Talk:Reed College

Eliot Hall Photo

I think that the current picture of Eliot Hall on a snowy day is somewhat misleading, given that it snows a significant amount in Portland maybe once every year or two. 132.162.148.102 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reed's IP Addresses

For reference (to help identify anonymice), Reed's IP range is: 134.10.0.0 - 134.10.255.255. -- Gnetwerker 01:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

NCAA Rugby?

Is women's rugby at Reed an NCAA sport? -- Gnetwerker 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, rugby may have recently been added to the NCAA (it is hard to tell from their website), but there is no indication that Reed has paid to join the NCAA, and seems unlikely. Reed's site still says they do not have any NCAA sports. -- Gnetwerker 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know how to write HTML, but yeah, rugby here isn't NCAA, both men and women are in the Pacific Northwest Rugby Union (PNRFU.com), Women Div 1, Men Small Colleges Division. 04-08-06

Campus type or location

I know there are guidelines, definitions and standards, but doesn't calling Reed "Urban" give the wrong impression? I think of NYU, Columbia, Barnard, San Francisco State. USF as urban. Reed is indeed within a major city's city limits, but it sure *feels* suburban, being surrounded by mostly single family houses, and so far from the city center. Vossron 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time it said "suburban", but someone decided since it was in the city of Portland, it was "urban". I think the whole thing is silly, and if you want to change it, be WP:BOLD! -- Gnetwerker 19:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it back to "suburban" so that readers get the right idea. This fits Wikipedia's definition ("Suburbs are inhabited districts located either on the outer rim of a city or outside the official limits of a city") as well as Merriam-Webster's ("an outlying part of a city or town"). Reed is close to the city limits, near the city of Milwaukee. Vossron 01:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No way. Reed is definitely urban. In fact, Reed is closer to downtown Portland by public transit than is SF state -- if that is your model. In fact, the fact that reed is one of the only prestigious liberal arts colleges in a major city is worth noting. Most comparable colleges (Carleton, Oberlin, Amerst, et al) are located in small towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.231.177 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What about "residential"? "Suburban" suggests to me that you have to drive to reach anything off-campus, and that there are a lot of chain restaurants. Neither really is true of Eastmoreland or Woodstock. 66.224.188.66 16:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Residential" is usually used to indicate that students live on campus (the opposite of "commuter", I suppose). This would seem misleading when applied to Reed's location. Two sides of Reed's campus are residential, one corner is arguably a commercial district (Woodstock), and the west side of campus borders an industrial area. I note that Stanford is labeled "suburban" (despite being more urban that Reed), Harvard is listed as "urban" (fairly accurate, I suppose), Cal Tech is labeled "urban" (its situation much the same as Reed, as it is in a residential part of Pasadena), but Princeton is labeled as "suburban". Perhaps "urban/residential" is applicable? Reedie2be 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

US News Survey

"Reed President Colin Diver wrote a piece in the October 2005 issue of Atlantic Monthly magazine defending his decision to refuse to participate in the rankings." This is misleading. Former Reed president Steven Koblik made the decision; Colin Diver has reaffimed it. Vossron 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it from "his decision" to "the decision", which I hope addresses the point. Outside of Reed I doubt anyone knows or cares, but your point is valid. -- Gnetwerker 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Reed Faux Seal

When I arrived at Reed in the fall of 1966 they were already selling Communism Atheism Free Love sweatshirts in the bookstore and I was lead to believe it was a longstanding tradition. The article claims incorrectly that they originated in the seventies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.149.165 (talk)

I tweaked it to remove the date, but in the absence of some more definitive sourcing (no offense), I'm reluctant to put in another specific date. -- Gnetwerker 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That sweatshirt was not for sale or worn by anyone that I recall from 1961-65. While the phrase may have been around for a while, the sweatshirts were not.--Mack2 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A recent Reed Magazine article persuasively traces the roots of this "slogan" back to shortly after the founding of the school, it having been co-oped from a local slur against the college.[1] Someone should update it. I don't have time at the moment. Reedie2be 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The college did not merchandize A.C.FL-logo clothing of any kind during my time on campus ('81-'85). Underground-printed t-shirts were sold on the S.U. porch or in front of Commons, with crackdowns by Eliot Hall minions to varying degrees from time to time. I have a vague memory of Paula Rooney shooing away shirt-sellers from the Commons steps, but that may not be right as I'd always heard that only Paul Bragdon disliked the shirts enough to squelch 'em. I could ping Drew McCormick (Class of '82 and known guerilla shirt-printer) or Argyre Patras (canonical reference for all things Reedie circa mid-70's to early 80's) for definitive cites if needed. --Wabobo3 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

