Talk:Princeton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Princeton University was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 20, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Princeton University:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Religoius affiliaiton at founding[edit]

The second paragraph goes to great pains to dispel any notion of offical conneciton to a religious intsitution, while the opening paragrapsh of the "History" section plainly states the school was founded by Presbyterians for the purpose of training ministers. Which is it? Shoreranger 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious contradiction; the vast majority of early American universities had some sort of religious founding, but have long since drifted away from that. So the statement that Princeton was founded to teach ministers is true, but so was Harvard, and as a generality, most other contemporary colleges. Needless to say, history doesn't dictate the current state of affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.78.238 (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing the emphasis on the non-sectarian aspect of PU and ignoring the fact that 11 of its 19 presidents were Presbyterian ministers serving the church(as documented) is intolerable historical revisionism. It demonstrates that NPV is a myth at Wikipedia and that contemporary perspective have replaced competent scholarship. Your revision of documented facts demonstrates a strong anti-religious bias that is a slap in the face of the diversity for which the University stands.71.110.24.183 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)DLH

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Residential Colleges[edit]

"The residential colleges are best known for their performing arts trips to New York City. Students sign up to take trips to see ballets, operas, Broadway shows, sports events, and other activities."

This statement couldn't be farther from the truth. I never took such a trip and was unaware that they were even offered. This is not what the residential colleges are known for, nor are they the purpose. I also doubt the statement that these trips are event relevant to the campus life at Princeton. Social events hosted by the residential colleges usually see very poor attendance in comparison to those at the eating clubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsemaya (talkcontribs) 08:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 12:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. Lagrange613 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you've been doing for this article. Esrever (klaT) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd be grateful to anyone who wants to join me; there's no shortage of things to do. Lagrange613 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
When I went to Princeton, this statement about performing arts trips to NYC in residential colleges was very true. I went on a ton of them. But this was 1987-1989. Might have changed, if so that's too bad. Benwing (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Drop in Endowment[edit]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/princeton_u_proposes_170m_in_b.html

Now 11.3 billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeton Kobe (talkcontribs) 06:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

sources belong in article space, not the talk page. that said, i'll add the source for you. Anastrophe (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The most recent sources estimate the loss at 25% as noted here, rather than the 30% drop expected during April. However, all of these are just projections, not actual numbers. We should stick with verifiable amounts. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

legacy admissions[edit]

DEAREST EDITORS,

I have several times tried to add the fact that princeton uses legacy admission, yet this is removed again and again. If you go back in history you will find that it was last time supported by two references. Taking away this edit is a breach of the wikipedia rules. I am tired of adding this fact again, as it is removed incessantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.163.99 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go first. What exactly do you mean by "Princeton uses legacy admission"? There's no such thing as "legacy admission" as an entity in the admissions world. As I noted in my last edit summary, Princeton admits students who are legacies—just like pretty much every other school. If you're trying to say that Princeton admits them at a higher rate than it does other students, fine. But the source you used to prove that point isn't a reliable source. And second, what's the point of including this here? Esrever (klaT) 14:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably to show that Princeton is the cream of America, rich and thick. In fact it has been documented in multiple sources that esp under admissions director Fred Hagadorn, legacy and celebrity admissions were abused in order to discriminate against Asian males. But I'm damned if I'll waste my time documenting this here. Do your own homework. The dull incomprehension of convenience store clerks is an excellent way to conceal the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.102.227 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's been documented in a reliable source then it belongs in the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The real "Princeton Plains"[edit]

Can you believe this case of a footnote carrying 3 fact tags?

