Talk:Tuck School of Business

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tuck School of Business is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 19, 2008.
December 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / New Hampshire / Dartmouth (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire - Dartmouth College (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Universities (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

Notable faculty[edit]

Does anyone know of a list of notable people from this school, faculty or otherwise? A list like that could help augment the page. Whittemore007 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Top-Tier Business schools list "notable" faculty members. "notable" in this context means "has a wikipedia page". Feel free to re-add faculty members with wikipedia pages after I revert the page. Gofasterplease 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gofasterplease. Is there a rationale for listing all faculty members? I can't think of one. It clutters the page with information that is not useful, and it would be difficult to keep current. Perhaps there should be a notable students section?  ;) Christopherherbert01 05:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason it list all faculty. We should be flexible around whether or not notables must have wikipedia pages: it's possible that we haven't gotten around to writeing about all of them. However, I think we are pretty much there in terms of the really notable faculy: Danon, Hansen, French, Keller, Argenti, Joyce, D'Anani (is that how you spell it) the strategy guy, The private equite centre leader, perhaps one of the digital centre guys... I guess that's it. --Duncan 07:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added Danos, Hansen, Argenti, Joyce, and Blaydon (the PE director). However, those people needed pages... Gofasterplease 23:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree agreement on the names above, therefore I have restored an unexplained cut of some of them. --Duncan 07:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alumni Giving & other sections[edit]

I've added a section on Tucks famous alumni participation (financially). All you proud grads/students should work on your school's article!! ;-) -DMCer 06:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the 'World Record' claim a second time. While the Tuck press releases uses the phrase 'world record', it's using 'word' to mean 'US' - it is a press release announcing a newspaper article that shows Tuck has the highest alumni giving in the US. The BusinessWeek article offers no data about alumni giving in other countries. What ever Tuck claims, their source does not back the claim that it's a world record. --Duncan 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure anyone with brains would use "world record" to mean "US record." If you look at the dates on the two sources, they're a year apart, so you can stop comparing the Tuck press release to the Business Week article. There aren't any other business schools with those numbers, which is why this generated the publicity it did.-DMCer 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If you read the Tuck release cited, it cites as its reference the BusinessWeek study, which is a study of US schools. Tuck's claim to be the world leader is a claim, without a reliable reference beyond its own statement. Having studied at Tuck, I have no ax to grind here -- but we need references that support the claim. --Duncan 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Article overhaul[edit]

I'm going to work a lot on this article with the goal of an FA in the next month or two. Just letting that be known.