I took out the frisbee nicknames from the main info box, because in context, its very silly to think of Reed students calling themselves the berserk or booty in the same way that, for example, USC students call themselves Trojans. Most students probably don't even know the frisbee nicknames. Elcocinero 04:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Frisbee's a trademark plastic toy. Ultimate's a sport. But I agree, that wasn't the appropriate spot. Wtf, nickname? Shane.amadan 08:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, sir -- this Reed student knows the frisbee team's nicknames. (My IP address won't show me as a student, it being summer, but I assure you I am.) 06-12-07

Photos

There are two photos of ODB on the page right now—maybe a shot of a different dorm for the Dorms section would be a good idea? Moliadoc 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Student Handbook

The history page contains some confusion regarding the "Immorality Quiz" in the Student Handbook. There used to be an "Immorality Quiz" and an "Immortality Quiz" in the handbook. In 2006 the "Immorality Quiz" was completely revised, and the "Immortality Quiz" was removed. Both Quizzes originated in the mid-90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.14.139 (talk)

The Immorality Quiz dates to at least the mid-1980s, when it entered Reed life from USENET. -- Gnetwerker 02:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The immorality quiz gets changed every year. This year's revision was a little more drastic and controversial than most. There is no immortality quiz. Last year (and maybe before also), the immorality quiz was published as the "immortality" quiz as a play on words. Elcocinero 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall such an immorality quiz being passed around the dorm in the 1960's. It dealt only with sex, not with drugs or theft. I was disappointed by my low immorality score and vowed to do better in future.--Mack2 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

More fun with drugs

I took this section out:

Reed has figured prominently into the Research Chemicals scene from the 1980s to the present. Copies of the "Drug Article That Ate Reed College" from the Student Handbook have been widely circulated around the internet, and for some time was the definitive article on Bromo Mescaline, which is also known as 2C-B [2] [ http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=8105]. The widely used slang term of "Moxy" for 5-MeO-MiPt was also coined at Reed [3].

The website that is referenced three times, while interesting, appears to be more of a message board/wiki than it does a refereed journal or journalistic account of drug use. I have no objections per se to the inclusion of info pointing to Reed as the birthplace of Bromo, but a better source must be found. Thoughts? IronDuke 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reed is not the birthplace of Bromo, that is merely a rumor. What this is about is the fact that for a long time, the only information available regarding Bromo on the internet was the Reed College Student Handbook. Because of this, Reed gained a reputation regarding Research Chemical use, as most of the people getting their info on Bromo were getting it directly from the Reed College Student Handbook, whether or not they were Reed students. I don't think this is the sort of thing you're going to find in a scholarly journal. It's more like a Reed student wrote an article, that for the greater part of the decade, was the definitive source on the material ... it was published in the student handbook ... then republished on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.14.139 (talk)

An anon from the Reed subnet posted this:

While the text of the policy had been adopted by the faculty in 1993, as per the eligibilty requirements for federal financial aid and research grants, it had not been strictly enforced until concern over higher visible rates of alcohol abuse and dangerous behavior than years previous.

and I have left it there for now. My question: while I believe this to be true, it is probably original research, and at the very least is uncited. A statement along these lines was removed earlier in the year after a long discussion. What (if any) is the consensus on retention of this kind of statement? -- Gnetwerker 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that it violates OR... it's tough, because a fact like that is difficult to source, as outside media outlets are unlikely to to report on it. Certainly, if it were well-sourced, the statement should stay. IronDuke 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since there's no objection, I have taken it out. Please feel free to put it back, once properly sourced. IronDuke 05:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The canonical reference on psychedelic phenethylamines is Shulgin's PiHKAL, which clearly states that Sasha synthesized 2C-B first. In book research and social circles I've run across a number of people who knew Shulgin--saw him myself at a conference in '94--who mentioned there being more than a few Reedies in Shulgin's trip-tester cadre. So there may well have been a pipeline back to campus from Shulgin's covert experimentation that would explain the rumor that Bromo was invented at Reed. Certainly it was the most ubiquitous psychedelic on campus in the early 80's, moreso than MDA and it's close analogues (MDMA and MMDA primarily). --Wabobo3 (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fictional alumni

