Talk:University of Michigan/achive2

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

Message to Pentawing - UM Rankings

Still haven't gotten an ID, but noticed some edits by Taxman. Specifically, he reverted edits that discussed departmental quality and rankings: he doubted the department quality, so he removed the comments. I'm rather astonished that: 1) he guessed, he didn't do the research; 2) there is a link at the bottom of the article that removes all guesswork; 3) the departments removed were departments in the list that might have been checked, not simply dismissed out of hand. Here is the list, and here are the rankings: The departments of philosophy, economics (ranked #11 in USN&WR graduate program 2005), political science (ranked #3 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program), history (ranked #7 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program), and mathematics (ranked #8 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program) are also highly respected for the high standards of their teaching and research. If he doubts that these departments are of suitable quality (especially political science...), then he simply doesn't know the university, and shouldn't be tampering with the article.

If you agree, please revert the edits, which I can only characterize as capricious. Further, when I see his screenhandle, it is INVARIABLY attached to the phrase NPOV, and invariable leads to a diminution of documentable/verifiable facts that he hasn't bothered to check. I think his work is sloppy. I'd also like to know: 1) what school he attended; 2) whether he is as generous with negative sentiments about his own institution; 3) if he isn't if he would like me to visit his school's site and inject a bit of NPOV.

I'm addressing this to him via you, because: 1) like him, I'm too lazy to do the research (i.e., get a screenname in order to contact him); 2) I'll leave it to you to check the accuracy of the rankings and their suitability for inclusion; 3) based on his history, I think he should recuse himself from working on this article. (Unsigned by 66.65.76.15)

Hmm, interesting response is all I can say. Why not just state your case and skip the polemics? The info didn't have any citation to it, and yes I did leap to a conclusion. But clicking through the references at the bottom didn't immediately show one supporting those undergrad program rankings. When there isn't a citation it is reasonable to remove unverified information, though admittedly it would have been better to have brought the discussion here myself. But have no fear, the way this wiki thing works is the information can very easily be put back in the article once verified. Anyway, wouldn't it be amusing if my math degree was from UM? If you look at my comments I'm well aware the University is considered a very good one, but it doesn't need overly positive language to portray that. The facts do all that is needed, and in fact make a stronger case. I work to make articles reflect verifiable information and be neutral. You'd do well to do the same. - Taxman Talk 03:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As of December 30, 2005, I believe the above issue has been closed unless there are more problems on the way. Pentawing 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to the Michigan project team and to all the editors who produced an excellent article. --Mareino 00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pentawing! It's on the front page!!! nice work __earth 03:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Smutloader" picture is a nice touch -- not!

"Public Ivy"

The term "public ivy" is being thrown around a lot right now. Honestly, I'd never even heard the term before (despite all the jokes around campus about Harvard being "The Michigan of the East"). I'm inclined to think such an arbitrary term has no place in this article, or indeed any.-Kalium 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While I've certainly heard the term used before in reference to many of the schools that are listed on the Public Ivies page, I don't think it's something that's important enough to include in this entry. There's also a list of "little ivies," "ivies of the South," and if I remember correctly, a few years back someone came up with a list of what they considered to be "NEW ivies"! IMO, if a college or university is that well-regarded, its prestige should be able to be conveyed through the basic information included on its entry page, and adding some sort of "ivy" label shouldn't be a necessary part of justifying that. Chibeca 07:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The public ivies refer to the elite publics, and actually I heard of it before I heard of little ivies and magnolia ivies (southern elites). I think the original phrase has really changed in meaning now though to the top publics from UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, WIlliam and Mary, Michigan, UVA, and UNC-Chapel Hill. I think it is still a worthy distinction, in my opinion and certainly carries a lot of weight to guidance counselors who may be considering referring their students there.

