Talk:Yale University/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Interview

I have an interview w an alum tomorrow. Any tips?

Ask him what college he's from. CoolGuy 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yale, duh.
To spell it out rather more explicitly then: ask him which of Yale's twelve Residential Colleges he's an alumnus of. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok- EKN

Yale and the military

What is Yale's relationship to the military? I hear there is/were a lot servicemen from Yale. What's that about?

You may be referring to the memorials on the Yale campus. The World War I memorial and the Woolsey Hall rotunda that lists the names of alumni casualties of war. CoolGuy 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yale became, essentially, an army training ground during World War I, with passwords required for entry to the Old Campus, and with classes largely supplanted by military drills, through a combination of patriotism ("For God, For Country, and Fo Yale") and President Hadley's enthusiasm. (I don't know that this is a distinction from other universities, however....) The Yale Alumni War Memorial (the cenotaph) ("In Memory of the MEN of YALE, who, true to Her Traditions, gave THEIR LIVES that FREEDOM might not perish from the Earth.") and the memorial plaques in Woolsey Hall that Cool Guy mentions are particularly striking architecture in the plaza that is the heart of Yale. All the same, New Havenites rioted in the streets at the end of WWI because they felt Yale had not made a significant enough contribution to the war effort. - Nunh-huh 06:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, oughta be in the article.... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. Right now the article doesn't present any sources to back up its claim that Yale is located in Connecticut. I'm not changing the article, since I know from personal experience that this is true; and I think we can all assume it was written in good faith — but if we really want to be taken seriously as an encylopedia we really should source this. Doops 03:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look. I don't have a problem with an unsourced statement about Yale being in Connecticut because I don't have a problem with other articles doing likewise. I am perfectly happy with every college article giving the location of the college without citing a source.
I am very unhappy that so many college articles say that the college is "prestigious." People take the articles on Yale, etc. as models for college articles. If an article on university X contains a garbage statement about the college being "generally considered to be one of the prestigious in the world/US" then all of X's rivals and would-be rivals rush to insert similar statements and the disease spreads. This is not hypothetical: a contributor to the MIT article justified his insertion of such a statement by the observation that it seemed that all the other famous schools had them.
And, again, that's a very valid thing to argue, on the discussion for each school where it seems inappropriate. Presumably, if somebody doubted that MIT was prestigious he or she would get very little support and the article would not be modified, as with the general wikipedia settling of debates. Whereas if somebody doubted that Foofram U was prestigious, those who care enough could argue the pros and cons and decide on the final wording, as with the general wikipedia settling of debates. Again, prestige Is a matter of opinion, whereas being located in Connecticut is not. Whether foofram U is located in Connecticut is of the same level of certainty as whether Yale is located in Connecticut. Whether foofram U is prestigious is not of the same leve of certainty as whether Yale is prestigious. Gzuckier 15:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My point is that insisting that such statements be sourced quotations, of the form X said Y about Z, would IMHO go a long way toward solving the problem. Yale could probably find a nice, strong, quotation; Foofram U would probably have to settle for a weak, qualified statement and attribute it to the local newspaper or Foorram U office of admissions. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Prestige" is an issue that intrinsically involves judgement and point of view. It should be stated in the form "X said Y about Z." If every college did this, the statements about "prestige" would convey some useful meaning to the reader, who could then distinguish according to the exact form of the statement ("World-famous" versus "well-regarded regional liberal-arts school") and the source ("The New York Times" versus "University of Puget Sound Department of Admissions").
If the prestige of a college is a matter of general knowledge, it should be possible to find a quotable source that expresses the situation well, and is recognizable by the reader as carrying some authority. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, but I still think that no mention of prestige at all would be better than the depts of silliness to which the article could well descend once we start hunting for quotes to justify the CW. No paper encylcopedia would be afraid to call Yale prestigious, of course; but obviously our strengths and weaknesses are different and if we can't, then so be it. Doops 14:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, for instance, I find the following quote in the article: "Yale intramural sports are a vibrant aspect of student life. Students compete for their respective residential colleges, which fosters a friendly rivalry". Now there are a number of assertions there that I find quite a bit more questionable and in need of objective support than Yale's prestige. 'Vibrant'. who says Yale sports are vibrant? Are we that sure that they're not stagnant? And 'friendly rivalry'. That really needs support. I think you could find a lot of people who think the rivalry is not all that friendly. Does it make the slightest bit of sense to let these statemnts go by because we assume a reader will recognize a bit of gentle boosterism, but delete a statement that Yale is prestigious because we don't want to possibly mislead somebody?Gzuckier 16:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, my answer of course is that we should get rid of all the "vibrant" crap too. Oooh... vibrant crap... actually that is quite a poetic image... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yup, I'm with you on both of those thoughts. Gzuckier 17:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Collegiate School of Connecticut

