Talk:Perelman School of Medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

General

This article needs a great deal of work - I just added the university infobox to the page, but compared to other graduate schools at Penn, the Penn Med page is pretty unimpressive. Please feel free to make changes and spruce it up. Thanks. GG The Fly (talk)

That it does. I plan to write up a better history when I get the chance, though that will be a good chunk of time. Hazmat2 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Name

Is the official name "Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania" or "Perelman School of Medicine"? Jesanj (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the long form is the "Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine" and the short form the "Perelman School of Medicine." It seems that both titles can, but do not need to include "at the University of Pennsylvania." http://www.med.upenn.edu/perelmanrenaming/details.shtml Hazmat2 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to see that people are working to improve this vital to Penn article. We are doing the same for Penn's main article as well as the Law School's article. As to the name the official name that Penn uses is Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. If you have a look at Penn's websites (e.g. http://www.med.upenn.edu/deans_message.shtml), they always use the full name unless there is a reason to use a shorter form, eg. to avoid repetition. I strongly suggest that the title of the article is reverted to the full name. It's fine if we use a shorter version in the article. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Done The Haz _talk 03:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@129.67.119.240@Hazmat2 - But I think the word "the" ought to be removed in accordance with wiki's naming practice. Biomedicinal (talk)

Next Steps

There is a lot to be done with the page, although it's in good shape to start.

First off, and per Wikipedia's suggestions, first drafts are alright to include in an article, so feel free to add or update sections with something that's not perfect. To expedite the editing process (remember this is a community effort) please cite where you think you need to. For now, don't worry too much about style, etc. as you can work those out in subsequent revisions, and others will help. Nobody's perfect!

Also, I think much of the page will fit under history at the moment, but if it's just me, please say something.

This to do list is a work in progress so feel free to add to it.

The to-do list is now at the top of the page. Of course feel free to edit it as you see fit, but please don't delete any task until it's been discussed.The Haz _talk 04:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• History: Penn Med is the first and oldest medical school in the nation and there are a few good books about it. More needs to be written. Over the next year I plan to do some of this myself. It will also help reduce the apparent importance of the "name" section which is almost just as large.
• Campus? This is an important topic, but I believe with an expanded history section, only current information should be included. There are some good lists of the buildings of the medical school campus and their dates and architects. What do you think of including this sort information? At the very least, some of the core facilities should be included, such as the Sim Center.

For now I added the list of the current buildings that are considered part of the medical school. (Sim Center is part of UPHS)The Haz _talk 03:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Medical advancements under history or in a section by itself? Since they are a big part of its history, it almost feels wrong to be in its own section, as opposed to under history. Also, this section could be greatly expanded. A chart format might do well for this.

I think medical advancements should have its own section and in fact it should be expanded to include other medical breakthroughs and innovations. Penn's main article contains a few references and relevant info in the Research section. The history section usually includes details about the development and evolution of the institution as such, not its impact to the profession. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying here. Medical advancements will stand on its own then but does need to be expanded. I'm not sure if thus page is the right forum to expand on the impact to the profession of the research though. If it's a large enough impact it should probably gain a new article for that specific area of research (if it doesnt have one already, or have Penn's contribution added there.Hazmat2 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Curriculum: an important feature of the school and also of its Wikipedia article. The interesting part is that while most would view the information as biased, coming directly from Penn, it's not. This is so as long as the information is kept strictly to fact. However, corrections and changes do need to be made. ie. Is it "Shelf" exam or "shelf" exam? Also, just because it's coming from the website doesn't mean it's completely correct. I know for a fact that during Mod 5, students are not required to apply to residencies, it's just a normal course. The article text should reflect as much.
• "In fiscal year 2007, the School was awarded $556 million in research funding, of which $405 million came from the National Institutes of Health. This ranked Penn second among medical schools in the United States in terms of research funding." This is currently under Departments. Why? Sometimes things just aren't in the correct place. It doesn't mean it isn't valid (though in this case there is more updated information available) but it would be better under the correct heading.