  • As far as I can tell, the term "Public Ivy" traces back to a single book. I have moved this term to the Academic profile section, and rewritten it as such:
  • UM's academic reputation has led its inclusion on Richard Moll's list of Public Ivies.[1]
  1. ^ Moll, Richard. (1985). The Public Ivys: America's Flagship Undergraduate Colleges. New York: Vikiing Adult. ISBN 0670582050. 
This is the most factual way to word it I can think of. — Lovelac7 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

NOAC

U Mich is the site of the 2006 National Order of the Arrow Convention, which is attended by Boy Scout Arrowmen from all parts of the country. Where should I insert this? - Pureblade | Θ 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How important is this event (does it set precedents or merely a conference gathering)? Is the event coming back to U-M in a later year (e.g. similiar to how the Super Bowl returns to the same city in a later year, such as for New Orleans)? If not, I don't see any point of inserting it. PentawingTalk 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
In the history of the university, hosting NOAC won't even register. No offense intended, --Brotherhood member, Habap 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Coeducational institution"

I'm confused as to why the opening sentence of the article states that the university is a coeducational institution. Aren't all public universities and colleges, and virtually all the private ones as well, in the Americas as well as most of the world that way? --Julie-Anne Driver 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Depends one what region of the world. Please note that this article is seen around the world, not just in the U.S. In some regions (I can't recall off the top of my head, but I would suspect certain parts of Asia, Africa, even Europe and the United States), there are single-gendered colleges and universities. PentawingTalk 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Coca Cola Sales Banned From Campus"

U Of M banned Coca Cola from selling its products on campus because of a Student Union. There was a story a few weeks ago about this by AP. It's probably the only campus where you can't buy a Coca Cola in America. BringCocaColaBack

From what I read, U-M is the 10th school to do so.[2] New York University and Rutgers have done the same thing. PentawingTalk 05:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any news stories on other Universities banning Coca Cola. This is another example of the radical left wing on campus removing people's ability to choose for themselves. BringCocaColaBack

Gimme a break. Before this, coke had a vendor monopoly over campus (minus the dining hall). Nobody complaint about lack of choice back then (hey, where's my pepsi dude?)... But still, you could still get a coke easily even with the contract cut. __earth 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Not so. There are a lot of Pepsi machines around campus. -Kalium 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that would be the right wing, not the left wing, removing people's ability to choose for themselves. 128.192.236.246 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the motivation for the ban is one that would be labelled "liberal" - Coca-Cola plants allegedly damage the environment in India (details from Pentawing's linky):
It had been alleged that Coke’s bottling plants in India violated provisions of the Vendor Code of Conduct of the university by fostering environmental practices in India that resulted in the depletion of groundwater and, consequently, in products with unacceptably high levels of pesticides.
The radical right and the radical left tend to be far more similar than they would like to admit. See Joseph Stalin....
Oh, and BringCocaColaBack, if the university were to sell you something that could hurt you and didn't warn you in advance, they could be liable for damages. Far easier to simply remove the item and protect their corporate entity. --Habap 17:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been tracking this story on campus vaguely. It mostly comes down to this: the University asked Coke to live up to their obligations under the Vendor Code of Conduct. Coke didn't, couldn't, or refused to (end result is the same anyway). Thus, as a matter of University policy, the contract with Coke has been terminated. Yes, it was liberal student activism on campus that brought it to the attention of the administration and forced them to deal with it, but it was also completely in line with existing University policy. In short, it's nothing significant except for the propaganda that preceded it around campus. -Kalium 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Apollo 15 crew

It's mentioned that Apollo 15 had an all-U of M crew, which is technically incorrect. Actually, Dave Scott is a Texas Military Academy and MIT graduate, and was given an honorary degree by U of M after the mission. --Jkonrath 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

David Scott also attended U-M in ’49-’50, though he did not obtain a degree from U-M. -- swimsy

Thus, according to U-M's odd definition of 'alumus', he counts. Just like Madonna does. -Kalium 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I took a Russian language course there. Does that make me an almnus also? --Habap 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This is hardly an unusual practice, just as not mentioning notorious students. And yes, even if you only audited WhatEver 101, if you become rich and/or famous, the U-M won't be the only one wanting your money and name. The spin is slight and the ad is fun, if you saw it this fall. -- swimsy
I cringe whenever they claim Magic Johnson as an alum of MSU. As little as I attended classes, I did at least put in my 4-7 years and earn a degree. (I have a hard time remembering the 80s....) --Habap 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Claude Shannon