Nunh-huh reverted not only my addition of the Collegiate School of Connecticut to the intro paragraph of this article (even though it is mentioned later on under the History section), but also my change of the Collegiate School to the Collegiate School of Connecticut in the Colonial Colleges article. Here are some sources for my claim that it is the "Collegiate School of Connecticut" and not just the "Collegiate School", as it is commonly abbreviated:

–MementoVivere 02:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User Nunh-huh did that because it's wrong. To the extent that the Internet pages you've cited use it correctly, they do so to distinguish the place where the Collegiate School was (as they do when they also refer to it in passim as the "Collegiate School of Branford, Connecticut"). If one consults Brooks Mather Kelley's Yale: A History or George Wilson Pierson's The Founding of Yale: The Legend of the Forty Folios, or the original founding documents, one will find the school consistently referred to as the "Collegiate School", the name by which it was historically known. Similarly Thomas Clap uses this name in his The Annals or History of Yale-College, In New-Haven, In the Colony of Connecticut. The only point of confusion might be Franklin Bowditch Dexter's Documentary History of Yale University, under the Original Charter of the Collegiate School of Connecticut, where the place name is again used as a geographical identifier. Had "of Connecticut" actually been part of the original name of the school there would have been considerably less debate and conflict as the college grew as to whether its was a public or private institution. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. The Library of Congress indexes this under "Collegiate School (New Haven, Conn).

Recent developments

This section was obviously inserted by someone with an anti-Bush bias and very little information on the topic. I fixed up the section to make it more accurate, but maybe someone can comment here about whether this section should even exist at all. What is the policy of Wikipedia: are recent events given space if they will not be notable in the long term? (Remember, the strike that is listed is not notable, it is one of at least 10 in the past 15 years.)

I agree that it's too much of a news item and too litle of an encyclopedia item, but it does point out that one thing missing from the article is Yale's habit of having some sort of strike every few years, certainly more frequently than other schools; the controversy over Yale salaries 'Beep beep Yale is cheap' (pro and con), etc. Gzuckier 16:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would agree, something should be said about the number of strikes at Yale versus comparable universities. Perhaps there's a more appropriate way to say it for an encyclopedia article. CoolGuy 18:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

