Talk:Education in the United States/Archive 2008

This is an archive of past discussions about Education in the United States. 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.

post sec POV

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd say that the section on post secondary education is quite biased. It doesn't mention junior/community colleges as well as two year colleges. And its tone is unecyclopeadic. It barely mentions mainstream state universities. Thunderbolt16 04:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

There are many issues with education in the United States today but the main problem is that schools today focus on testing rather than curriculum itself. Teachers teach to the test rather than to real life and students lose the interest in the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.133.36 (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ordinal vs. Cardinal (Grade Naming System)

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The first paragraph of "School Grades" sounds pretty absurd, could someone please name a country where ordinal numbers are not well understood?

It's not a matter of whether it's well-understood, it's a matter of what is customary. In Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, just to name a few, they prefer cardinal numbers. They can understand ordinal numbers but to them it sounds weird, just as using cardinal numbers for grades sounds a little strange to Americans. Wikipedia is for a worldwide audience, so we need to make it clear that us Americans prefer "fourth grade" and not the other way around, or else those foreigners will think the table is wrong and will keep trying to rewrite it as "Grade 4," "Grade 5," etc. --Coolcaesar 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what they use in Spanish and French-speaking countries, I know ordinal numbers are used in Germany and Scandinavia. I would still suggest rephrasing the paragraph to something like: "The U.S. uses ordinal numbers for naming grades, unlike Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom where cardinal numbers are preferred. Thus, when asked what grade they are in, typical American children are more likely to say "fourth grade" rather than "Grade 4.""

Noone responded so I changed it, but I see that JDoorjam reverted it right back. Please explain why the original wording is better than my wording.

I'm not bothered about the ordinal/cardinal thing, but I would appreciate someone stating just what these US grade numbers represent, because I want to relate them (specifically the output of the Flesch-Kinaid readability test) to the UK education system. My guess is that each US grade is one year of education and that school pupils start in grade 1. That may sound pathetically pedantic - but is it correct? -Norman Paterson, norman@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk

Close. Most (I can't say all) communities in the US call the first year of education "Kindergarten." Kindergarten pupils usually attend school for about 3 hours per day - half the typical "school day." First grade (not Grade One) is then the second year of education, but the first year of full-day classes. Schoop (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

University of Washington

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

"Top public universities such as the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the University of Virginia and the University of Washington, Seattle, (sometimes referred to as "Public Ivies") are also held in very high regard and actually perform better than various elite"

In our examples of "public ivies", the University of Washington should not be listed because there is no consensus on its status as a "public ivy". It makes no sense to list UW when the other three institutions have consistently been ranked among the top five public U.S. universities. Every single major ranking as UW separated from the pack. For example, the The Times Higher Education Supplement has UW behind UT Austin, Michigan, UCLA, UCSD, Illinois, Purdue, Penn State, and Wisconsin Madison. In the Shanghai Jiaotong study, UW is ranked behind UCSD, UCLA, and Wisconsin. UW is hardly an uncontroversial example. It is also excluded from the Moll book that coined the term "Public Ivy". This is not to mention the U.S. news ranking... UCLA would be a less controversial choice. --Jiang 05:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I had done a fairly thorough review on this before I made my comments. We should restrain from picking and choosing only rankings that support our argument. I am not from UW (please see my profile). So, I hope I can be a fair judge. If you compare the various rankings, UW is among the top. Albeit, the whole ranking issue is very controversial at best. We can analyse further the credibility of each ranking and just select the ones that have the least criticism. This will easily exclude the typical magazine rankings, such as US News and THES. Furthermore, the discussion is about research here and not undergraduate. The Top American Research Universities from UoF is the reference. On Public Ivy, UW is included in the updated list of Public Ivy by Greene (2001), along with other universities. Times are changing and we just have to strive to be open-minded. Thanks for your critical thoughts, however. The community appreciates that --mcks

We can't just pick a single ranking (Florida) and discredit the others: this is asserting our own POV and "picking and choosing only rankings that support our argument". Anyway, if we were to rely on a single ranking (which we should not), we would be listing Berkeley, Michigan, Washington, and UCLA. We should avoid drawing our own conclusions here, based on the Wikipedia:no original research rule. What do other people include in a list of public ives?