In Research and endowment, it states "has made major contributions to the mathematics of information theory, notably through Claude Shannon." From what I read in the Wikipedia article on Shannon, he made all his contributions while at MIT. Is it appropriate to claim credit in a section on research done by the University for work done by a graduate of the University while no longer researching for the University or on the grounds of the University? I know it can go into their brochures, but it seems a stretch here. --Habap 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on the above: 1) Shannon received 2 degrees from Michigan; 2) one might guess that he learned something at UM that helped him later relative to the contributions that he made to information theory; 3) You will note that the attribution is to a person (the "who") who is a graduate who made contributions; 4) your point refers to a particular time domain (the "when") that is not in the original sentence, and thus seems off-point; 5) your claim that a claim is being made is not supported by your own example; 6) Do you think Shannon forgot what he knew/learned at UM before he went to MIT. Weisner and Vest (2 out of the last 4 Presidents of MIT who were also graduates of UM) didn't suddently develop amnesia when they went to MIT and reinvent their entire construct of reality when they got there (MIT cereal?); they got there prepared. In your rejoinder to the above, I want you to NOT use words that you learned before 2001. (Unsigned by 66.65.76.15)

I read the article on Shannon because I found the construct "through Claude Shannon" odd. I suppose that using that construct does correctly credit the University's involvement, but it just strikes me as odd that in a section on that I assumed is intended to discuss Research at the University that they would list research done by a graduate elsewhere. I am certain that the foundation he acquired while at U of M was critical to his development, but just find the whole thing oddly worded and oddly placed. Perhaps it would be appropriate in a section on distinguished graduates?
Oh, and I'd better not use words I learned before 1988, when I graduated. Sadly, that would leave me unable to write any of the words I've written here. Your comments come across as very defensive. Perhaps you could mitigate that? (I didn't know that word before 1988, I don't think....) --Habap 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, my comments were both excessive and way too defensive. I apologize. I was reacting to the vandalism of the article on that day, and your reasonable observation was swept into my micro-tirade. Feel free to remove the thread at such time as you consider the issue resolved. Until then, I'll remain in the public stocks. 66.65.76.15 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for protection

Boneheadmx has suggested that protection be enstated. I think this is in order until this is no longer the featured article. I suspect that's what driving the vandalism. -Kalium 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been the long held position for all featured articles that they should not be protected while on the main page. The day is almost over and in any case this talk page would not be the place to discuss it, the talk page of WP:FA would be. All articles featured on the main page get significant vandalism, and people apparently think that's just fine. I don't happen to agree, but we can't just go flaunting consensus. - Taxman Talk 23:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I suppose nobody said that democracy always made sense. Thanks, though. -Kalium 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That sucks, but I guess I'll just do my best reverting vandalism for a little bit. Sometimes you wonder whether these vandals get bored putting in their asanine little edits to articles. Oh well. Boneheadmx 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, they apparently have tons of fun with it. In this case though it is quite clear someone's registering names real quick to vandalize. On second thought I think that justifies a semi protect. I'll take the comments of the two of you as agreeing to that so if anyone else agrees they should have at it. - Taxman Talk 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't bother. I forgot that the autoblocker will take care of it once I block them.--Tznkai 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
And it's already off the main page. Autoblocker won't cover a determined vandal able to use different IP's, but protection probably won't be needed now. - Taxman Talk 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Effort underway to repair POV issues

In the interest of resolving the POV issues that have been brought up since the article appeared on the front page, I am grouping all relevant conversations in the same place. Please leave comments and suggestions within this grouping. PentawingTalk 05:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Selective praise -- school promoter POV

The intro is full of quick hits of whatever great feats can be attributed to Mich. The US News sentence particularly distorts the balanced view. The magazine ranks dozens of programs and specialties. Only the most flattering rankings are presented, the all-important and watched for overall position (#25) is omitted! [3] Lotsofissues 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is backed up there are no problems. If you know of something worth adding and have something to back it up, go ahead. PentawingTalk 06:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
"As long as it is backed up" This is the attitude that cripples college pages. As long as there are sources, why not turn the page into a vanity fair? The result:Institution promotion across all articles, not NPOV. Lotsofissues 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. PentawingTalk 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Who defines "all-important"? The undergraduate ranking is a poor reflection of institutional strength. Here is my count (using the link on the page, as well as excel) of a rolling count of program rankings (e.g., top 10 rolls in top 5, top 15 rolls in top 10...). You can also look at philosophical gourmet to see selectivity and quality from another point of view.

Top_5 84

Top_10 153

Top_15 190

Top_20 197

Top_30 209

== Here are the programs, the rankings, the years and sources. I think the page should reflect these FACTS. Using 30 is both inaccurate, and an embarassment. If you can't refute the rankings, which I consider to NPOV,you should consider revising the page, or let a neutral arbiter take such a decision under advisement.