<ref>In reality, the university does not offer professional schools and the fictional hospital is directly based on Yale-New Haven Hospital,[citation needed] the only Ivy League hospital that combines the name of the host university with the physical location of the hospital[citation needed]. Lisa Sanders, M.D., of Internal Medicine at Yale-New Haven is one of the show's three medical advisers.[citation needed]</ref>

New Rule:"New rules" are remedies for neglect of old rules; civility precludes enumerating the relevant ones here. If you're tempted to put a fact tag inside a ref, try moving the ref to the talk page, since it can't be doing its job as a ref. Then decide whether the place where the ref was needs a fact tag. (In this case: no.)
As to the content of the footnote: WTF? This is info that belongs in House (TV series), but is irrelevant to PU. The only reason i've copied it onto this talk page is for the benefit of diligent editors who ask themselves. "But where is Princeton's medical-school hospital?" If readers really are being shortchanged, fix it with a footnote on the word "fictional", pointing to a reliable source that says "does not offer professional schools". Nothing more is acceptable.
--Jerzyt 16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Upperclassmen[edit]

Could someone who knows what this term means either create a page and link to it or explain it in this article? A classic example of being too close to your subject matter! 195.152.136.101 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, this was me Talltim (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I linked the first usage of upperclassmen in the article to Student#Post-second year. Esrever (klaT) 13:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I had sort of got the idea, but I had missed the point that US degrees are nomally four years, (UK are normally three) which had confused me. Talltim (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

C class[edit]

This article lacks sufficient sources as required by WP:V and is therefore demoted to C class. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First admission of African-American students?[edit]

Does anybody know when Princeton admitted its first African-American student? Somebody told me it was 1968. Is that possible? SCFilm29 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • It was 1935, according to: Lack, Kelly. "First African-American Alumni Remember Journey to Integration." The Daily Princetonian [Princeton, NJ] 18 Feb. 2008. Quark1005 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Grade Deflation Policy[edit]

I added a section to Princeton's academics to discuss its grade deflation policy. This was mainly done because it is a feature of the university and is widely not recognized. I was not trying to blast the policy (though those are my personal feelings). I also realize that three of my citations are the same, I will try to find better ones within the next week (though this one does technically encompass everything I've said). This was my first edit so if I have done something wrong (or am not even on the right page with this discussion), please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talkcontribs) 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bold text"And In her Hair, She Wore A scarlet Ribbon... She wore it in the springtime and in the month of May. She wore it for a Princeton Man who's far, far, away." Not Sure Where this song comes from, but I remember it from my childhood. As related to Ivy League Universities. Which As I understand, are all modeled, like all USA universities, according to older, and Most Free, German Universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.151.68 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the missing citation and decided to leave the rest as it is. I'm still remaining unbiased although some of the data in the articles I've read makes it quite clear that Malkiel is the only one supporting this policy. At least now, companies hiring Princeton students will know it exists. I liked the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talkcontribs) 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Great image resource[edit]

Alexey Sergeev, a physics professor, has licensed photographs at his web page (http://www.asergeev.com/) under the GFDL. A directory of these images are available here. A number of these images are related to this institution. I encourage interested editors to upload these images at Commons with the license tag Commons:Template:Alex Sergeev permission. --GrapedApe (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Does "Football" merit its own subsection under "Athletics"?[edit]

I begin with the observation that there is a separate main article, "Princeton Tigers", which seems to be the place where each varsity sport can be described at appropriate length, with links to main articles on each individual sport if someone cares to write one.

This being the case, I would submit that it is not necessary or desirable for the entire text of any one sport's full treatment in the "Princeton Tigers" main article to appear verbatim in the "Princeton University" main article. If that were the case, the entire "Princeton Tigers" main article would end up within the "Princeton University" article, rendering the former redundant and the latter over-freighted with athletics.

I then observe that within the "Princeton University" article, the "Football" subsection is the lengthiest part of the "Athletics" section, and is repeated verbatim from the "Princeton Tigers" article. I have nothing against the football program, but I would suggest that, like the other sports mentioned in the "Athletics" section, it would be more appropriate to have a briefer mention of football, without a separate heading. That's why the "Princeton Tigers" article exists--for each individual sport to be treated in more detail.