Should there be a section on fictional alumni, a la Vassar College? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.41.250 (talk)

Can you name any? I don't think I can. --Makaristos 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit about Stephen King in the trivia section. Don't know if that counts. Or if there's really a point to such a section. IronDuke 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree. --Makaristos 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring

Does anyone object if I edit this page to combine the four or five separate sections on "Notable Alumni"? I would of course not remove or archive any comments, just re-organize them. -- Gnetwerker 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free. IronDuke 05:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable Alumni (combined thread)

Don Miller

I deleted Don Miller. The online bio for the person in questions says: "After his first book came out, Don spent a few years auditing classes and hanging out with students at Reed College"[4]. There is no actual way to simply "audit" classes at Reed. I have no doubt that he hung out there, as he claims to run a "ministry" there, though few on campus have heard of it or him. Nonetheless, to be a Reed alumnus, you need to have spent at least one semester there as an actual student (I think Steve Jobs sets the low bar on this one). If anyone has information to the contrary, please correct me. -- Gnetwerker 08:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't speak to this guy in particular, but I must mention that it is indeed (with the consent of the instructor) possible to audit classes at Reed. It's not often done, but there are rules and procedures for it and everything. I think it's currently priced at $150 per semester class. Matt Gies 17:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's something like that. I was close. Matt Gies 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I was wrong. Didn't pass the "current students" line in the policy. In any case, is someone who only audited classes an alumnus? (Not to mention whether this guy is "notable" vs. other Reed authors.) -- Gnetwerker 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Steve Jobs didn't finish the semester, at least that's what I'm told.

Anon User:71.101.171.213 re-added Don Miller to the notable alumni list. Per the old discussion at the top of this page, I don't think he is either notable or a Reedie, but I don't care enough anymore to bother to remove it. FYI. -- Gnetwerker 23:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, missed the conversation you reference above, or would have done it earlier. (Matt, do you have an opinion on this?) As to the person or persons who put Miller back, can you please make your case here on the talk page before re-inserting it? Thanks. IronDuke 00:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anne Steele Notability

How do people feel about Anne C. Steele being listed as a notable alum of Reed? I've been adding (and subtracting) to this list and I'd like the red linked names to either have articles or be taken away. I've looked into Steele a bit, but can't fully make up my mind if she's notable. Google hits are minimal. I found this, if it helps any. I'm leaning towards non-notable. Thoughts? IronDuke 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about her notability. But as to the red links, a red link is not an indication of notability or lack thereof - rather it is an indication that a wiki page following wiki guidelines could be added where appropriate. Someone could be entirely wikiworthy yet have no wiki page. So personally, I would not go on a mission to eliminate red links. --SafeLibraries 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. But is she wikiworthy? IronDuke 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reed specifically labels Anne Steele a "notable alumna" here. Are the "rules" for whom a college considers a notable alumnus the same as Wikiedpia's notability guideline? I think not. The section "Notable alumni" should not be considered to be the same as "sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia biography": for example, a college might consider a recent Rhodes Scholar to be notable, while they would not rise to that level in Wikipedia. Here are what some other college pages do:

• Grinnell College lists a large number of "Prominent alumni", including 3 which do not have Wikipedia pages.
• Amherst College directs to a full page of people, which include many who do not have pages, including Paul Bragdon, Reed's former president!
• Yale similar directs to a huge page of "prominent" people, many of whom lack Wikipedia biographies.

