Talk:History of Harvard University

Extraction from main article

I pulled out much of the detailed history from the Harvard article, and added a lot of new info here. Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Puritan population (unsigned and undated comment from 2011)

I don't think it's accurate that there were 17,000 Puritans in New England in 1620. 1620 is when the Mayflower landed.

 Done It was changed in 2012 to read "by 1636". Hertz1888 (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

Don't you think we should add controversies? You know, stuff like Henry Gates arrest and Adam Wheeler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levardi (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Struck comment from sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theserialcomma. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Only if they're significant to the history of Harvard University. I doubt anyone would argue either of those examples meets that standard. Lagrange613 (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

2012 Cheating Scandal

I spring 2012 there was an alleged cheating ring scandal involving at least 125 students, almost 2% of the students enrolled, all in the same classroom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.78.78 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems

"I'm not sure how to explain the importance of having the only printing press on the continent for twenty years, if that isn't already understood" -- that requires a reliable secondary source saying it was important and why. Did it actually print anything? Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, actually. For a fact to be included requires only sources verifying it, not necessarily saying it's "important" -- it's up to our editorial judgment how well it contributes to the reader's understanding of the subject. However in this case we have those too, and they're already in the article e.g. "Harvard’s first impressions: The instrument behind New England’s first literary flowering" -- what more do you want? EEng (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

so you have no idea whatever of its importance. Any sourced trivia will pass muster such as an archaic spelling that gets top billing while you erase the info on Nobel prize winning professors. That's poor quality editing. Rjensen (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I do understand the importance of the press, as you would as well if you would read the source already in the article. And I didn't say any sourced trivia will pass muster -- please reread my post to find out what I did say.

I removed stuff about individual professional schools, and the Nobel count, from the lead because they're overdetailed for the lead of a 400-year history; it would be as if the lead of History of the English Monarchy had a paragraph about the Princess Diana Memorial Playground. Harvard Colledge is minor, harmless, and draws the reader in. EEng (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

three sentences on the major influence in law & medicine & dozens of Nobel prizes is highly appropriate info in an article on a major university. (the printing press was seldom used for college materials, by the way.) Rjensen (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not the article about a major university (which will typically emphasize its recent history and current status) but rather its history. Such material might belong in the body of a history article, but not its lead, at least not one this short -- they stick out as recentist. EEng (talk)

As for "colledge" it is in the article three times already and just makes Harvard look stupid in the lede. We want an encyclopedic style here. Rjensen (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

By "in the article three times" you apparently mean in the "First fruits" pullquote -- so what? I generally find that appeals to concepts such as encyclopedic style are used by people who can't actually explain what they're saying. EEng (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

quaint feature magazine writing is not useful for people looking at an encyclopedia for facts. As for "recentist" --nonsense. there is nothing here on the last 10 years. Before that's it's history. Rjensen (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If the overriding desideratum were "just the facts" then articles would be nothing but long bullet lists. Careful, lively writing draws the reader in and enthuses him to read more, while stuffing random facts into the lead (a) makes sense as a kind of desperation measure if you think the reader won't get past the lead, but (b) may well be the reason the reader won't get past the lead. A kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, you might say. EEng (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Witchcraft trials

I applaud any attempt to flesh out this woefully inadequate article, but the extensive primary quotes now being added are going to need to be boiled down to at most a paragraph or two. It's overwhelming. A more extensive treatment might belong in a Role of Harvard College section at Salem Witch Trials or (if there's really a lot of important material on this that can't be treated there in a reasonable amount of space) an article like Role of Harvard College in the Salem Witch Trials. EEng (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's overwhelming. It occupies disproportionate space in this article. Either a Harvard section at Salem Witch Trials or a fork article (WP name for a spinoff?) spinoff would be a good idea, but not something I can take on. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You're too modest, Hertz. Everyone knows you can call on the powers of darkness to help you! EEng (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

{od}} I agree in some ways, despite having written it. It is not pretty. I just made another pass, trying to condense. There must be some better way to convey complex information? Help? In some ways this is the entire problem of trying to understand what happened in 1692 -- the folks most responsible seem to have realized that if you pass along an overwhelming amount of information, no one will know what to make of it. Like those User Agreements we sign every other day. Maybe we are lucky that so much information is missing or was destroyed. But I also have to say that it is striking how much the College comes up in reading primary texts of this era. Increase Mather was obsessed with the College. He seemed to think it was the key to shaping the future.