Index Category Cohort Division Program Ranking Source 32 Graduate Number_01 Anthropology Anthropology 1 NRC_1995 33 Graduate Number_01 Archaeology Archaeology 1 SAA_1993 49 Graduate Number_01 Business MBA 1 WSJ_2004 83 Graduate Number_01 Education Higher Education Administration 1 USN_2004 121 Graduate Number_01 Health Services Administration Health Services Administration 1 USN_2003 123 Graduate Number_01 History African-American History 1 USN_2001 157 Graduate Number_01 Music Conducting 1 USN_1999 184 Graduate Number_01 Politics American Politics 1 USN_2001 205 Graduate Number_01 Social_Work_Aggregate Social Work 1 USN_2001 208 Graduate Number_01 Sociology Historical Sociology 1 USN_2001 28 Undergraduate Number_01 Special_Undergraduate Undergraduate Research/Creative Projects 1 USN&WR 9 Undergraduate Top_05 Business Management 2 USN&WR 11 Undergraduate Top_05 Business Marketing 2 USN&WR 99 Graduate Top_05 Engineering Industrial/Manufacturing 2 USN_2004 25 Undergraduate Top_05 Engineering Mechanical 2 USN&WR 117 Graduate Top_05 Geology Geochemistry 2 USN_1999 119 Graduate Top_05 Geology Sedimentology/Stratigraphy 2 USN_1999 130 Graduate Top_05 History Women's History 2 USN_2001 133 Graduate Top_05 Information Archives and Preservation 2 USN_1999 156 Graduate Top_05 Music Composition 2 USN_1999 183 Graduate Top_05 Political_Science_Aggregate Political_Science_Aggregate 2 USN_2001 189 Graduate Top_05 Psychology_Aggregate Psychology_Aggregate 2 USN_2001 192 Graduate Top_05 Psychology_Aggregate Developmental Psychology 2 USN_2001 193 Graduate Top_05 Psychology_Aggregate Experimental Psychology 2 USN_2001 202 Graduate Top_05 Public_Affairs Social Policy 2 USN_2004 29 Undergraduate Top_05 Special_Undergraduate Learning Communities 2 USN&WR 2 Undergraduate Top_05 University_Undergraduate National_Undergraduate_Public 2 USN&WR 44 Graduate Top_05 Business Executive Education Open Enrollment Programs 3 BW_2004 3 Undergraduate Top_05 Business Business_Aggregate 3 USN&WR 6 Undergraduate Top_05 Business Finance 3 USN&WR 60 Graduate Top_05 Classical Studies Classical Studies 3 NRC_1995 67 Graduate Top_05 Dentistry Dentistry 3 USN_1993 81 Graduate Top_05 Education Education Psychology 3 USN_2004 104 Graduate Top_05 Engineering Nuclear 3 USN_2003 16 Undergraduate Top_05 Engineering Aerospace/AeronauticalAstronautical 3 USN&WR 22 Undergraduate Top_05 Engineering Environmental 3 USN&WR 23 Undergraduate Top_05 Engineering Industrial/Manufacturing 3 USN&WR 132 Graduate Top_05 Information_Aggregate Information_Aggregate 3 USN_1999 163 Graduate Top_05 Nursing Nursing_Aggregate 3 USN_2002 169 Graduate Top_05 Nursing Midwifery 3 USN_2003 177 Graduate Top_05 Pharmacy Pharmacy 3 USN_1999 188 Graduate Top_05 Political_Science_Aggregate Political_Science_Aggregate 3 USN_2001 191 Graduate Top_05 Psychology_Aggregate Cognitive Psychology 3 USN_2001 201 Graduate Top_05 Public_Affairs Public Policy Analysis 3 USN_2004 209 Graduate Top_05 Sociology Social Psychology 3 USN_2001 210 Graduate Top_05 Sociology Social Stratification 3 USN_2001 206 Graduate Top_05 Sociology_Aggregate Sociology_Aggregate 3 USN_2001 4 Undergraduate Top_05 Business Accounting 4 USN&WR 8 Undergraduate Top_05 Business International_Business 4 USN&WR 80 Graduate Top_05 Education Education Policy 4 USN_2004 87 Graduate Top_05 Engineering