Also, I had a question on terminology (I'm a Dartmouth undergrad, so I'm only sort of peripherally knowledgeable about Tuck) -- which is used more often, "the Tuck School" or simply "Tuck"? I've heard both and don't know whether one is preferred or more common; I'd like to see common usage reflected in the article, so if any current or former students know and would like to mention it, I'd appreciate it. Kane5187 19:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in the Tuck page, but seriously, look at the format of the HBS or Sloan pages... one of the most important sub-sections is the list of important faculty and alumni... which you deleted and replaced with a paragraph of random alumni... do a google search and you'll see press releases confirming each of the people you deleted. If you really feel the need to deface the Tuck page, please do it to the other business schools too. Wikipedia pages are one way people check out a school. When the page lists a bunch of "former CEO's" it doesn't help. Gofasterplease 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The alumni I listed are not "random"; it's a list of every (known) alum that has a Wikipedia article. Their common link, therefore, is notability. Just like any institution, Tuck graduates a few people who go on to fame and importance, and a whole lot of people who don't. By erecting a standard for inclusion in this article -- i.e., the fact that they have articles and are therefore notable alums -- is all that prevents us from including just any old Tuck alum who went on to live a nothing-special life. I agree that they may verifiably be Tuck alums, but if they're notable, then they should also have an independent Wikipedia biography.
Second, please assume good faith and do not accuse me of "defacing" this page. My goal, as stated above, is to take this article to featured status, which by any metric would be a very positive thing. I'm a current Dartmouth undergrad and so I quite clearly have no vested interest in seeing Tuck denigrated in any way -- quite the opposite, in fact. And I know from experience that this cannot become a featured article with that long list of alums in it.
Third, while I realize that deleting a fair amount of content may seem like a blow to the article, the way that section was previously structured (and, apparently, the HBS and Sloan articles still are) is not in conformity with agreed-up style guidelines. The Manual of Style says "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs," and the consensus at WikiProject Universities is that the "Noted people" section "is not for a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form." The way I have restructured it is in the ideal format as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a press release for the school; our goal is to present encyclopedic information, not to launch an ad campaign for the benefit of prospective students. Kane5187 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Dylan, thanks for taking an interest in the page. I'm curious about why you removed the links in the "External Links" section. A good enycyclopedia contains references to other sources of information on the topic at hand. The links listed previously directed people to quality websites. (Full Disclosure: I created 2 of them!)
I'll also throw in my 2 cents on the notability of Tuck's alumni. Shouldn't we be creating pages on the notable alumni, instead of removing references to them? I don't think the sole arbiter of notability should be the prior existence of a Wikipedia page.....we can join together and elevate Wikipedia. 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's why I removed each one of them:
  • Research Centers at Tuck is just a subsection of, which is already linked; linking them both is redundant.
  • Radio Tuck -- actually, on second glance, this could probably be included, as it's informative and published by the Tuck School officially. I've re-added it.
  • The Tuck Profit and Wiki Tuck -- these are both student creations and seem to be included here to promote themselves, not because they enhance the reader's encyclopedic knowledge of the Tuck School. See Wikipedia:External links for further guidelines on external links. Specifically, wikis are to be avoided ("except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors," which this one doesn't), and for the Tuck Profit, "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" should not be linked, either.
  • TuckStuff -- billed as "Licensed Tuck Clothing & Merchandise," this is definitely there as advertising/promotion, and is considered linkspam.
Regarding the alumni: Absolutely! If you think anyone on that list deserves a Wikipedia article per the criteria at WP:BIO, feel totally free to write their biography. But that's just outside the purview of this article, which in the "Alumni" section should only categorize notable alums. As a proxy, whether or not they have an article is how their notability is determined. I agree that many of those who don't yet have articles probably should, in that they are the CEOs of major corporations, but it's really a matter of practicality and "if we let one in, we let them all in" kind of thing. Nice thing about a wiki is that as soon as those articles get written, we can add them in here. Kane5187 03:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Partial revert[edit]

I partially reverted's edit listing the exact nondegree programs offered. According to this, the exact nature (e.g. topic and thrust) of those programs changes every year or couple of years; they aren't permanent offerings. As such, it's probably best for an encyclopedia to not try to keep up with the flux, but rather to cover them all with a blanket statement saying that they are offered. (To state them that way also suggests that the offers are permanent, which I think is incorrect).

Of course, I may be reading the Tuck site incorrectly, so let me know if these are indeed permanent offerings. If so, I'd be happy to return their mention to the article. Kane5187 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for one-letter vandalism[edit]

The word "Tuck" in the article is potentially prone to vandalism, due to its not being too far away from a curse word typographically. (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I had never thought of that -- thanks for the heads-up. But, yes, AuburnPilot has protected it. Kane5187 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Move protected it. (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Rankings[edit]

The rankings section of this article, as well as references to rankings in the intro, sound brochure-like.

"Tuck [...] consistently ranks in the top five in many business school rankings.[9]" - in reality it appears to rank in the top 5 for 2 rankings, out of 8 rankings cited.

"In international ranking analyses in which all the different ranking bodies are combined, Tuck's median score consistently places it as one of the top three business schools if not the top business school in the world.[54]" - Again, this feels like "torturing the data" that supporters of any school can do to claim a high ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)