Talk:Baylor School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Assess

This is a very good page. If you had inline refs then it would be a B or higher! Look at ref and references tag. Love the picture Victuallers 09:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Location

I actually think Baylor is technicaly within the city limits of Chattanooga. Does anyone know for sure? Zephyrprince 22:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Now that you mention it, I believe it is. The mailing address has Chattanooga, TN in it, at least. I'll change the introduction accordingly. MithrandirMage 13:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The mailing address, however, means nothing in this context. By that measure, Columbine High School is in Littleton, Colo. (It's not. It's in unincorporated Jefferson County, closer to Denver than to Littleton. But the mailing address says Littleton, leading to the confusion.)

The campus is indeed inside the city limits, all 670 acres -- aside from a tiny lot beside the entrance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.69 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Baylorschool.jpg

Image:Baylorschool.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Baylor old.jpg

Image:Baylor old.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Baylor logo.gif

Image:Baylor logo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Critcism Section

Criticism section: the latest information added to the article does not seem to be on topic for the article. Baylor School is an educational facility, not a charity. As such, the information is not relevant. I propose that the information be removed. I have left a message on Daveswagon talk page. Malson 02:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Charity Navigator evaluates non-profit organizations, not specifically "charities".--Daveswagon 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the criticism section as not being relevant to the article. Baylor School is not a charity. Therefore, the evaluation performed by Charity Navigator is irrelevant since the funds spent on administration are not "charitable donations". If someone feels differently about this, let's discuss it further. Malson 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Charity Navigator evaluation examines organizational efficiency and capacity. It has little or nothing to do with how the organization acquires funds (private donations, grants, tuition, etc). You are basing your argument on the title of the report rather than the information it contains. If you feel the section is unbalanced, change the name to "Reputation" or "National rankings" and add other information to balance it out. I've restored the section until a consensus can be reached.--Daveswagon 20:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue I take with this being relevant is the description on the Charity Navigator website:

For charities to be successful, they need talented, experienced leaders. Those leaders command significant salaries. But CEO's who command high salaries should also get the most out of the organizations they lead. The leaders of these 10 organizations are taking high salaries at the expense of spending dollars on the charity's programs. Despite receiving more than $250,000 in annual pay, these CEO's run organizations that devote less than 60% of their budgets to their programs and services. That means that at least 40% of your dollars are going to such costs as fundraising and administration, including the salary of the CEO.

Notice the bolded sections above. Again, this school is not a charity. People are not donating to the school as a charity. Therefore, the Charity Navigator rankings, as such, are not relevant. How do you propse a consensus be reached on this issue since this is not a frequented article? Thanks. Malson 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[:::The issue here is notability, not semantics. Yes, "charity" may not be the best word for Baylor School, but they are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which is what Charity Navigator evaluates. Like I said, the evaluation isn't about if they are a good or bad charity, it's about if they are an efficient or inefficient organization. By this evaluation's measure, they are not efficient.

It sounds like you feel that a school slipped into the list by accident, but many if not most private universities and schools are evaluated by Charity Navigator (Harvard University, Princeton University, McCallie School, etc.)

I also don't understand your statement that "People are not donating to the school as a charity". Baylor School solicits donations (Baylor School: Giving) and they spent $1,626,848 in 2005 on fundraising. If these people are not donating to the school as a charity, what are they donating to it as? A corporation? Are they looking for a return on their investment?--Daveswagon 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you have only added this "criticism" to the Baylor School article and the WTVS article when the NAACP, Corcoran Gallery of Art, and The Phillips Collection all have wikipages here? Just looking for clarification.

My question regarding notability is that the "Charity Navigator" report doesn't have any real impact on the support that the school receives from parents, alumni, or the community as a whole. It may be "semantics" but the school is not a charity. Therefore, the information is not a meaningful addition nor is it encyclopedic. Malson 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits I make to unrelated pages have no bearing on this article.

