · contribs) or delete the paragraph in its entirety, as it manages to be both misleading and POV in its current form.}}

It is not POV or misleading, as I pointed out in my comments above. You haven't given a reason why it is POV or misleading. I have an idea for a compromise. The following text was used before the article was cleaned up and reorganized a few months ago:
Although the school's admissions policy is "need-blind" Princeton was ranked last (based on the proportion of students receiving Pell Grants) in economic diversity among all national universities ranked by U.S. News & World Report.[2] According to the rankings, "the proportion of students on Pell Grants isn't a perfect measure of an institution's efforts to achieve economic diversity. Still, many experts say that Pell figures are the best available gauge of how many low-income undergrads there are on a given campus."
This way it is accurately conveyed that pell grant statistics are not a perfect measure, but are the best metric available. This way there is nothing POV or misleading. What do you think? 68.49.28.218 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
My take is that either this solution needs a citation for many experts say, or else perhaps the According to the rankings... sentence should be changed to While Pell figures are widely used as a gauge of the number of low-income undergraduates on a given campus, the rankings article cautions, "the proportion of students on Pell Grants... sirmob 19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. So can we agree on following paragraph? 68.49.28.218 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Although the school's admissions policy is "need-blind" Princeton was ranked last (based on the proportion of students receiving Pell Grants) in economic diversity among all national universities ranked by U.S. News & World Report.[3] While Pell figures are widely used as a gauge of the number of low-income undergraduates on a given campus, the rankings article cautions, "the proportion of students on Pell Grants isn't a perfect measure of an institution's efforts to achieve economic diversity."
I've disabled the editprotected request. This article was just protected; it needs a cool-off period. Also, editprotected requests are for non-controversial changes. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make this change as there has been little comment and the article is no longer protected. sirmob 14:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please please please, there has already been a page lock, a (kind of silly) sockpuppet accusation, and a 3RR over this single clause/sentence. I would really appreciate hearing more about why Princeton's grants so skew the ranking, if its true that they do, but please please please discuss these changes before making changes. sirmob 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is this comment aimed at? (I'm fine without the "However,…" sentence I first added as long as the one you first added stays.) dcandeto 11:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It aimed at an event, not a person - it was in response to the edit/revert by Strothra and 68.49.28.218. I definitely think the ranking needs some qualification - such as the language we agreed on above - but the stronger "However..." language needs some justification. I think that puts you and I in agreement. sirmob 12:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion neglects the fact that the statement itself is inaccurate - if you follow the link, you'll see that Princeton isn't last, it's technically tied for second-to-last with two other schools. Hence, I would recommend changing "Princeton was ranked last (based on..." to "Princeton was ranked near the bottom (based on..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.2.225.228 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Windsor??

What portions of the University are in West Windsor? Also, is the Forrestal Center considered part of the University?...because it's in Plainsboro.

Most of the West Windsor lands are playing fields. Forrestal is sometimes referred to as a separate campus. Why? Polytrope 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

This section seems kind of short. Where is anything about the Third World Center, the Women's Center, etc.? Their founding is part of the political history of the University. The University shut down after Kent State--not a word. You would think from this article that the 60s never happened at Princeton. No J.P. Stevens boycott, no waves of anti-apartheid activism, ROTC was never forced off campus, etc., etc. Shall we give it a go?Academic38 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, find a source and add the material. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started working on it (in the History of Princeton University article), but others are welcome to add. Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)