Unless we are to cleanse all of those pages as well, we should let Reed decide who it considers notable. -- Gnetwerker 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative response; following your link, I have added Howard Wolpe who already appears to have a page. I agree with much of what you say. However, my understanding of notability in this context is that any given college is not the final arbiter of what is and isn't notable but WP is, because it's a WP article. I looked at the Amherst page, and most of it is fine, but there are a few people in there who seem, well, cruft-y by WP standards. Understand: I'm not picking on Reed here, I hope that's obvious. I've been adding to the list of alums and building out stubs on the ones who didn't have articles; I don't think Reed as an institution gains by claiming alums who are not particularly notable -- to the contrary. And are we going to add the owner of a Manhattan indie record store because Reed calls him notable? I don't think WP gains by that, nor does Reed. And I'll also say, just because questionable stuff makes it to other pages doesn't mean we let it in here, right? But I have started a discussion over at Amherst College as well and we'll see what people think. Anyway, glad we're discussing this in a non-confrontational way, hope it continues. IronDuke 03:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet more notable alumni

An anon has just deleted Ry Cooder, Steve Jobs, and others. I'm not going to revert, but this is getting silly. Jobs made a big deal out of his one semester at Reed in his recent Stanford commencement speech. Don't know if Cooder ever talks about it, but it is sourced (albeit sparsely) on the Reed website [5]. Reed now considers anyone who spent a year there to be an alumnus/alumna[6] (it was once a semester), and Jobs supposed spent only one paid semester, so I don't know what to do with this. Nonetheless, it's all a little silly. I propose: if Reed mentions them as an alumnus, they're an alunmus. I'll leave notability arguments to all the wikilawyers around here. -- Gnetwerker 00:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they're just out of order. Am fixing now. (I'm not sure Don Miller belongs there, though). IronDuke 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Guess I jumped the gun. Mea culpa. -- Gnetwerker 01:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

NP, I was a bit confused by the edits as well. IronDuke 01:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To be precise, Jobs was enrolled at Reed for two semesters but completed neither. His claim to be a Reed alum is a definite eye-roller in the alumni community, but the school flacks count him as one. I'd say he's a de jure alum. Cooder is definitely a Reedie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabobo3 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Wozniak & Richard Crandall

Should Steve Wozniak be listed as an alum? Gnetwerker, do you have any idea? It strikes me he met Steve Jobs there, but I'm not sure enough to include him. IronDuke 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We've communicated privately about this, but I'll add it here: to my knowledge, Jobs and Woz met in Silicon Valley, not at Reed, and I've not heard that Woz was ever at Reed. On pg. 8 of Jim Carlton's (fairly) definitive Apple: The Inside Story ..., he says only "... Woz, Jobs' Homebrew buddy ...", referring to the Homebrew Computer Club, a haven for some of the SiVa pioneers of the day. That's not a definitive reference, but I think for this purpose it's enough. Best, -- Gnetwerker 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that... next question: what about Richard Crandall? Should he be here? Should he have an article of his own? IronDuke 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard is both a current (possibly emeritus) faculty member and a former Reedie (and if I remember correctly, an MIT grad as well). Whether he is notable is another question. There is little question that he has produced some notable work in mathematics, several books, is an Apple Fellow, and has received some level of publicity. I admit to being confused by Wikipedia's requirements for notability, but it seems likely that he would qualify. He is not to be confused with several (more) prominent businessmen with the same name. -- Gnetwerker 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Woz has effectively no connection to Reed except for founding Apple with Jobs. I could ping Dan Kottke for a definitive cite but I'm 99% sure of that. --Wabobo3 (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Burian

Al Burian is decently famous in the 'zine and hc/punk worlds, think he deserves a mention on this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.40.202.54 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC). Ha ha. I am sorry, but Al does not deserve a mention, unless you intend to mention every single Reed graduate who has published an article or essay in a scholarly journal or who has published a scholarly book! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.210.58 (talk) 22:22, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

"Capitalism, Avarism, and Free Beer"

What the heck does "avarism" mean? Google and Dictionary.com turn up nothing and it's annoying me now. Is this a typo? The closest I can find is "averroism", the philosophy of Averroës, largely based on Aristotelianism and asserting the unity of an active intellect common to all human beings while denying personal immortality. AceTracer 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably a neologistic play on avarice, methinks. IronDuke 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Enrollment

Where is this figure of 2005 coming from? Firstly, it's a year old and should be updated, additionally the official Reed enrollment page (http://web.reed.edu/ir/enrollment_hist.html) doesn't give a figure of 1350. Even the infobox says the figure is 1340.