This information is notable because this article is about Baylor School, and hence Baylor School's finances ought to be included in that, especially since they have revenue and expenses in the tens of millions and net assets at $100 million. Furthermore, I made specific reference to the school being ranked in the top ten nationally for how they hand their finances, which should be undeniable notable.--Daveswagon 01:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in on this point from a random observer: I'm more inclined to agree with Malson here, in that I don't think that particular criticism belongs in this article. I think the issue is less notability and more whether the source is reliable. From reading through the "Charity Navigator" website, it seems evident that the organization applies its rubric specifically to charities in order to give individuals a guide as to which charities would be good destinations for donations. This method of analysis is not necessarily applicable to schools, and, to the extent that it is, it's not a valid (or intended) measure of how good a school it is, but rather how good a charity the school is. Since the primary goal of a school is to teach, rather than to be a charity, this rating is of dubious value. As such, I don't think this source is reliable for the matter it's asserted to support, and I would also encourage deletion of this section. Ashdog137 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Since the primary goal of a school is to teach, rather than to be a charity, this rating is of dubious value."

And you can't see how spending less than 60 percent of tuition and donations on teaching relates to this?--Daveswagon 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"This method of analysis is not necessarily applicable to schools."

Charity Navigator has evaluated 100 universities, graduate schools, and technological institutes; 155 private elementary and secondary schools; 60 private liberal arts colleges, and 207 other education programs and services.[1] Are you second guessing them on all of these evaluations?--Daveswagon 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As for your first question, I dispute that a measure of a good charity is similarly an appropriate measure of a good school. There are certainly many expenditures that private boarding schools make on things other than teaching that are critical to accomplishing their mission -- food service, dormitory operations, medical care for students, counselors, librarians, etc. As this organization's mission is to rate expenditures of charities, where devoting a substantial portion of expenditures to administration would be less reasonable, I find the application of their methodology to evaluating schools to be far less informative and considerably more dubious.

As for your second question, yes, I'm also disputing their rankings on other schools, for the exact same reason -- their rubric is not geared towards measuring the quality of a school, but rather the quality of a charity. No matter how many schools they apply it to, that doesn't make it any better a measure -- I could rank 100 universities, 155 private schools, 60 private colleges, and 207 other education programs on a random criterion (say, "percentage of employees not native to the state of the organization's primary operations") and arbitrarily declare all schools under or over a certain value to be "bad" or "good." That wouldn't make my rankings any more valid or appropriate than if I had just ranked the three schools on my street. Ashdog137 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"There are certainly many expenditures that private boarding schools make on things other than teaching that are critical to accomplishing their mission -- food service, dormitory operations, medical care for students, counselors, librarians, etc."

These are not administrative expenses; they are program expenses.

"As this organization's mission is to rate expenditures of charities..."

Charity Navigator's mission is to rate 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, not charities. They are named Charity Navigator because calling themselves 501(c)(3) Navigator would be ridiculous. The term is used loosely.

"their rubric is not geared towards measuring the quality of a school..."

Neither I nor Charity Navigator have passed any judgment on the quality of Baylor School's academic instruction.

"I could rank 100 universities, 155 private schools, 60 private colleges, and 207 other education programs on a random criterion...and arbitrarily declare all schools under or over a certain value to be "bad" or "good.""

Charity Navigator does not rank institutions as "good" or "bad"; it ranks them as efficient or inefficient.--Daveswagon 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Show me where "Charity Navigator" defines "program expenses," as opposed to "administrative expenses," for schools. For Baylor School, based on the two most recent annual reports available at their website, "Charity Navigator"'s "program expenses" seems suspiciously equal to payroll, while "administrative expenses" seems suspiciously equal to everything else. This is similar to the way school budgets are generally broken down -- teacher's salaries form the "instructional" portion of the budget, and all else forms the "administrative" portion. I have maintained, and I still maintain, that basing an "efficiency" rating on maximizing one while minimizing the other, while possibly appropriate in rating a charity, is inappropriate and yields pretty meaningless data in rating a school.

As for your assertions about "Charity Navigator" not intending to focus on charities, I'm beginning to wonder if you've even read their "About Us" and "Methodology" sections. They are explicitly an organization that "celebrates and evaluates charities of all types." Their purpose is to "provide information on charities." And, indeed, they explicitly state that they are no longer adding colleges and universities.