colorado mad slasher guy

Dude, you can't just keep chopping the piece out because somebody on the MIT talk page wouldn't let you copy it over there. MIT is MIT and Yale is Yale. When MIT starts having faculty admissions committee meetings discussing how the frequent random murders of students are hurting admissons you can discuss them there, and when Yale students start committing suicide due to stress levels and social ineptness then you can start discussing that, meanwhile that can be MIT-specific. Meanwhile, nobody died and made you pope. See if you can sway the majority of your peers. With the charm you show calling me a vandal, I'm sure it will be easy for you.Gzuckier 03:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one that started the conversation on the MIT talk page and couldn't help but notice what was happening on this page. Anyway, I just have to say that if you feel those deaths are appropriate to list, you should probably add the explanation in the article. Right now it just looks like a laundry list of deaths that doesn't give the reader much indication how they are relevant to understanding Yale. The explanation at the end of the last death listed starts to give some indication, but perhaps it should be stated at the beginning of the list of deaths so that readers have some context. Also, the article currently doesn't say anything about the Yale faculty admissions committee meetings, so you might want to state that there as well. I know nothing about Yale, so you can't assume that readers like me will be able to connect the dots without some context. Without a clear explanation of why these deaths are relevant, it is likely that some people will continue to view this list as POV. --Umofomia 18:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, that's helpful.Gzuckier 15:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"POV" means nothing to me in the context in which you've used it: perhaps you'll elaborate? The list of on-campus crimes originated at a time when Yale was subjected to its third bombing (probably as a consequence of its frequent labor disputes, but at the time thought to be a possible terrorist act. And most of the other crimes will be well-known to anyone who attended Yale. There's no reason to omit this information: it's clearly pertinent to the article. If MIT chooses to ignore its crimes on campus, it doesn't mean that Yale will follow suit, or that the MIT editors' censorious position is the "neutral" one. The trend among colleges—sometimes enforced by law—is to be honest about campus crime rates, rather than hide them. -Nunh-huh 21:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that these crimes are not pertinent to Yale, and because I'm not familiar with Yale, I leave that decision to your judgment. However, I'm just pointing out that better explanation should accompany this list so that the context of why this list is relevant is known. The reason why it may be construed to be POV is because no context is listed, and people may view it as an attempt to misrepresent Yale's crime rate as being higher than it actually is. As I stated on the MIT talk page, I'm not against listing tragedies. Crimes and deaths happen all the time on every campus. You can't obviously list them all, since the list would probably end up being larger than the main article itself. For that reason you list the ones that are relevant, and give an explanation why they are relevant. On the MIT page, the two deaths that were relevant were left in the article with an explanation of the effects they had on the campus. The other ones were removed because not much else could be said about them other than the fact that they happened (and if you argue that they should have been left in simply because they're objective facts of events that happened, then you'd have to list all the other hundreds of deaths that had occurred over the history of the school that simply just happened). Remember that this is an encylopedia, not a police blotter. --Umofomia 22:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm still puzzled by your use of POV. It's POV because no context is listed???? It's POV because it may be misconstrued???? As to the rest, at the moment I think there may be a bit too much detail on some of the crimes, and that we might consider at some point moving the long discussions to an article like "Crime on the Yale Campus" with shorter descriptions of the major crimes here. But these crimes are an important part of Yale history, and the four murders mentioned would all be mentioned in any decent history of Yale. I don't think there need be a much more explicit explanation than that. - Nunh-huh 23:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I do agree it seems somewhat paradoxical. But it is possible to be POV with just objective facts alone. For instance, you can always pile on the facts that support one side of the story in order to make it appear as if that one side is the only side that matters. Even though every single statement made is objectively true, it may not represent the real situation. One only needs to see, for instance, edits sometimes made to articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to see this in action. I'm not saying that what is happening here is nearly on that scale, but back to my main point, if these crimes are a relevant part of Yale history, then why don't you just mention that in the article rather than leaving a reader having to guess? As someone who knows nearly nothing about Yale, my first impression when seeing a whole list of crimes that happened at Yale is that Yale is a lot more dangerous than most other schools, which is probably not the message you were trying to convey by listing those crimes. You can't assume that readers will be able to make the connection to their significance in Yale history (even after this entire conversation, I'm still a bit fuzzy on this, which is why I point out you should provide context). --Umofomia 23:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the onus of proving that a list of facts was added to an article in pursuit of a secret agenda falls squarely on the preson suggesting it. Adding a statement that they are historical incidents seems...superfluous. Seven crimes in a history of 300 years hardly seems a topheavy list. Your first response should probably be that Yale is a lot more honest than other schools. You shouldn't conclude that it's more dangerous before seeing a comparable list of crimes at those schools. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay... I'm just reporting what I observe. You guys are certainly more knowledgeable about Yale so it's up to you to decide accordingly. I just wanted to point out how it could be misconstrued (since already at least 3 people have viewed it that way), so just because you think it shouldn't be a valid conclusion doesn't mean that others won't arrive at it. I'm not sure how you can conclude that Yale is a lot more honest though since this isn't an article that is officially released by Yale; for all I know, the entire article could have been written by Princeton graduates, for instance. --Umofomia 00:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It could have been Princeton graduates. A real Yalie would have included the "Yale in Jail" bail program<g>. - Nunh-huh 01:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Echelon

Define 'top echelon' please. If it's just the top 5 or 6 then there can be other schools that fit that description. CoolGuy 17:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But seriously, what should really happen about this 'prestige' paragraph? CoolGuy 17:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that the article's current appeal to outside rankings is far better than the previous statement of fact that Yale is "one of the most prestigious universities in the world". However, as a Yalie, I am worried that this is merely a product of Yale's inferiority complex. The Harvard article backs up its claims of prominence and prestige by noting its vast resources and award-winning faculty, not by appealing to college ranking guides. I see no reason why the Yale article can't do the same. NatusRoma 05:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

VFD of HYP

People interested in this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HYP (universities) 2. —Lowellian (talk) 23:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Harvard Sucks organization busy on Wiki?