Aerospace/AeronauticalAstronautical 4 USN_2004 97 Graduate Top_05 Engineering EnvironmentalEnvironmental Health 4 USN_2004 98 Graduate Top_05 Engineering Industrial 4 NRC_1995 24 Undergraduate Top_05 Engineering Materials 4 USN&WR 26 Undergraduate Top_05 Engineering Nuclear 4 USN&WR 118 Graduate Top_05 Geology Paleontology 4 USN_1999 134 Graduate Top_05 Information Information Systems 4 USN_1999 160 Graduate Top_05 Music Orchestra/Symphony 4 USN_1999 161 Graduate Top_05 Music Piano/Keyboard 4 USN_1999 155 Graduate Top_05 Music_Aggregate Music 4 USN_1999 165 Graduate Top_05 Nursing Clinical Nurse Specialist Community 4 USN_2003 196 Graduate Top_05 Public_Affairs Environmental Policy and Management 4 USN_2004 197 Graduate Top_05 Public_Affairs Health Policy and Management 4 USN_2004 212 Graduate Top_05 Sociology Sociology_Aggregate 4 NRC_1995 30 Undergraduate Top_05 Special_Undergraduate Service Learning 4 USN&WR 41 Graduate Top_05 Business Accounting 5 USN_2004 12 Undergraduate Top_05 Business Production and OM 5 USN&WR 13 Undergraduate Top_05 Business Quantitative Analysis 5 USN&WR 86 Graduate Top_05 Engineering Aerospace 5 NRC_1995 101 Graduate Top_05 Engineering Mechanical 5 USN_2004 102 Graduate Top_05 Engineering Mechanical 5 NRC_1995 21 Undergraduate Top_05 Engineering ElectricalElectronic/Communications 5 USN&WR 110 Graduate Top_05 English Gender and Literature 5 USN_2001 116 Graduate Top_05 Geology Geology_Aggregate 5 USN_1999 122 Graduate Top_05 History History_Aggregate 5 USN_2001 126 Graduate Top_05 History European History 5 USN_2001 150 Graduate Top_05 Medicine Family Medicine 5 USN_2004 151 Graduate Top_05 Medicine Geriatrics 5 USN_2004 159 Graduate Top_05 Music Opera/Voice 5 USN_1999 168 Graduate Top_05 Nursing Gerontology/Geriatric 5 USN_1999 174 Graduate Top_05 Nursing Nursing Services Administration 5 USN_2003 180 Graduate Top_05 Physics Atomic/Molecular/OpticalPlasma 5 USN_2002 186 Graduate Top_05 Politics International Politics 5 USN_2001 194 Graduate Top_05 Public Health_Aggregate Public Health_Aggregate 5 USN_2003 48 Graduate Top_10 Business International_Business 6 USN_2004 50 Graduate Top_10 Business Management 6 USN_2004 54 Graduate Top_10 Business Production and OM 6 USN_2004 66 Graduate Top_10 Creative Writing Creative Writing 6 USN_1999 95 Graduate Top_10 Engineering Electrical 6 NRC_1995 96 Graduate Top_10 Engineering ElectricalElectronic/Communications 6 USN_2004 20 Undergraduate Top_10 Engineering Computer Engineering 6 USN&WR 136 Graduate Top_10 Law Clinical Training 6 USN_2004 141 Graduate Top_10 Mathematics_Aggregate Algebra 6 USN_1999 144 Graduate Top_10 Mathematics_Aggregate Number Theory 6 USN_1999 198 Graduate Top_10 Public_Affairs Information and Technology Management 6 USN_2004 45 Graduate Top_10 Business Executive MBA 7 USN_2004 51 Graduate Top_10 Business Marketing 7 USN_2004 55 Graduate Top_10 Business Quantitative Analysis 7 USN_2002 72 Graduate Top_10 Economics International Economics 7 USN_2001 75 Graduate Top_10 Economics Public Finance 7 USN_2001 92 Graduate Top_10 Engineering Civil 7 USN_2004 94 Graduate Top_10 Engineering Computer Engineering 7 USN_2004 100 Graduate Top_10 Engineering Materials 7 USN_2004 15 Undergraduate Top_10 Engineering Engineering_Aggregate 7 USN&WR 135 Graduate Top_10 Law Law_Aggregate 7 USN_2004 146 Graduate Top_10 