Talk:Stuyvesant High School

---

This is the talk page for Stuyvesant High School. Please remember to sign your comments (e.g., by appending ~~~~ to your entry).

Click here to start a new topic.

---

Archived conversations

Talk:Stuyvesant High School/archive1: All conversations prior to March 31, 2006

I've just moved most of the contents of this talk page to the above archive. I left behind any section that included a post in the last 30 days, so current conversations are still here. RossPatterson 00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual merit

The phrase getting in solely on "intellectual merit" is highly elitist. Although I went to Stuy, I knew very many individuals of intellecutal merit who did not pass this silly standardized test. Tests only measure one form of knowledge (often an useless one). - Peter Wye

Peter - I'm not sure if it has been changed, but I think the intent is not to degrade other forms of intellectual merit, but to emphasize that *ONLY* intellectual merit, (as measured by an admittedly imperfect test) is taken into account, rather than legacy, income, religion, or anything else. The Stuy system is a bit harsh and very arbitrary, but it's thoroughly proletarian. While lower-income students are put at a bit of a disadvantage through test prep and inadequate middle and elementary schooling, ANYONE who does well on the test is admitted. Period.

Maybe a better phrase than "intellectual merit" would be "academic merit" or "academic accomplishment" or somesuch. - Noah Van Gilder, Stuy '02

I think academic merit or accomplishment is still not quite the right phrase. Academic merit or accomplishment would seem to suggest that grades and/or academic awards are taken into consideration for admission. The SSHSAT, according to Bronx Science, tests "skills consist of the ability to comprehend English prose, the ability to think through a verbal problem in order to reach a reasoned conclusion based on the given information, and problem-solving skills in mathematics" [1]. That sounds a lot like "fundamental skills", so perhaps admissions is based on the student's "fundamental skills"? "Soundness of academic foundation"? Hmm... --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 11:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

er... why not just say that admission is based "solely on the results of a standardized test, the SHSAT" etc, thus being completely objective? The article can perhaps later discuss the test in more detail, as I believe it does, or mention explicitly that factors such as race, wealth, legacy etc are not considered. This seems like the only accurate way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.175.188 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

faculty scholarship

re: the line 'John Avallone (physics teacher) is the holder of US Patent 5919182', one of the new bio teachers this year teachers holds two patents, forgot her name, it was in the first Spectator issue this year; possibly worthy of note. 24.29.130.37 01:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

unworthy.. holding a patent is very easy. 24.239.149.9 15:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the faculty scholarship, with the exception of McCourt dominately physics and chemistry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnguy (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Because that's what the editors know of? Seriously, if you've got other items to add, go ahead and do it. RossPatterson 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think John Avallone's patent bears any relevance. A lot of design engineers have many patents issued to themselves and their company. Just saying...--Alphachimp 20:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the note of his patent. Nobody had made any comments, so I assume the change is OK. Remember, a patent is not just awarded to the design engineer, it is also awarded to his company. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to the removal, but I don't understand why your emphasis on "to his company" matters. The fact that someone chooses to assign their patents to their employer (almost universal in business and universities, and generally unheard of in primary or secondary education) seems irrelevant to this issue. So, care to explain your point? RossPatterson 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Patents are assigned, often by contractual agreement, to the company sponsoring the research. I'm not saying that his idea was any less novel...I'm just deflecting a little of the "ooh/ahh" John Avallone has a patent business. Hence, although Avallone is credited as the inventor, he can't just go out and market the idea...while his company can. That's all I'm saying. --Alphachimp ^talk 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New Articles

There is a new article in the New York Magazine in regards to sexuality at Stuyvesant.

132.239.51.158 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

indeed there was. i have no particular objection to your mentioning it if you feel like it. however, some response to the article from Stuy should be included, as the article is almost universally acknowledged to be exaggerated in many details. Niffweed17 02:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the Stuy response to the Cuddle Puddle article, Niff? the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The overall response was that it was putting the group "out of proportion" (the "cuddle puddle" is less than 1% of the entire student body), the article distorted some facts to make them seem more "shocking," and that the reporter was let into the school against school policy.--Zxcvbnm 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge From Stuyvesant High School student body

• Object Stuyvesant High School student body was split out of this article because Stuyvesant High School had gotten too large. This article is still over the 30KB advisory limit, if we merge Stuyvesant High School student body back in this article will be far too large. RossPatterson 03:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, simply because I don't see any real reason that the page needs to be merged. It functions perfectly well as an appendage as it is. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Stuy Userbox

Greetings all,
Consider adding the Stuy userbox, {{User Stuy}}.
Regards, - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (Class of 99)

McCourt's Teacher Man

I added information about Teacher Man into the Faculty Scholarship section. But since Stuyvesant is a significant topic in the book itself, this information probably makes more sense in the Pop Culture section. See alum John Kwok's review over at Amazon for some more of the Stuy stuff in the book. Simon12 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