If we going to provide an example here of public ivies, it is better to take it from an inclusive list, because a list of examples naturally includes ommissions. I don't see the need of including UW here. Why UW and not UCLA? --Jiang 08:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Jiang. After all, it is UW whose ex-deans seem to be committing suicide lately! But on a more serious note, UW is simply not in the same category as UCLA in terms of the prominence of its faculty or alumni. People from outside America may not recognize UW right away, while anyone who watches movies or news broadcasts anywhere in the world has heard of UCLA. --Coolcaesar 09:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

POV is a personal opinion that is not backed by any reference. That was certainly not the case there. Given the various rankings, I tried to logically highlight the relevant one. Popularity is another debatable issue. G-factor attempted to measure that and it is more scientific and objective than certain personal beliefs. The latter inclines more towards POV than the former. The citation of UW ex-dean can be considered ad-hominem but I trust that you were just joking. - mcks

POV can be either referenced or unreferenced: the referencing of opinions is not relevant; they're still opinions. your attempt to "highlight" the "relevant" ranking is original research and personal bias. Again, I don't see the point of replacing a less controversial choice with a more controversial one.--Jiang 02:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

your comments is controversial too. the use of reference is what not constitutes as original research. if we put ucla, we should include UW to make it more inclusive then and end this dispute one and for all. mcks

Agree with mcks. UW should be included. To quote wikipedia guideline, "In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact." and "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above." It seems mcks has tried earnestly to be open-minded, cool-headed and constructive in this discussion. Published, professional research is so much more credible than certain individual opinions. --155.14.66.29 16:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Any choice can be made controversial. That's why Wikipedia encourages relevant reference. --155.14.66.29 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is not just about referencing: it is about including and attributing all the major viewpoints in a dispute. According to the neutral point of view guidelines, NPOV-speak would read something like, "The University of Washington is sometimes regarded as a public ivy. Though it was excluded by Richard Moll in his 1985 book The Public Ivys: America's Flagship Undergraduate Colleges, which coined the term "public ivy," it is included in Greene's Guides (published in 2001), which has a more inclusive list. The University of Washington's ranking among top American universities varies. According to a survey done by the University of Florida, UW ranks third among American public research universities. According to a ranking of "world universities" done at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, UW is the 5th best public American university. UW ranked as the 11th best public American university in the 2005 The Times Higher Education Supplement. In the 2006 U.S. News and World Report ranking of colleges, UW placed 12th among public universities and 45th in its overall category of universities."

Footnoting a single ranking to justify the label "public ivy" does not do it. The connection, that UW's no 3 public ranking in this single survey automatically makes it a "public ivy" is unreferenced and original research. I neglected to put the public rankings in the context of the overall rankings, which needs to be done in claiming that "Top public universities...perform better than various elite, private universities in many measurements of graduate education and research quality "

But we don't need to go into this kind of detail in this article, where we merely want to provide a list of examples. If we want to put in UW, then why not also College of William and Mary, University of Wisconsin Madison, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, UT Austin, and all the others listed by Greene? This list of 20-something would make the article ridiculous. As an alternative, why not just exclude UW because it is disputed? Can't we do without it?--Jiang 22:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well argued. I concur wholly with Jiang's position. The fact that UW's status is disputed (because rankings put it all over the place) means that it should not be included in a summary list. In contrast, Berkeley's status among public universities is undisputed (after all, Cal has several elements in the periodic table named after it). --Coolcaesar 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Non sense!