The kicker for me was stumbling on the minutes of the Cambridge Association. They have been at the MHS since around the Civil War but seem to have been overlooked. This could probably use its own page but still should be tied to a larger timeline.

Though this section could no doubt be improved, and presented better, I don't agree that this info should be placed anywhere other than an article on the History of Harvard. The university have their own website for P.R. with brief and friendly descriptions of Presidents. In 1692 power and influence in MA bay came from Boston, usually via Cambridge. Were this better understood, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble.

Rather than less, I would like to see more 17th century History on this page. For instance, archealogical evidence (Peabody museum?) of pipes, beer steins, flatware, etc. Lewismr (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, more 17th-c history, but it's got to be in a more summary form. No kidding, a full treatment of Harvard's history would need to be structured something like World War II, with a main article, sub-articles, and in some cases even sub-sub-articles.

Please find a way to distill your admirable understanding of Harvard and the trials in a paragraph at most. The timeline you've built will always be available in the article history, from which you can extract it for use in either incorporating in into Salem Witch Trials or building Role of Harvard College in the Salem Witch Trials. To create such an article, however, you're going to need secondary sources specifically discussing Harvard's role, in detail as a specific area of focus. Otherwise you veer into WP:SYNTH/WP:OR territory. EEng (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Harvard University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522104258/http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/04/01/in_first_harvard_admits_more_women_than_men_as_undergraduates?mode=PF to http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/04/01/in_first_harvard_admits_more_women_than_men_as_undergraduates?mode=PF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Harvard University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123223546/http://www.hull.ac.uk/mhsc/FarHorizons/Documents/EzekielRogers.pdf to http://www.hull.ac.uk/mhsc/FarHorizons/Documents/EzekielRogers.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/library/guides/yearbooks.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

University status?

The article mentions the first use of the name "Harvard College" but fails to indicate when the status of "university" was first established. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote about this somewhere once before, either on this talk page or at Talk:Harvard College or at Talk:Harvard University, but I can't find it now. The short summary is: it's complicated, and happened gradually, starting around the time of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and continuing through the 19th C. Maybe you can find what I wrote in one of those three archives. EEng 23:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Legacy of slavery

https://legacyofslavery.harvard.edu/ Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Meritocracy

The article does not explain why the meritocracy was needed. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/harvard-s-jewish-problem Minorities partially explain this at the end, some rewriting would be useful.Xx236 (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure it does:

James Bryant Conant (president, 1933–1953) pledged to reinvigorate creative scholarship at Harvard and reestablish its preeminence among research institutions. Viewing higher education as a vehicle of opportunity for the talented rather than an entitlement for the wealthy...

EEng 15:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

21st century

Some historically notable things have already happened in the 21c, which deserve mention, including

• the financial aid initiative, significantly changing how students pay for attending [and other changes in cost]
• the development of online education : edX + transition to Axim; world's most popular online course; dedicated education sites for the business school and extension school
• expansion into a new campus in Allston
• involvement in the Supreme Court case that changed affirmative action practices nationally

In contrast, recent House committee hearings about free speech, anti-semitism, and other campus policies are not yet notable in the history of the university. I removed a long undue section about this. – SJ + 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Financially Independent??

@EEng continues to claim that "The different schools are financially independent" - without providing a cite that supports this claim. Harvard University is one single 501c3, and none of the constituent schools colleges have financial independence. This claim needs to be removed because it is uncited with RS, and is just flat out wrong. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• The article's two sources on this [1][2] read, in pertinent part:

Where does the phrase “every tub on its own bottom” come from? First penned by John Bunyan in his 1678 allegory Pilgrim’s Progress, “every tub” was borrowed by Harvard President John T. Kirkland during the first quarter of the 19th century when critics pressed him to find a location to build up the Divinity School. In response, Kirkland declared, “It is our rule here for every tub to stand on its own bottom.” He meant that each school of the University was an independent entity, responsible for its own management and funding ... An increasing number of opponents, though, believe that this policy leaves some of Harvard’s schools in danger. Critics often mention that FAS and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences have a combined endowment of nearly $8 billion—a sum that exceeds the total endowment of all but four universities—while the School of Education and Design School only have access to endowments of under $500 million.