September 11th

Probably beating a dead horse, but I feel it's unnecessary to mention 9/11 in the intro. There's already a full section on it later on in the article, and the intro to that section is nearly identical to the paragraph in the article's intro. --Daniel Ferrantino '04 19:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed for discussion --Ferrantino 19:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a dead horse, but it's worth mentioning anyway. The intro needed beefing up when this was being considered as a Featured Article Candidate, and I decided that was a decent attention-getter. If folks feel it's too similar to the 9/11 section further down, I'd suggest adding some factual material to that section rather than removing it from the intro. The article was criticized for having a "memorial" section there, but I couldn't make myself thin it down. RossPatterson 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the intro needs beefing up, but in my opinion (as one of those in attendance on 9/11) keeping that paragraph in the intro makes the entire article seem more of a memorial. I wouldn't change the 9/11 section from how it currently is, though. Any more than what's currently written would probably just be unnecesary. Surely there's other information that's intro-worthy, Stuy being one of the most highly-regarded public schools in the country... Dferrantino 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The current FAC campaign for this article produced a complaint almost immediately that the lede should be three or four paragraphs for an article this size. If someone doesn't step up soon and write one or two, I'm going to do it again. I'll use my best judgement based on the content of the article, but I must admit that I did that last time too. RossPatterson 23:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Stuyvesant Standard

70.107.208.16 removed The Stuyvesant Standard from the external links section today. I have just restored it, since is clearly a publication by and for the Stuyvesant community, but I have also just removed it from the infobox. The Standard's website describes the it and The Spectator this way:

The Standard understands that it and The Spectator sometimes cover the same news. Nevertheless, this does not mean there should be conflict. Each paper has its own individual aim. The Spectator concentrates on Stuyvesant High School, while The Standard covers school events as well, but mainly focuses on out-of-school events and servicing the local community.

So the Spec is the school paper, and the Standard is a paper for the school's community. This isn't the first time Stuyvesant has had such a combination (e.g. The VOICE in the 1970s and 1980s), and it probably won't be the last. RossPatterson 02:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Stuy actually officially supports the Standard, but it's definitely worth mention here. If it can't be called the official school paper, it can certainly be called one of the more significant club/pubs in the building. It is, however, entirely true that the Standard lacks the same history as the Spectator, and that the two papers are almost clones in terms of content. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Standard should be mentioned more than just in passing. I don't have anything to offer, but there's got to be someone out there who can add some text to the Clubs & Pubs section. RossPatterson 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above poster who mentions "the two papers are almost clones in terms of content." As a currrent editor of The Spectator, I admit my bias, but must protest. The Standard is agreed upon by the student body to be of inferior quality to The Spectator. The Spectator covers in-school news thoroughly and with journalistic principles. The Standard, instead, mostly covers out of school news, which amounts to them paraphrassing NYTimes articles and reprinting photos (which is illegal by the way). What little school news they have is substandard (pun not intended) and often written by someone with a conflict of interest. ex. The article about honor society elections was written by a candidate who failed to win. Any mention more than passing, is far too much. michaellipkin 01:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Spectator is of far superior quality to the Standard. I haven't read the Standard since freshman year. However, from what I have seen of the Standard, it contains similar content to the Spectator. This was essentially my point. It is entirely reasonable to include all of the criticisms you have just mentioned with regards to the Standard into the article (as not a single student not directly involved with the Standard would ever dispute them), but it also true that the Standard is omnipresent and apparently a reasonable number of students read it, so it deserves more than passing mention. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Standard is not agreed upon to be of "Inferior" quality to the Spectator, but I agree that it is when dealing with school news. However it also includes out-of-school news which the Spectator doesn't, being the original school newspaper. The out of school news is not "paraphrasing NY Times articles," and most of the time it comes from many sources. --Zxcvbnm 21:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake then. They just steal it from more than one source. That clearly makes it better. michaellipkin 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So writing an article based on sources is "stealing it?" Then the daily papers in New York "steal" articles from the Associated Press?--Zxcvbnm 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is. The difference between the Standard and the daily papers is that the NY Post PAYS for the AP articles. I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure the Standard does not pay for its articles that they use or the photos they publish. That IS theft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.32.87 (talk • contribs)

The problem with your assertion is that the Standard does not steal articles. How are the writers supposed to get info for the out-of-school articles if the article is about, say, another country? Go there? Using a variety of references is not "stealing." That's like saying that you stole your essay because you got the information for it from different sites on the internet and didn't pay the sources for their information. What's the big deal about putting a few pictures in a paper with source info? Is that not "fair use?"--Zxcvbnm 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there's bad blood between the Standard and the Spectator these days, but can we please not let it spill over into this space? Thanks. RossPatterson 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like "michael" is trying to put the Standard down.....it's against Wikipedia policy to put insults in the Talk pages--Zxcvbnm 03:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be attacking the Standard, and I apologize if I came off that way. But I would have to agree with you, many of the New York Daily newspapers do not write their own articles, they just reiterate whatever is heard over the AP wire. And as a matter of fact, so does the Standard. This is directly from the Sports editor's mouth. So while I cannot speak for other departments directly, I think it is safe to assume that the same holds true for other departments. So saying that the Standard publishes "original" content is just plain untrue.\ michaellipkin 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know as a matter of fact that other departments do not "steal" articles, so even if the sports department does, that doesn't mean the entire paper is "stolen." It's against the paper's rules to plaguerize and that editor could get kicked off.--Zxcvbnm 00:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the sports editor, and I have never talked to you, nor did I know who you were until I was shown this article. Before you put words in my mouth, it would be nice if you could talk to me.- Eric Mayo, 5/29/06