New section because of the sheer absurdity of the argument. I disagreed with Jiang! Basically, Jiang is acting like an authority here. In the list of Public Ivy, everybody counts both Green and Moll. To say, UW is "sometimes" Public Ivy also means UIUC is also "sometimes" public ivy. That is utter nonsense! Why don't you say that to UIUC and others and see if they agree. If you are so confident, get all their feedback and publish it. Then we talk. Challenge Green! Eliminate all Green's schools in the Public Ivy section and tell them that they are no longer a public ivy because Jiang thinks that one reference is not enough to qualify as one. Tell everybody that they only count for "sometimes" public ivy. Then we proceed. The topic is about research here. If you don't accept the reference, contact UoF and argue with them. Why don't you cite G-factor where UW ranks high? Again, you must disagree. Then contact them and argue with them. U of Virginia and UCLA also have their ranks lower than UW at some places. Let's start a new section about UCLA then. Dispute it and take it out. Many private unis have lower ranks in SJTU. Why don't you argue it with them and take them out! U Mich is lower than U Wash in SJTU. It is disputable. Why don't you take it? Go and argue with SJTU! To take out something because you guys start a discussion is a cheap trick. Enough with your ego! It's embarassing that even among the public schools, the attitude is still like this. To think that you guys are probably more down to earth. What a shame! We must refer this to the administrator if this continues further! Can't we do without UCLA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.14.66.29 (talk • contribs) .

I have never made an assertion disputing the validity of the rankings, nor have I ever claimed that UW is not a public ivy. I am merely trying to note that there is no consensus on this issue, and possible grounds to dispute UW's status as a "public ivy". It is not the job of Wikipedia to analyze, dispute, or verify the validity of any ranking. It is only our job to place disputed assertions in the context of their originators, adherents, and disputants.

If want to claim that UW is a "public ivy", then the Florida ranking is not a sufficient reference. The ranking does not make this claim. Greene makes this claim, but NPOV rules call for citing Greene, inline, to make this claim. Please verify your assertion that "everybody counts both Green and Moll" in listing public ivies.

Some pages that you might want to refer to before continuing this disucssion: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Jiang 01:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please let me try to answer the questions. This "ladder" is not absolute, however. Top public universities (sometimes referred to as "Public Ivies"), such as ... <-- click on the Public Ivy. It's already hyperlinked. Sigh ... Is this what America has become? Everybody here is so smart. But, with great power comes great responsibility. Collaboration is often more positive than competition and that's my personal opinion. --Mcks 04:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The point that I am trying to get across (and I think, Jiang as well) is that because Public Ivy is already hyperlinked, there is no need to mention examples of Public Ivies which are debatable because there is insufficient objective evidence of their prestige. By that I mean number of elements in the periodic table, number of Nobel laureates, number of rich and/or famous alumni, size of library system, etc. UW's lack of these things means that it can come close to UC only on rankings that take into account subjective (i.e., non-numerical) factors, such as the quality of primary care teaching in the medical school. If we don't draw a strict line, we will end up importing the entire debate about what constitutes a Public Ivy into the Education article, which would violate a lot of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, plus it would ruin the Education article. --Coolcaesar 05:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

SJTU, UoF have taken into account Nobel Prize, NAS fellows etc. Again, argue with them first. Many private uni don't have any name in the periodic table. Take them out! Ivy League and Little Ivy have examples, yet, they are already hyperlinked. Delete them! --155.14.66.29 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that U of Washington should be removed from the list of public Ivys. But to include UCLA as a public ivy is also academic boosterism (I'm guessing Jiang is a UCLA student or alum). UCLA is certainly an excellent institution, arguably the fourth best public university in the US (and interestingly enough, one of the most highly respected universities in the Asian communities, surpassing the likes of Rice, Northwestern, etc.), but in the east coast (where I live and work), UCLA is still seen as your typical big state university jock school. Of course, one could make the same argument for other top notch public schools that fall below the "Public Ivy" threshold including Texas, UNC-Chapel Hill, and Wisconsin. I agree that the only legitimate public Ivy institutions are Berkeley, Virginia, and Michigan. Teknosoul02 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

U of Washington is listed by Greene as a public Ivy. Moll lists it as an honorable mention. Why don't we just link this sentence to the Public Ivy article--which cites both Greene and Moll--instead of listing them here? This would prevent omissions. I myself went to the U of Georgia, which Green lists as a Public Ivy. However, I don't think it should be listed next to Berkeley, Virginia, and Michigan. Thus, we should just link it to the Public Ivy wikipedia article and allow those who are interested to read. This makes more sense than arguing about inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.28.104 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)