Finally, as for the pedantic nitpicking of good-bad vs. efficient-inefficient, allow me to recast my illustration to meet your tastes. Say that I were to create an organization named "Guild Navigator" who published ratings of nonprofit organizations. Further, let's say that these ratings were based on performance within a certain MMORPG, with active players classified as "productive" and casual players classified as "administrative." Let's say that I had a neat little star system, and the higher your ratio of "productive" to "administrative" players, the more stars you got. Now, let's say that, on a whim, I decided to extend my ratings beyond their originally intended scope (of nonprofit organizations known as "Guilds") to also rate schools, giving schools with many students who are "productive" in the game more efficiency stars, while finding other schools less efficient. Should this information be included on a wiki as a criticism of the school with a low "efficiency" rating? Of course not! The measure was not created to gauge the efficiency of a school in any meaningful sense of the word, but rather for the completely different purpose of measuring the "efficiency" of a "guild." Indeed, the same facts that make a "guild" "efficient" could make a school inefficient, as the more time students spend playing a game, the less time they spend on their studies. This so-called "efficiency" analysis by "Charity Navigator" is no different -- there is simply not the same reason to favor "program expenses" over "administrative expenses" for private schools as there is for charities, and any "efficiency" measure that extols the carte blanche reduction (or eradication) of "administrative expenses" does not necessarily capture an aspect of efficiency that is relevant to a private school. Ashdog137 10:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please show me the links to Baylor School's budget and where Charity Navigator says they are no longer adding colleges and universities. Save us both some time.--Daveswagon 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Found one: "At this time we are not adding any hospitals, hospital foundations, universities, colleges, community foundations, or PBS stations. Further, we no longer evaluate land trusts and preserves."[2] How does this relate to Baylor School's evaluation?--Daveswagon 19:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You can view Baylor School's most recent 990 filing here. As it stands right now, consensus is for the Criticism section to be removed. I say if no other party comments to the contrary in the next 24 hours, the Criticism section will be removed. Malson 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above dispute, I think the Criticisms section should remain. Baylor's Wikipedia entry is not it's boardingschoolreview.com profile, which is aimed at prospective students and is closely controlled by Baylor's admission office. Instead, the Wikipedia entry is an encyclopedic article about Baylor as an institution. Since Charity Navigator is a respected, professional, third party evaluator of institutions like Baylor, it's criticism of Baylor's inefficiency deserves to be included as encyclopedic content. This is especially true since the criticism of Baylor was included in one of Charity Navigator's top-ten lists that aggregates particularly notable examples from the broad swath of charities that they evaluate. Let the article's readers decide for themselves how to discount or credit Charity Navigator's assessment.Wescbell 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And this is the crux of the dispute: whether "Charity Navigator" is actually a "respected, professional, third party evaluator" of schools or not. I do not dispute in the slightest that it is, as it purports to be, such an evaluator of charities. What I do dispute is that it is such an evaluator of schools. If there is any information that "Charity Navigator" is a notable, reputable evaluator of schools, I'd like to see it. If not, it's not a reliable source for evaluating schools and should be removed. Ashdog137 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Malson, that document you linked to matches exactly the figures stated on Charity Navigator's evaluation. The "Statement of Functional Expenses" is divided into columns for "Program services", "Management and general" (i.e. Administration), and "Fundraising". Payrolls are divided between the three, not "suspiciously" similar to administrative costs as Ashdog accused.--Daveswagon 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire. For both years, payroll equals "program expenditures." Ashdog137 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're trusting the guidelines Baylor School sets for itself over those used by the federal government?--Daveswagon 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out the striking similarity. I'd also point out that the federal government has not set out any guidelines in this area -- "program expense" versus "administrative expense" is a pretty fudgeable distinction, particularly for private boarding schools as opposed to a run-of-the-mill charity. The federal government hasn't set out any hard and fast rules in this area -- it's merely provided a couple columns with broad and amorphous definitions to put numbers into. Ashdog137 21:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Charity Navigator has decided to no longer rate schools, that calls into question the relevance of including their research in this article. There must be a reason they are no longer including educational facilities in their reviews. Also, I would call into question the neutrality of Wescbell's above comments. As you can see from his contributions, nearly all of his edits have been to the article on The McCallie School, a noted rival of Baylor School. Further comments from disinterested third parties would be welcomed. Malson 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"At this time we are not adding any hospitals, hospital foundations, universities, colleges, community foundations, or PBS stations. Further, we no longer evaluate land trusts and preserves."[3]