It seems likely you are behind the recent repeated page blanking of the Harvard arms, being bored and having little else to do but sabotage our webpages. If you continue to log on as RGluckman or whever, be assured we will get together and blank your arms constantly. Leave our pages alone. You are warned. Thank you. unsigned; posted by 81.154.70.199

Come now. Of course we won't. We have better things to do. Doops 04:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Academic boosterism

I reverted the boosterism notice since there is no evidence of this on the page. Before such a notice is placed on the page, I think we should know specifically why. And, preferably, the problem should be fixed by changing the text as opposed to adding a warning. CoolGuy 23:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no such explanation on the MIT page besides a few user's opinions. The Yale page comes off a lot stronger in terms of aggressive positioning by prestige, so it should clearly have this tag until this is cleaned up to make the page more objective.
I don't see any evidence of this on the page. I tihnk every question regarding prestige is well-supported. Please comment or fix the page if there are any doubts. CoolGuy 23:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"Midwestern Ivy League" ?

Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:

Midwestern Ivy League

Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 03:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The boosterism is back

There has been an explosion of academic boosterism in this article.

The opening paragraphs are nothing but one brag after another.

This would be good material for an Admissions Department brochure... except that I'll bet Yale's admissions department has better taste than that. Please, somebody, do something, before every other university article, unwilling to be outbragged by Yale, fills their opening paragraphs with unique and distinguished and prestigious and selective and so forth.

And guys, I'm sorry, but your endowment is second to Harvard's and nobody cares you jigger the figures to show how it really is, in a way, if considered properly, larger.

Lux et vanitas, for sure. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

?? Not that I'm a big Yale booster, but isn't pretty much everything in this section a verifiable quantitative measure? Aren't we supposed to mention that Yale's law school is the most selective, etc.? I mean, if you had to write a single phrase describing Yale, wouldn't it be something like "good school"? Gzuckier 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at what other encyclopedias say, how they phrase it, and what they think is important. The Columbia encyclopedia article opens:
Yale University at New Haven, Conn.; coeducational. Chartered as a collegiate school for men in 1701 largely as a result of the efforts of James Pierpont, it opened at Killingworth (now Clinton) in 1702, moved (1707) to Saybrook (now Old Saybrook), and in 1716 was finally moved to its permanent location in New Haven. Its name was changed to Yale College in 1718 in honor of Elihu Yale, who had been persuaded by Cotton Mather and Jeremiah Dummer to contribute to the college. Its present charter was drawn up in 1745.
Encarta says:
Yale University, private, coeducational institution of higher education in New Haven, Connecticut. Yale, the third oldest institution of its kind in the United States, is a member of the Ivy League, a group of eight highly competitive, traditional eastern schools.
When I get home I'll how Britannica phrases it. For the most part, "member of the Ivy League" is thought to say most of what needs to be said. Nobel prize counts, rankings, etc. aren't usually included.
The language in the first paragraphs has been edited to reduce POV, and most of the statements left should be factual.
I think that the language is much more NPOV. Does anyone have any other specific criticisms? If not, I'll remove the tag in a few days. NatusRoma 23:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The community worked well to identify and reduce some of the POV language that originally led to this flag, and to add new information, and as a result, the article has been improved. Constructive real-time feedback is how Wikipedia was meant to work, and I am proud to be part of this community. That being said, I do take issue with the aggressive, derogatory and unconstructive language used by Dpbsmith in his/her explanation of the flag above. I think the tone of Dpbsmith's language speaks for itself, but I will add that Dpbsmith's own recent contribution to this article bristles with its own bias. On August 24th, Dpbsmith added the "second to Harvard" paragraph to the opening section of the article which managed to completely define Yale in terms of how it is "second to Harvard by many measures." I do not know of another Wikipedia article on a university that describes the university in question in terms of how it is "second" or lesser on XYZ dimensions than another named university. Dpbsmith is of course quite welcome to offer constructive feedback to make the article better, and to point out POV language, but it would be nice if he/she did not find it necessary to personally insult contributors who are taking time in good faith to make this article better and more informative. And please don't accuse us of using this article to "boost" Yale, when your own contribution manages to use the Yale article to boost Harvard. Silveryogi.
The article is better now. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Bladderball

Snipped:

Yale students engaged in a game called bladderball, until 1982. A story claims that students from Jonathan Edwards College broke the ball, hence their self-proclaimed motto: "J. E. Sux."