I'm changing it in the meantime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NorseOdin (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Image changes

I would like to comment that I don't like the recent changes to the page images. I thought the previous page was nicely laid-out, with good visual interest in almost every section. The images now are too small to be useful, and clustered awkwardly. I'm not going to change it back, but I'm disappointed that this was done. BurningCandy 07:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I got rid of forced thumbnail sizing because you can set your own preference at Special:Preferences under "Files". I don't think there were near enough images. Using the other education related featured articles such as Duke University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Cornell University as examples of what this page should look like, there are an average of two images per screen. This article was nowhere near that, and the images that did exist aren't really all that great (for instance more than 50% of this image is composed of the ground, same thing with this image, but this one also has the building obscured by a lamp and tree. Neither image contains more than 25% of the buildling that it is supposed to be illustrating). If someone didn't point out where it was taken, this image could be anywyere. I still think that the page could use more images, and some of the existing ones should be moved to the Commons. Cacophony 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But don't you know - Reedies are famous for staring at the ground as they walk around campus ;) -Pete

It's true, Pete. There ought to be a photo or two here of Reedies doing this. See section 31 below.  ; ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.228 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

recent deletions March 07

I reverted some well-intentioned edits. I attended Reed, and each of the sentences deleted is both true and verifiable. I don't know sources off the top of my head, but I know they're out there. The only possible exception is scrounging - finding mentions of it in the Reed College Quest or Student Handbook would be no trouble, but finding it in a non-Reed produced source might take a bit more effort.

Anyway, the {{fact}} tags are entirely appropriate, but deleting factual material - unless known to be false or POV - is not. -Pete 06:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I deleted: Reed is a highly selective four-year college with a reputation for delivering a strong academic experience, for attracting a highly intellectual student body, and for generating an unusually high percentage of graduates who go on to earn Doctoral degrees. Every word in bold fails the NPOV standard and I didn't think the sentence was salvagable. Likewise: Off-campus students and others who choose not to purchase a meal plan are seen at mealtimes scrounging for free food from on-campus students is either original research or uncited. I doubt that one can find a reliable source to back this claim up, wether or not it is true. The rest of the citations tags are statements that really do need to be cited. Cacophony 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those things are all verifiable, and are not POV. "Selective" is an objective measure - how many people get in divided by how many people apply. Reed is probably in the top 5 or 10%, I don't know off the top of my head. "Strong academic experience" - ranked #1 in the nation by one of the major publication within the last 2 or 3 years. "Unusually high percentage" - also objective, also true, also verifiable. The scrounging is something anyone visiting the campus can see, and I'm about 90% sure I've seen it mentioned in either the Willamette Week or the Portland Mercury; it's notable an illustration of the unusual culture at Reed, and it's certainly verifiable.

I agree that these sentences could be rewritten in a way that sounds less "gushing," and that citations are needed. But it's difficult to verify or rewrite something that's not there anymore. -Pete 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I missed one - "highly intellectual" - the same report found Reed "the most likely to find a student at the library" and other similar measures. It wasn't US News and World Report, but a similarly well-regarded ranking of colleges. Last 2 or 3 years. -Pete 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Highly-selective" is a category of colleges that is used by all of the college prep companies -- see [7]. The PhD numbers are sourced here: [8]. The first paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article (see WP:Summary_style). The citations for everything you talk about are provided elsewhere in the article! -- Reedie2be 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. - re scroungers: [9] If that doesn't float your boat, try the New York Times: [10] -- Reedie2be 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo!

I got accepted to Reed. Thanks to the regulars here for all their help. (I've abandoned my old ID for this one). I guess I'll have to change again in the fall :-) -- Reedie2be 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck kiddo, you're gonna need it! Don't spend too much time at the library, it will eat your soul. ;) -Pete 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

the library is fine. beware the SU. Tfinn 06:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to develop a social life and some local friendships outside of Reed for the sake of perspective and balance. This could mean getting involved in Portland's music scene, in a political activism group, a bird watching group, a church, an atheists club, a bowling league . . . Whatever, as long it's not connected with Reed. Time spent in non-Reed related social/recreational activities right from the start will repay itself many fold in personal well-being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.123 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"advert" tag