It's frustrating how much of this discussion is me repeating myself.--Daveswagon 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That frustration is certainly shared. Ashdog137 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good. If we've all said everything we have to say, I think we can just let this sit and wait for comments from additional users.--Daveswagon 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

College Matriculation

And now for something completely different...There have been a number of edits to the College Matriculation section changing the various numbers of people who went to the different schools. Without published information that verifies these numbers, this section needs to removed from the article. A Fact tag was placed on the section back in March but was soon deleted. I have re-added the tag. Hopefully, someone will have a source that shows these numbers are valid. Malson 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A similar but different concern I noticed was the "weasel words" tag on the statement of percentages of students who take AP classes. I might just be having a dense moment, but I don't see how it applies, other than the use of "almost" as a term of approximation. Perhaps this should be replaced with "roughly" or "about" or some other less-weasel-y term (and the grammar fixed -- semi-colon misuse makes Jack a dull boy) and the tag removed? Or am I missing the point somewhere? Ashdog137 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who is an alum, current student, parent of a student, or faculty member can provide a source for these numbers. I remember seeing them at one point in a printed publication (I believe in Baylor's biannual publication for alums and students). Does anyone have access to those number or could anyone contact the college counseling office at Baylor? I'm sure that they'd be more than happy to provide said information CommonSense101 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A dispute has arisen over whether or not to include this section in the article. The section details the organization Charity Navigator's analysis of Baylor School's finances.

Users Malson and Ashdog137 contend that:

• Charity Navigator's aim is to assess charities, not schools
• Charity Navigator has stopped assessing colleges and universities
• Charities Navigator's assessments do not reflect the actual quality of Baylor School
• The assessment is not of value to the article

Users Daveswagon and Wescbell contend that:

• Charity Navigator assesses 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, not specifically charities
• The assessment is of value to the article as it is a direct commentary on and national ranking of the topic by a recognized and notable institution. 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I fail to see why this section is necessary in the article. I've never seen anything even remotely like this posted on an academic institution's wikipedia page CommonSense101 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SAT scores

I suggest that we remove the average SAT scores section. The test is no longer on a 1600 point scale, so it is outdated. Phillips Exeter, for example, has their current averages (3 scores) listed. If these scores are not available for Baylor, then do not have an SAT scores section -- CommonSense101 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Colleges