If this is significant enough to belong in the article, it should be sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bladderball is; J.E. Sux isn't. I'll dig up a ref for the former. - Nunh-huh 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Which you did; good; thanks. I took the "unreferenced" tag off the Bladderball article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

music spin-off

I think it may be time to compose an overview of vocal music at Yale for this article and spin off the details of the various groups to vocal music at Yale. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent U. S. presidents, candidates, etc. with Yale connections

Speaking for myself, I think the paragraph beginning "All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates..." is moderately interesting, and suggests Yale's importance in the U.S. "establishment." Like Presidential alma maters, it also shows something of a dividing line between Harvard, Yale, and Princeton and the other Ivy Leagues; Penn, Brown, Cornell, Columbia, and Dartmouth don't have much of a showing in the Presidential department.

However, I feel strongly that a) it belongs under "Famous alumni," since U. S. Presidents are nothing if not famous, and b) certainly does not need to appear twice. I also feel that this not the sort of important thing about Yale that defines the institution, and does not belong in the introductory paragraph. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is not introductory material. I do think, however, that it is definitive of the institution, which certainly has deemed itself in the past, and probably deems itself in the present, a college whose mission is, at least in some significant part, to produce political and governmental leaders. The degree to which this is true is certainly of import in the article. - Nunh-huh 03:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. But it needs careful handling. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Except reading the Harvard talk, readers and wiki members have concluded it is boosterism. People finally removed it and put it the famous alumni of Harvard; while no fan of the Cambridge school, we need to be following the same standards. We have already been criticized for boosterism.Secondyaler 06:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What? The "Harvard" talk is irrelevant to this page, and the Harvard article still contains "Over its history, Harvard has graduated many famous alumni, along with a few infamous ones. Among the best-known are political leaders John Hancock, John Adams, and John F. Kennedy; philosopher Henry David Thoreau and author Ralph Waldo Emerson; poets Wallace Stevens, T. S. Eliot and E. E. Cummings; composer Leonard Bernstein; actor Jack Lemmon; architect Philip Johnson, and civil rights leader W. E. B. Du Bois. Among its most famous faculty members are biologists James D. Watson and E. O. Wilson. For a fuller listing of famous faculty and alumni, see List of Harvard University people." - Nunh-huh 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Guys, the fact that Yale has been unusual among universities in its connection to US politics is both interesting and relevant to an encyclopedia entry. The 2004 race was teeming with Yalies (Dean, Lieberman, Bush, and on and on), so much so that major media outlets discussed the Yale-dominance ad nauseum throughout the race. All it would take is a simple LexisNexis search to pull up these articles.

I can't say I see the logic in labeling simple factual statements about Yale's well-established connection to American politics as "boosterism."

MSN Encarta includes the description: "Prominent graduates of the school include colonial patriot Nathan Hale; many writers, including Jonathan Edwards, Noah Webster, and James Fenimore Cooper; inventors Eli Whitney and Samuel Finley Breese Morse; and U.S. Presidents William Howard Taft, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush. President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Gerald R. Ford, and Supreme Court Justices Benjamin Cardozo, William O. Douglas, and Clarence Thomas are among noted Yale Law School graduates."

FYI, I did not go to Yale.