Some more data on Penn Med's research expenditures and budget would be useful, especially given its #2 rank based on research. If other ranking are available, they should be added too. I'm not a med student so I'm not sure which rankings matter, but I'm sure students generally care about them. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

per se... only usnews and residencyrankings will mean much to people wo care and i think residency rankings can be tough to get.However much the rankings are debatable, they are a fact of life and should be continually included, but in an appropriate section, or maybe just the lead. A history of the previous five years' rankings in a new section or subsection might be helpful to some.Hazmat2 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• See Also. If the section is going to exist, it should be expanded. However, I'm not a big fan of "see also" sections simply because that's essentially what footnotes and references are for. In the case of the Medical Schools in Pennsylvania, maybe there should be a footer template for this? ie. Country>State/Province>Medical School. Opinions? At the very least I'm going to delete the current entry because it's already in this category, which is noted at the bottom of the page. No need for redundancy.
• Degree programs? This is a feature of the school. Should it be added? I can also see the side that it might begin to sound more like an advertisement, but a simple list of degrees offered adds much needed information.
• Governance. I understand why the Penn Medicine page was shut down, but in reality, Penn Medicine is the overarching group, not the School of Medicine. Penn Medicine controls HUP and the School of Medicine. Maybe some information can be researched on how this came about? I've heard some of the story, but nothing verifiable at the moment.
• I talk/write too much so feel free to cut down anything I do, in moderation.

Hazmat2 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the curriculum section belongs. If it stays it could be a paragraph as long as it is WP:V and sourced to independent third-party secondary sources. FWIW, Harvard Medical School doesn't have a section on their curriculum. As for all your other ideas, I'll look them over later. Jesanj (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that for medical schools, curriculum is a defining feature. It's something unique. Nonetheless, I understand where you are coming from both in length of the topic (which you didn't note, but I assume you were thinking) and verifiability. First, it's school-published data. According to WP:V reliability is a questionable topic at best, but it seems to state that this sort of information is considered reliable as it is published by a reliable party. Bypassing that, the AAMC maintains data on curriculum that it does verify for accreditation purposes. This third-party source should be used. In short, I think the topic should be shrunk to highlight the hallmarks of the curriculum with appropriate citations that a reader can follow for more information. I don't think it should be deleted. Hazmat2 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's a good reason to have a curriculum section, and I'd say the Medical School Admission Requirements (AAMC pub) could be used, for example, though the AAMC is not a true independent third-party from medical schools. WP:SELFPUB is not always bad. I just want the section to be encyclopedic and have proper weight given that Wikipedia articles are to be "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". =) Jesanj (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I also just remembered that the curriculum part of the MSAR is self-reported information (by the med school) so it's not technically any different, though theoretically it's supposed to have been verified during the last accreditation "check." But yes, it can definitely be pared down to the essentials nonetheless.Hazmat2 (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For now, I've rewritten the copy/pasted curriculum to clear a few things up and get rid of useless information and discrepancies. It is relatively short (though long in appearance) due to using a few lists and descriptive sentences. Please feel free to clean up further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazmat2 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

I'm trying to avoid ownership of this article, but there are notability guidelines on WP. When someone is added, such as with this diff, notability needs to be established. In my eyes, there are two easy ways to do this: 1. The person can either be linked to an article that establishes notability, with comments on notability added to this article, or 2. the comments on notability can be added and cited. This goes for all of Wikipedia. Thanks for respecting it! The Haz _talk 18:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Two online book sources

I have uploaded two sources that have plenty of information on the history of the medical school.

1. A History of the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania
   1. Transcription available at Wikisource: A History of the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania
2. History of Medicine 1872

The Haz _talk 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

@Northamerica1000: The building article was recently separated out from the main article after it had been suggested that the information belonged in its own article as a sort of Wikipedia list, similar to how notable alumni was also separated out. This allows tangential information to not detract from that of the main article, while still being available. Therefore, I can't support re-merging the two. The Haz _talk 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Thanks for letting me know. I have removed the merge templates from both articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for removing the merge templates. The Haz _talk 17:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)