Talk:Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering articles

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page needs a serious rewrite. The only information that wasn't specific to WUSTL on the page is largely copied from other wikipedia articles and isn't a good description.Cquan 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings of programs

I would like to pose a question on the value of putting rankings of specific programs on the article. Some of this has been discussed on the Biomedical engineering article, but it may be worth further discussion here. I would request that no additions of this sort be made until this discussion makes it somewhere.

IMHO: In particular, I don't see any special value in listing who US News and World Report ranks as the best since it's a single source, it's a yearly ranking (thus only reflecting a current status rather than a cummulative establishment) and it's an inherently subjective statement. Including such narrow statements merely opens the door for everyone to list rankings of specific programs as if they were valuable statements about the article's topic, which they are not.Cquan 06:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and of course you decide what is "valuable statements" or not right? BEEP --RCSIRCSIRCSI 07:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to side with Cquan on this issue. The ranking cited is only listed for the US top school and only from one rankings source (which BTW is for graduate doctoral programs, not bachelor of science). Wikipedia is supposed to avoid a US bias and the Biomedical engineering article has already been labeled as having too much US bias. If we list the top US school we should list all top schools in other countries and where does it stop. Also I think it is unfair to only use the US News ranking and not from any other publications. Please check out College and university rankings to see the other sources for rankings.

I much prefer the use of other statistics, such as the first school with a BME degree, or a list of all of the schools with BME undergrad/doctoral programs. If you want to talk about the best, why not cite something more quantitative (biggest in size, biggest in grant support, biggest in number of publications, etc.)?

Top 3 US News Graduate BME rankings for citation purposes (if the consensus is to keep this info it needs to be cited per wikipedia standards and needs to be further clarified as being for graduate programs). If someone has a link to undergrad Bachelors BME programs please provide the link since it is more pertinant to the article. Also if someone has a link to the full list of grad BME programs can you post a link (since I can only find the top 3 without paying)? Biomedeng 03:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually that's a good point. since the ranking is not for a bachelor's program, but rather a graduate program, the inclusion is obviously not relevant to the article. I still think the discussion on this topic should continue though since stuff like this keeps popping up, but as to the immediate case here, I suggest removal of the ranking information if there are no compelling objections. Cquan 05:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok US news actually does rank undergrad programs in BME now, so I've put a separate rankings section in with some additional information since I don't think it belongs under professional status. I've also included other factors about rankings, reputation and their importance, but in general I think we should still refrain from putting specific rankings on the page instead of just linking to some lists. Cquan 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since no one has made any sincere effort to produce arguments opposed to this, I've removed the U.S. news rankings, using the reference to illustrate ranking methodology rather than a specific ranking, changed the section from Rankings to Value of the degree and added content to that effect. Cquan 19:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering. 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/20110928120032/http://www.bmes.org/accreditation/accredited_eng_pgms.asp to http://www.bmes.org/accreditation/accredited_eng_pgms.asp

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) 12:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]