Medicine_Aggregate Medical Research 7 USN_2004 153 Graduate Top_10 Microbiology Microbiology 7 USN_2002 158 Graduate Top_10 Music Jazz 7 USN_1999 166 Graduate Top_10 Nursing Clinical Nurse Specialist Psychiatric 7 USN_2003 52 Graduate Top_10 Business Not for Profit 8 USN_2004 53 Graduate Top_10 Business Part Time MBA 8 USN_2004 10 Undergraduate Top_10 Business MIS 8 USN&WR 64 Graduate Top_10 Computer Science Hardware 8 USN_1999 82 Graduate Top_10 Education Elementary Education 8 USN_2004 85 Graduate Top_10 Engineering Engineering_Aggregate 8 USN_2004 17 Undergraduate Top_10 Engineering BiomedicalBiomedical Engineering 8 USN&WR 19 Undergraduate Top_10 Engineering Civil 8 USN&WR 125 Graduate Top_10 History Cultural History 8 USN_2001 140 Graduate Top_10 Mathematics_Aggregate Mathematics_Aggregate 8 USN_2002 152 Graduate Top_10 Medicine Internal Medicine 8 USN_2004 164 Graduate Top_10 Nursing Clinical Nurse Specialist Adult 8 USN_2003 167 Graduate Top_10 Nursing Clinical Specialist 8 USN_1999 170 Graduate Top_10 Nursing Nurse Practitioner Adult 8 USN_2003 172 Graduate Top_10 Nursing Nurse Practitioner - GerontologicalGeriatric 8 USN_2003 176 Graduate Top_10 Pharmacy Pharmacology/Toxicology 8 USN_1999 178 Graduate Top_10 Philosophy_Aggregate Philosophy 8 NRC_1995 195 Graduate Top_10 Public_Affairs_Aggregate Public_Affairs_Aggregate 8 USN_2004 27 Undergraduate Top_10 Special_Undergraduate Internships/Co-ops 8 USN&WR 31 Undergraduate Top_10 Special_Undergraduate Writing in The Discipline 8 USN&WR 42 Graduate Top_10 Business Entrepreneurship 9 USN_2005 43 Graduate Top_10 Business Executive_Education Custom Programs 9 BW_2003 56 Graduate Top_10 Business Supply Chain 9 USN_2004 79 Graduate Top_10 Education Curriculum/Instruction 9 USN_2004 18 Undergraduate Top_10 Engineering Chemical 9 USN&WR 108 Graduate Top_10 English African-American 9 USN_2001 124 Graduate Top_10 History Asian History 9 USN_2001 137 Graduate Top_10 Law International Law 9 USN_2004 203 Graduate Top_10 LS&A Romance Languages French 9 NRC_1995 145 Graduate Top_10 Math_Aggregate Math_Aggregate 9 NRC_1995 171 Graduate Top_10 Nursing Nurse Practitioner Family 9 USN_2003 187 Graduate Top_10 Politics Political Theory 9 USN_2001 40 Graduate Top_10 Business Business_Aggregate 10 USN_2004 7 Undergraduate Top_10 Business Insurance 10 USN&WR 63 Graduate Top_10 Computer Science Artificial Intelligence 10 USN_2002 77 Graduate Top_10 Education Education_Aggregate 10 USN_2004 78 Graduate Top_10 Education Admin and Supervision 10 USN_2004 89 Graduate Top_10 Engineering Biomedical/Engineering 10 USN_2004 93 Graduate Top_10 Engineering Civil 10 NRC_1995 128 Graduate Top_10 History Modern US History 10 USN_2001 143 Graduate Top_10 Mathematics_Aggregate Mathematical Statistics 10 USN_1999 181 Graduate Top_10 Physics Elementary Particles 10 USN_1999 185 Graduate Top_10 Politics Comparative Politics 10 USN_2001 207 Graduate Top_10 Sociology Economic Sociology 10 USN_2001 34 Graduate Top_15 Architecture Architecture 11 USN_1999 35 Graduate Top_15 Art History Art History 11 NRC_1995 47 Graduate Top_15 Business MIS 11 USN_2004 70 Graduate Top_15 Economics Economics_Aggregate 11 USN_2001 84 Graduate Top_15 Education Secondary Education 11 USN_2004 88 Graduate Top_15 Engineering Biomedical 11 NRC_1995 105 Graduate Top_15 English English_Aggregate 11 