-B

What's needed, however, is a carefully-constructed, well-sourced paragraph or so, documenting in a neutral way "the fact that Yale has been unusual among universities in its connection to US politics" and (tough part) explaining intelligently, neutrally, and in a well-source day why this should be so with reference to Yale's history and its relation to U.S. social structure.
What's not so useful is a) a simple and context-free assertion that a lot of recent U.S. Presidents and candidates have attended Yale, b) omission of mention of rival universities, some of which have also borne many Presidents from their loins, c) strange and seemingly arbitrary definitions of the universe of discourse ("since 1989?" why 1989), and in particular the placement of such an assertion in isolation in the lead paragraph. (Which is currently not the case... and I hope it remains so).
If Yale has something particularly presidential about it (and IMHO it probably does) that's interesting. But just these isolated count-the-Presidents, or if not presidents then count-the-Nobel-laureates, or if not Nobelists count-the-Rhodes-scholars... stuff... You can play that game forever. Swarthmore has produced more Nobel laureates relative to its size than any other college without a graduate school... Georgia Tech has produced more U. S. Presidents than any other institution with "Technology" or "Polytechnic" in its name... Dpbsmith (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph in question was, I think, unlike your examples, not a comparison with other institutions, but a statement of fact. - Nunh-huh 07:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dpbsmith and other contributors. I have added a new section under "History" called "Yale and Politics in the Modern Era" that is meant as a starting point for the section suggested by Dpbsmith above. I have tried to adhere to the well thought out criteria laid out by Dpbsmith, with a couple of small exceptions. I do not mention other universities, because I do not want the section to be perceived as Yale boosterism at the expense of other universities (e.g. Yale has produced x number of candidates compared to <x candidates at Harvard and Princeton). Also, the date begins at 1972, not arbitrarily, but because the Yale-specific trend of presidents seems to have been born in the activism during and after the Vietnam war. Several of the explanations given by sources (spirit of activism, William Sloane Coffin, institutional focus on leadership) seem to trace back to the Kingman Brewster years at the university, and it seems less relevant to refer to earlier periods in Yale history when Yale was a very different institution(clubby, Waspy, not meritocratic, all-male, etc.). I would welcome additions, contributions, etc. to the section, and I would ask someone who has more wikipedia experience to fix the formatting of the sourcing which I have not been able to hide. Thank you, Solartype, 1/12/2006.

My personal reaction: I for one like it. It's plausible to me and not-too-boosterish. It certainly does not trigger projectile vomiting, at least not in me. It's an attempt to explain Yale's "unusual representation" in government in relation to its history, tradition, and culture. I personally would rather like to see something like this in the article. It's well-sourced.
The problem I have at the moment is with "Several potential explanations exist for Yale’s unusual representation in modern-era elections." How sure are we that
a) Yale really is "unusually represented" in government, or, alternatively
b) There really is a widely held perception that Yale is "unusually represented" in government?
This is a place where what's needed is (another) source citation from some sociological study or at least an Atlantic Monthly article or something like that. (Please, let's not count U. S. Presidents and divide by Yale's enrollment or anything like that).
Now, where did I put... oh, yeah... on my talk page in a discussion with Nunh-huh... there's another personality besides Kingman Brewster who might have played a role.
This is wild. This is for the talk page and food for thought, not for the article. Kabaservice, Geoffrey (2004). The Guardians: Kingman Brewster, His Circle, and the Rise of the Liberal Establishment. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 0805067620.  p. 141:
[circa 1959] Stewart recalled that [Yale president Whit Griswold] had been "very disappointed" with what he had found of Yale's alumni around the country: "As he would go from city to city, the Yale graduates would be the heads of the local Red Cross, the community chest, various do-good campaigns... but the Harvard people would be the heads of the symphony orchestras, the museums, and the intellectual things. And he thought that was the difference between Harvard and Yale that he would like to work on changing."
(cited by Kabaservice as "interview with Zeph Stewart, 25 Nov. 1991."
Griswold then went about systematically recruiting Harvard people who had graduated from Yale! Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dpbsmith, thanks for your reaction and feedback. I have added a quote from the Boston Globe to the beginning of the second paragraph that addresses your concern about sourcing the assertion that Yale has been unusually represented. Most of the articles I cite have similar statements, I can pick another if the Globe quote is considered too boosterish. Solartype, 1/12/2006
  • Yeah, the Boston Globe quote says it nicely. (Plus, let's see, how do I say this... it's a nice little touch that it's not the New Haven Register saying it). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yale Corporation

I hit return too soon when reverting an anonymous addition, so I'll explain here instead of in the edit summary. It's incorrect to say "Yale University, incorporated as The President and Fellows of Yale College, is a private university", and it's irrelevant to the topic sentence. The Corporation governs Yale University, but they are not identical entities. [1]. The addition also duplicated the information about the Corporation that already appeared in a more suitable place in the article. - Nunh-huh 06:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

John O'Hara

John O'Hara's desperate desire to have attended Yale is well-known. Feeling insecure about not having gone to college, he became an expert at second-hand in all things collegiate and Ivy. He drops all sorts of references to colleges in his books and newspaper columns; see John O'Hara#Columns for some egregious examples.

But what I haven't seen is any explanation of why Yale was the particular object of his desire. Anyone know? (Other than the obvious explanation that everyone with any discrimination would prefer Yale...) Dpbsmith (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)