I'm not sure why user Malson removed (previously on June 5, when someone else had posted it, and again today, when I did) the school's numbers on students attending various colleges. First, it's sourced to the school. Second, it's nearly the only sourced info in the entire article. (Though clearly most of the info comes from the school.) It's relevant in any discussion of a college prep school to consider where its students go on to college. What's the rationale for repeatedly reverting this info? It's not puffery by or for the school -- if anything, the high numbers of UT students rebuts the standard school PR that it sends a lot of students to the Ivy League.) 66.30.237.125 03:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see [What Wikipedia is not: Stats]. Statistics regarding what colleges last year's class went to are not encyclopedic. It is data that obviously changes every year. It is also merely mirroring data already available in a much better format on the school's website. If I was sending my child to the school, I would certainly use that site to base my decision on rather than Wikipedia. As such, the information serves no purpose within this article and is poorly organized/formatted to boot. I stand by my decision to remove it from the article. Malson 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so promptly. (It's nice that you stand by your decision. Do people really think that saying so adds weight to their side of a discussion?) You might reconsider if you correct a misstatement of fact: You say that this list of colleges merely mirrors what is availale on the school's Web site. No, that's not true. Look again at the two pages. What the school's Web site does not do is -- the math. The list in this article ranks the schools by the number of graduates attending. (Anticipating: No, by no stretch does adding up this information qualify as original research.) Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by it being poorly organized: the schools are ranked by number descending, and then alphabetically. What more useful organization would you propose? All in all, would you agree that it would be appropriate to list, say, the top 10 colleges attended? 66.30.237.125 04:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The only way it would be appropriate to list the "Top 10" colleges attended would be if you did the historical Top 10 by going back to 1893 and tallying each graduating class's college choices. Otherwise, we are confined to the 2007 class's college decisions. Now, this is important information, for the class of 2007. It has little to no impact for previous classes nor classes coming in the future. That is why this is unencyclopedic. A "snapshot" statistical analysis is meaningless in these circumstances. As to the "poorly organized" comment, note that I said "poorly organized/formatted". A large list of numbers and college names is not attractive within the article and does not match the formatting of the rest of the article. I say the information should be removed. If you disagree, you can request additional commentary from a 3rd party if so desired. Otherwise, I'll remove the list once again. Malson 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This part seems clear: I'm saying the information is useful. You're saying the information is not useful. But then you add, "Otherwise, I'll remove the list again." What sort of procedure is that? I believe the information for the latest class is useful. (Just as the information for the endowment is useful, although we don't have historical figures, and the information for the tuition is useful, although we don't have the tuition figures back to 1893.) I'm going to cut the info back to the top colleges, yielding to your idea that a longer list is "not attractive." 66.30.237.125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.139 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a more fair characterization would be that Malson's saying the information is not encyclopaedic, whereas the anonymous user (208.54.95.139 and 66.30.237.125) is saying the information is useful. The problem is that useful isn't good enough; the information must also be encyclopaedic, even if useful, true, and verifiable, in order to be included. I agree with Malson here -- stats that, by definition, only capture a snapshot of one year's performance would not be appropriate in the school's wiki. If a particular class met the criteria for inclusion for their own article, the stats would be relevant there -- but I would highly doubt that any graduating class could meet WP:N. Ashdog137 16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The information (where do students from a prep school attend college) is in no respect similar to a phone book (using an example cited at useful). I don't understand your suggestion that this info, for the latest class at the school, is only encyclopedic if that class itself is notable. We cite the latest information available for tuition, for the enrollment, for many other facts that change from year to year. Why not cite the most recent info on where the students went on to college? If you like, we could use the last two years, or the last three years. But the suggestion (by Malson) that the information should be included only if we have it for more than 100 years is facetious, as is the suggestion that it's only encyclopedic if the class of 2007 itself is notable. If you truly believed that any "snapshot" information should be removed, wouldn't you be applying that logic consistently, removing the athletic listing by SI in 2005, the IRS info from 2006, the tuition from 2007? The Wikipedia article for any college prep school would be improved by containing the (latest) information on colleges attended. I can see a valid point that the information would be more representative if it included the last two or three years; if agreed, that's available on the Web and could be added.208.54.95.139 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The one key difference that clinches it for me is that the list of colleges that a particular year's alumni plan to attend speaks to those alumni -- if not exclusively, at least far moreso than the school itself -- and by definition would vary widely from year to year. The other information (tuition, enrollment, athletic rankings) speaks to facts about the school and is relatively consistent from year to year. Further, I simply disagree that the article would be improved by including a list (however short or long) of the colleges that a particular class (or classes) plan to attend -- that'd be great for a factbook or for the school's own website, but it's just not something I'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Ashdog137 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that user Malson has again removed this section from the article, citing a "consensus" on the talk page. Is this really a consensus? Malson and Ashdog137 (let us assume that these are two different people) make up a consensus? 66.30.237.125 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that we are two different people -- I've never interacted with Malson outside of this article, though I've come to consider him to be quite a fine editor. More people are certainly free (and encouraged!) to weigh in and edit accordingly. Ashdog137 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've weighed in and edited accordingly. This is a simple contribution to the page, showing where this college-prep school's graduates went on to college, using the latest year's information, sourced to the school's web site. Verifiable, encyclopedic, informative, NPOV.166.217.57.68 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of reference, using the College preparatory schools in Tennessee infobox at the bottom of the article page, not a single school listed there has information regarding the colleges their graduates attended. I contend that the information is not encyclopedic since it is merely a snapshot of the past year's graduating class. If you had a summary of the last 10 years or something similar that could demonstrate a statistical range, that information could be considered for inclusion. Malson (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that many of those pages have information that pertain to a certain school, not to others. And it seems that those pages could be improved if they had this information on colleges attended. Instead of fighting to keep the information off of the Baylor page, why don't you add the information to those pages? In other words, it's not much of an argument to say that a page shouldn't have information just because other pages don't have it (yet).208.54.95.217 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)