I haven't attempted to make such a revision because I'm new to this article and I don't wish to step on anyone's toes or to offend any large ex-football players. I'm just making an observation and asking a question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesmed (talkcontribs) 05:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've shortened the text about football considerably, sourced it, and integrated it into the varsity sports section. Readers interested in learning more about Princeton football can read the dedicated article. Lagrange613 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Parvin Fellowship[edit]

The Parvin Fellowship seems to be an award from Princeton University, and one that is referred to in a number of articles at WP. It would be useful for there to be a small section here to which articles could be direct for Parvin Fellow and/or Parvin Fellowshipbillinghurst sDrewth 06:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

According to this ([1]), Princeton ranked 2nd place on "Best Undergraduate Teaching", and I am wondering should this be put in place or not, because one editor claims it to be 'stratified'. Abhijay Talk?/Deeds 16:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

general notion, peacock word[edit]

Re: statement "Princeton is consistently ranked among the top national universities in the United States". At the time of writing, there is only one citation attached (USNWR), yet the statement seems to be phrased as a general notion. Also, "top" is a peacock word. To better adhere to Wiki policy, a more precise statement could be implemented to reflect what is *explicitly* suggested by any attached citations. For example, if the aforementioned USNWR citation is used, a more precise statement could be implemented along the lines of From 2001 to 2010, Princeton University was ranked either first or second among national universities by U.S. News & World Report (USNWR), holding the #1 spot for 9 of those 10 years. --Coolbb (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for engaging on the talk page. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the rest of the article. I think the sentence that's in now is a good summary of the rankings subsection, which discusses more than just U.S. News. To remove any ambiguity we could take out the footnote in the lead, since the statement is supported by the rest of the article rather than by that source alone. (See WP:CITELEAD.) Lagrange613 21:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry not to have seen the discussion, but I removed the sentence because the citation simply does not support it. This business of "consistently" ranked is poisonous boosterism. In the first place, rankings don't belong in the lead. In the second place, in order to support a statement that something is "consistently" ranked in the top three, you must find a citation that says it is "consistently" ranked in the top three--because otherwise, since there is no generally acknowledged criterion for "consistent," it is just an editor's opinion. You may feel that the data you've cited amount to "consistently" ranking in the top three, but it is not appropriate to insert that judgement into the article. Just let the information about the rankings stay in the ranking section where it belongs, and let the reader do their own original research on how to translate that into some single figure of merit. And, please, no cherry-picked statistics like "placed within the top X for Y years from selected year to selected year."Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I second Dpbsmith's argument. Rankings have no place in the lead as their importance approaches nil when considering the breadth of Princeton's history, contributions, and substantive influence which should be better explicated in the body and summarized in the lead. Look to the United States Military Academy, Dartmouth College, or Georgetown University for exemplary encyclopedic leads notably and appropriately bereft of ranking-fetishism. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Madcoverboy has the right idea, but I would like to additionally reiterate that it's not just ranking fetishism that's an issue, but peacockery, boosterism, synthesized claims, etc. in general. So be careful about using phrases like "substantive influence". Just state the facts. --Coolbb (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Big Three Issue[edit]

Alright. This issue has been going on for a long time now. First of all, we all know that the Big three term that is being used widely is not to describe Princeton, Harvard or Yale's reputation in the world, it is only given to them because they dominated ivy league football. Reason being I've kept it in the lead because we are not writing an entire essay about how it became a Big three otherwise our readers may find it boring. If they did research and would like to find more about Princeton, they would most certainly like it up there. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 10:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize content of the article; since the term "Big Three" is not mentioned in the main article text, let alone explained, it doesn't belong in the lede. Even if a brief blurb is inserted into the article text, having the current phrase in the lede without a brief qualifier such as "a term originally used to describe their dominance in the early days of football" is pure peacockery. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Princeton University[edit]

See Talk: Harvard University#Recentism. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Princeton photo help needed[edit]

This is a request that was posted at Talk:Witherspoon Institute; I am reposting here as there are likely more Princeton eyes here that could provide assistance: Can someone from Princeton please take a picture of Whelan Hall in Princeton, which houses the Witherspoon Institute, and add it to Wiki Commons so that it can be added to this page? That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's at 16 Stockton Street, off the university campus. Lagrange613 17:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion concerning Princeton University Mathematics Competition[edit]

It has been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton University Mathematics Competition (2nd nomination) that Princeton University Mathematics Competition be merged to this article, Princeton University. As I understand it, if this proposal is accepted, this would effectively require this competition to be mentioned within the main Princeton article. If you have an opinion on whether this is desirable, the deletion discussion would be the place to express it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)