OK, please stop bickering. When the Standard was introduced, around my Junior year, I believe, it was marketed and regarded as less of a "school" paper and more of a "general news" paper, for the students who wanted experience with more than just school events. To be honest, from a non-biased perspective, both papers were horridly written, but that's neither here nor there. Both of you will agree that the Spectator is much more widely read around the school, and is generally regarded as "the school paper". Both papers, however, deserve to be mentioned, as the Standard is still a major paper in Stuy. michael, stop bashing the Standard and offer something constructive, Zxcvbnm, stop taking the flamebait, lest it continue infinitely. Ferrantino 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ONE MORE TIME, PEOPLE! - One or another person's opinion of the quality of the Standard is not an issue for this article. Neither is the current spat between it and the Spectator. PLEASE STOP! Thank you. RossPatterson 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Collaboration

Come vote for stuy here: Wikipedia:Good_Article_Collaboration_of_the_week - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I'd like to see more criticism about the school; I'm familiar with magnet schools, and I know that there are lots of issues surrounding them. Issues such as those presented in Stuyvesant_High_School_student_body, expanded and revised, would work well here. (^'-')^ Covington 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to merge Stuyvesant_High_School_student_body into this article (even though I opposed it the last time the question arose). It started here (compare it to the Stuyvesant_High_School#Student body section), but was split out a year or so ago when the article was criticized for being overly long. I've since read that the "32KB limit" is archaic (see WP:SIZE) and often ignored (see Special:Longpages - the list is, um, long). Still, we did try to follow the spirit of the law - you'll find some of the Lindsay/ACORN material in the Stuyvesant_High_School#Enrollment section of the article. RossPatterson 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge, it will add more balance to the article, and a branch-out is not needed.

Seems a good idea, let's get that page cleaned up before we merge it into this one, though. Some of the info is old, and some more of it seems too POV, figure it'd be easier if we clean it up there before merging it, than doing it all at once. Ferrantino 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So has this merge already occured? Homestarmy 14:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Any references out there besides the internet?

Is there anything like maybe a book or some general knowladge sort of pamphlet thing on this school out there we could reference, because as I read this article, there's a whole lot of unsourced statements that I sort of thought would mean that there are general knowladge books at the bottom, but I didn't see anything. Homestarmy 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out The Campaign for Stuyvesant's web site (in the External links section). It has a lot of historical info, and I believe it is well researched. If you abosolutely must have a book, the 100 year history is now on sale there, and I'm sure Neal would take your money :-) RossPatterson 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Standard

I've omitted this paragraph from the section:

The Standard has been criticized for not upholding journalistic standards. Critics cite the running articles based off professional articles without license or citation and running copyrighted photos without permission, although the origin of the photos are sometimes shown. In cases where an article or photo comes from the Associated Press, this is a direct violation of their usage rules. The AP explicitly prohibits unauthorized usage of their articles here. [1] The photo branch of the Associated Press also explicitly prohibits publications from using their photos without paying for their use. [2]

What "critics" cite the articles being based off other articles without citation? Citation is supposed to be used. This would be known as weasel words unless you can find a source. Who says people use pictures or articles from the associated press? This is unreferenced as well. This needs references before it can be included.--Zxcvbnm 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.stuystandard.org/pdf/5.16.pdf There are two photos from the AP, a Newsday photo, and an uncited photo on the first four pages.

http://www.stuystandard.org/pdf/5.15.pdf About ten photos not taken by the Standard, many from professional sports photographers and Reuters.

http://www.stuystandard.org/pdf/5.13.pdf There is 1 AP photo, 1 Corbis, and one professional bu uncited photo on the first fourpages.

http://www.stuystandard.org/pdf/5.12.pdf On the first four pages, 1 CNN photo, 1 Reuters photo, 1 BBC photo, 1 Getty photo.

http://www.stuystandard.org/pdf/5.11.pdf On the first four pages, 1 Reuters photo, 1 AP photo, and 1 photo from a French agency.

http://www.stuystandard.org/pdf/5.10.pdf On the first four pages, 3 AP photos, 2 Reuters photos.

It is hard to prove the usage of AP articles, but I just went back to their archive and looked at the first four pages from the last 6 issues (they didn't put up issue 14) and each one was had tons of professional photographs that the Standard did not license.

Wanna put it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orstenwald (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's what I'm talking about! There's still one problem though, "critics cite" would be considered weasel words, just like saying "many people think" would be purposely vague and original research.--Zxcvbnm 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but that's not enough. This is now an issue of original research, which is not permitted on WikiPedia per WP:OR. Until and unless somebody finds existing published critcism by a third party, this issue has to stay out of the article. I'm reverting Orstenwald's re-insertion (without prejudice) until that time. RossPatterson 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

McCourt

He did not go to Stuy, did he? He just taught there? Right now the article has him as an "alumnus". Is this right? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Simon12 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)