USN_2001 113 Graduate Top_15 English Medieval/Renaissance 11 USN_2001 131 Graduate Top_15 History_Aggregate History_Aggregate 11 NRC_1995 149 Graduate Top_15 Medicine Drug/Alcohol Abuse 11 USN_2004 46 Graduate Top_15 Business Finance 12 USN_2004 69 Graduate Top_15 Ecology Evolution Behavior Ecology Evolution Behavior 12 NRC_1995 106 Graduate Top_15 English 18th to 20th Century British 12 USN_2001 109 Graduate Top_15 English American after 1865 12 USN_2001 127 Graduate Top_15 History Latin American 12 USN_2001 129 Graduate Top_15 History U.S. Colonial History 12 USN_2001 199 Graduate Top_15 Public_Affairs Public Finance and Budgeting 12 USN_2004 71 Graduate Top_15 Economics Industrial Organization 13 USN_2001 73 Graduate Top_15 Economics Macroeconomics 13 USN_2001 76 Graduate Top_15 Economics Economics_Aggregate 13 NRC_1995 90 Graduate Top_15 Engineering Chemical 13 USN_2004 107 Graduate Top_15 English 19th and 20th Century American 13 USN_1999 204 Graduate Top_15 LS&A Romance Languages Spanish 13 NRC_1995 175 Graduate Top_15 Pharmacy Pharmacology 13 NRC_1995 179 Graduate Top_15 Physics_Aggregate Physics_Aggregate 13 USN_2002 38 Graduate Top_15 Biological Sciences Biological Sciences 14 USN_2002 5 Undergraduate Top_15 Business Entrepreneurship 14 USN&WR 14 Undergraduate Top_15 Business Supply Chain 14 USN&WR 62 Graduate Top_15 Computer Science Computer Science_Aggregate 14 USN_2002 103 Graduate Top_15 Engineering MetallurgicalMaterials 14 NRC_1995 138 Graduate Top_15 Law Tax Law 14 USN_2004 211 Graduate Top_15 Sociology Sociology of Culture 14 USN_1999 61 Graduate Top_15 Comparative Literature Comparative Literature 15 NRC_1995 111 Graduate Top_15 English Literary Criticism and Theory 15 USN_2001 112 Graduate Top_15 English Medieval Literature 15 USN_1999 182 Graduate Top_15 Medicine Physiology 15 NRC_1995 190 Graduate Top_15 Psychology_Aggregate Clincial Psychology 15 USN_2004 114 Graduate Top_20 English_Aggregate English_Aggregate 16 NRC_1995 39 Graduate Top_20 Biology Biology 17 USN_1999 74 Graduate Top_20 Economics Microeconomics 18 USN_2001 91 Graduate Top_20 Engineering Chemical 18 NRC_1995 142 Graduate Top_20 Mathematics_Aggregate Applied 18 USN_2002 162 Graduate Top_20 Neurosciences Neurosciences 18 NRC_1995 173 Graduate Top_20 Nursing Nurse Practitioner Pediatric 19 USN_2003 58 Graduate Top_25 Chemistry Chemistry 21 USN_2002 65 Graduate Top_25 Computer Science Computer Science 21 USN_1995 120 Graduate Top_25 German German 21 NRC_1995 154 Graduate Top_25 Molecular and General Genetics Molecular and General Genetics 21 NRC_1995 148 Graduate Top_25 Medicine AIDS 22 USN_2004 1 Undergraduate Top_25 University_Undergraduate National_Undergraduate_Overall 22 USN&WR 147 Graduate Top_25 Medicine_Aggregate Medical Primary Care 23 USN_2004 200 Graduate Top_25 Public_Affairs Public Management Administration 23 USN_2004 213 Graduate Top_25 Statistics Statistics 24 NRC_1995 36 Graduate Top_25 Astronomy Astronomy 25 NRC_1995 37 Graduate Top_30 Biochemistry Biochemistry 26 NRC_1995 57 Graduate Top_30 Cell and Developmental Biology Cell and Developmental Biology 30 NRC_1995 139 Graduate Top_35 Linguistics Linguistics 31 NRC_1995 115 Graduate Top_35 Fine Arts_Aggregate Fine Arts_Aggregate 34 USN_2003 59 Graduate Top_35 Chemistry Chemistry 35 NRC_1995 68 Graduate Top_40 Drama Drama 37 USN_1999