Used throughout the University, the acronym ETOB stands for "Every Tub on its Own Bottom." This axiom, coined in the early nineteenth century, is the bedrock of a highly decentralized system of financial management.In Harvard parlance, a tub is a high-level institutional unit -- one of the 10 faculties, for example, or the central administration. All told, there are 52 tubs and countless sub-tubs. Each tub is expected to be self-financing: to prepare its own budgets, raise its own funds, and keep itself solvent.

I've quoted these to you twice before, and yet you prattle on about "one single 501c3" (above) and "filing separate 990s" [3], like you have any idea what you're talking about. EEng 18:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That prose doesn't make the claim you are saying. Do they have separate budgets? Yes. Separate endowment lines? Yes. Are they financially independent. No.

You quoted two Harvard sources (nothing third party) to make a claim that the sources don't support. Again, I'll wait for others to weigh in, but your claim is wrong, and isn't supported by the underlying articles anyway. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me isolate individual one- and two-word phrases, to help you focus: each school ... an independent entity ... responsible for ... its own management and funding ... self-financing ... raise its own funds ... keep itself solvent. Does that help your comprehension?

And while in-house sources are fine for something like this (absent some controversy or contradiction), since you seem to want third-party confirmation feel free to take your pick and add it to the article's citations on this point: [4]. We can now move on to your next ill-founded quibble. EEng 18:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but that quote is from Kirkland. He died in 1840. Certainly 1840s Harvard may very well have had financially independent schools. Harvard today is a centrally managed singular 501c3. Each part is responsible for the debts of the other parts.

Again my point stands, you've introduced no evidence that each school of Harvard within the last century is financially independent. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh for fuck sake, this is getting into WP:CIR territory. Kirkland is quoted as the originator of the phrase; the operation of the policy is explained in the present tense. EEng 19:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to make a counterproposal for the text, based on the evidence you've shared. Let me know if you agree. If not, perhaps we can let others way in. I propose the text instead reads:

The different schools [have separate budgets] and maintain their separate endowments.

Jjazz76 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No, because that mis-characterizes the situation by omission. Here's Smith, University Finances: Accounting and Budgeting Principles for Higher Education (Johns Hopkins Press, 2019):

In the context of budget models, the extreme of decentralization is known as "every tub on its own bottom" (ETOB). Every school or college owns 100 percent of its revenue, runs its own central administration, and adheres to its own strategic plan. At most, they contract with the university for utilities, investment management, and perhaps finiancial accounting ... For all intents and purposes, therefore, in ETOB the schools and colleges are independent members of an overall university-based federation. Harvard University is the most prominent exampble.

Now please stop embarrassing yourself and wasting my time, your time, and the time of anyone watching (though you may be providing them some entertainment, I suppose). EEng 19:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"Every school or college owns 100 percent of its revenue" - That literally is not what is happening here at all in the Harvard case. That's a description of what a college budget/legal model MIGHT look like. Some college and universities have that model, but not many. Harvard doesn't and you haven't proved that it does. I think Smith is probably completely wrong here in his analysis of how Harvard works, but feel free to cite him. At least then we can see where the bad/incorrect cites are coming from, which is what I asked for all along. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. So Smith -- a university vice-president and provost, and author of Managing the Research University and Understanding Authority in Higher Education and University Finances: Accounting and Budgeting Principles for Higher Education and How University Budgets Work -- is "is probably completely wrong here in his analysis", as are all the other sources, but you're right. Got it. EEng 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's one source, and I'm glad you shared it. Yes I think Smith may have erred he, but that is how knowledge production works. Sourced are traced down and evaluated. Happy editing Wikipedia! Jjazz76 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not engaged in knowledge production. If you suffer from that misapprehension, that might be why you're having so much trouble making useful edits. EEng 22:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

sounds great! Jjazz76 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)