See above for rankings 2nd to last column

I don't consider the "vanity fair" comment to be especially neutral either. If we are talking about neutrality then let's see the full distribution. In other words, if a school has several hundred departments, full programs and schools ranked in the top 10, let's say so. If you want to then include everything below top 10, say so as well. Don't pick an arbitrary number, oh for example 30, and use it, when essentially every department in the university ranks higher. By picking this number (30) you have somehow selected the 5th worst ranking out of 200+ rankings. There is a 95% probability, roughly, that a student attending the university will attend a better department. #30 is wrong 95% of the time. Show all of the numbers, not just the number that is the min of the set because that suited your preconception. Why/how did USN&WR report get to be the ONLY arbiter of rankings. Why put Philosophical Gourmet and Lombardi in the footnotes, and pick a non-existent #30 to use in the body of the article. Finally, why not do this for all schools. I should be able to go to any school and see everything, or nothing. (Unsigned by 66.65.76.15)

Why I threw up the tag

I tried to edit based on all these concerns but every single one of my revisions has been undone, so we must reach consensus on what to do.

There is an overriding POV in this article: the celebration of the greatness of UM. Most jarring is the introduction, listing every league table that is willing to recognize the success of UM. Brian Leiter's Philosophical Gourmet is positioned alongside the all-important US News ranking. Someone asked how I determined US News to be so important. There are a lot of decisive reasons. US News devotes an entire issue to ranking colleges and universities, sending it to all subscribers, and tens of thousands of parents reliably buy the issue off the shelf each year. The release is marked by an AP wire story that appears in hundreds of newspapers across the country. In comparison, PG is the unnoticed work of one professor blogger with a poor reputation. He gives UM an upbeat rating, so he's given the same place as America's most well known higher education guide--an act of defensiveness and plaudit stuffing. Neutrality would dictate we leave the rankings of the best known guides without comment instead of scrambling to select whatever good rankings are out there.

The SAT analysis is highly unorthodox to any Wikipedia college article. So many lines are devoted to proving the declaration there's an Ivy caliber population within each UM class--all using a dubious reliance only on the SAT.

There's much faulty content and taken together they form a front that tries to push the UM reputation. I advise cutting external praise to a minimum. Throwing away the SAT analysis and working more on INFORMATION (the history of the school, research, traditions, etc.)

Lotsofissues 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be somewhat reflective of the prevailing attitude of the student body towards UM. Many sudents are utterly convinced that UM is The Best school for everything, and will grasp at everything and anything to justify that position. -Kalium 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I daresay it's fair to praise the university if all other universities get the same consideration. Furthermore, you rarely see negativity in any encyclopedia. A fair and level list of information is all that's needed. In other words, let the University's record speak for itself. --Battlemonk 19:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Start of effort

Given the furor over various POV issues with the article, I have begun a major cleanup. For now, I have replaced the following passage with something more direct from the UM admissions data:

The upper quartile of each U-M class is two to three times the size of the average interquartile class of the Ivy League institutions; with a minimum SAT score of around 1400, that quartile is academically competitive with the Ivy League average of 1430. As a result, the university's student body includes weaker students as well as those who are competitive with, and as proportionately large as those of the Ivy League institutions.[4]
^ Calculated with data from The Top American Research Universities (2004). TheCenter. Accessed October 1, 2005.

PentawingTalk 05:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Pentawing great job clearing up all objections. I think though some mention of US News should remain since its the most popular name in rankings. Tag removed. Lotsofissues 06:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've reinserted UM's overall ranking according to US News. Nevertheless, the effort continues until everyone is satisfied. PentawingTalk 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I have cleaned up as many POV issues as possible, which included the elimination of the Philosophical Gourmet rankings (which was considered questionable). In the meantime, I am using the following rule of thumb: if the praise is a one-off thing (it hasn't been continuous through the years) by an organization that is not widely respected and is not widely known, such passage should be eliminated. PentawingTalk 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the comparisons to the Ivy League are inappropriate here. The raw statistics are more appropriate, and certainly more neutral. -Kalium 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Whether we agree with it or not, U of M is considered by many (especially students, alumni and other boosters) to be similar to an Ivy League school. I went to their in-state rival, so feel relatively free from bias in this regard. --Habap 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
After typing this, I checked Kalium's user page. Sigh, you Wolverines are everywhere! --Habap 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we are. Consider the implications. While many consider U of M to be at that particular level of quality in some areas, that doesn't make it fact or neutral, especially considering some of the people I've met around campus. Statistics are highly preferred. -Kalium 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


The intra quartile SAT data is pretty interesting in that regard though. I agree with the problems with it, such as it only being SAT scores, but it is still useful data the shows factually why the university is considered a good one. We don't need to trump up the facts, just report them. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)