I don't see any justification here for this label. I have removed it. If it gets re-added, some reason is required, with reference to the pages of similar schools. 219.97.2.68 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

intro does sound a bit advertisment like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.26.39 (talk) 15:48, March 22, 2007

You honestly think this article portrays Reed in an unbiased way (let me guess...you have some connection to Reed)? I understand that you want to want to make your alma mater out to be a great school, but this isn't the place for that. I would highly suggest taking a look at the article for Princeton University. Princeton was ranked #1 in the U.S. by US News and World Report, #2 in the U.S. by Education, & Social Science Library, #9 in the world by THES - QS World University Rankings, and #8 in the world by Institute of Higher Education, but nowhere does it stoop to using language like highly selective and strong academic experience. Other examples of university/college articles written in a more neutral tone would be Duke University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Cornell University, McGill University, and University of Santo Tomas. Cacophony 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say I've gone on record on this talk page before objecting to an overly upbeat tone in his article. Having said that, I looked at the Princeton article, and found "Princeton consistently ranks among the best universities in the world." I don't have a problem with that in the Princeton article, and I don't have a problem with explaining why Reed as an institution is notable. The main part of the intro consists of this: "Reed is a residential college with a campus located in a residential Portland neighborhood, featuring Ivy League style Tudor architecture and a forested canyon wilderness preserve at its center." Leaving aside the minor stylistic matter of the use of the word "residential" twice in the article, is that why there's an article on Reed? Tudor architecture? Canyon wilderness preserve? IMO, Reed does some things very well, science for example, and has a rep as a quirky, liberal, intellectual place. Perhaps the simplest way to put is from WP:LEAD, the lead should be a precis of the article. It isn't at the moment. IronDuke 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

It may be that "Reed considers any student who attended a semester or more at the college to be an alumnus or alumna" (though no source is given for this claim) — but do/should we? For consistency with other articles on schools, colleges, and universities, shouldn't we define "alumni" standardly? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"You are eligible to be a member of the alumni association if you attended Reed for one year or more." [11] - Reedie2be 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks — that means that the article is wrong as it stands (and it's unclear which, if any, of the people currently on the list is thus excluded. My main question stands, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Drug use since the 1960s

hello, I removed that passage/sentence, as the source was a 404/broken... thanks... - Denny 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it — see Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks! - Denny 13:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

The article Tudor style architecture is on Tudor architecture; this clearly isn't, and the standard term for modern (20th century and after) copies of Tudor is "mock-Tudor" (see Tudorbethan architecture). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I supplied a citation that says it's "Tudor-Gathic". Do you have one that says it's "Mock Tudor"? Also, it looks nothing like the photos or description on the page you reference. Have you ever been there? ClarkLewis 06:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I haven't been there; we're concerned with correct use of terms in the article, not our personal memories and judgement of the place. Either you didn't read or you misunderstood my comment above; given that it wasn't built in Tudor time, it can only be mock-Tudor. The article claimed that its architecture was Tudor, and linked to Tudor style architecture; that's misleading?

As for "Tudor-Gothic", that's a style described here. I've edited the lead to try to convey this. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tudor Gothic is a well known style, found on campuses all over the country. Nobody ever thinks it's pretending to be truly from the Tudor era, and nobody ever gets confused by describing the style as Tudor Gothic.--Mack2 10:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth would you know what readers might be confused by? That Americans of your acquaintance aren't confused by the misuse of the term doesn't mean that we should misuse it here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dorms

I attended Reed in the mid-90's and lived in the cross canyon dorms. I added the names of some un-mentioned Cross Canyon dorms to the Dorms section. If memory serves, by the time I graduated, they were in the process of tearing down the old Cross-Canyon, modular, tinker-toy, steel and glass dorms (how I miss you Sisson dorm!), and replacing them with newer construction. Steel St. Dorms or something? Can someone confirm and add those new dorms to the Dorms section? Cavebutter 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Sisson in the 60's. I miss it, too.--Mack2 10:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Reactor

So you guys apparently had an article for you Nuclear Reactor, but no link in your school page even though you mentioned it. I put it in, but I can't find any categories or anything to connect it to your school. You know no one is going to be able to find anything as things are right now right?theanphibian 18:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories? It's a college. A small one. It's in Oregon.--Mack2 10:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

"add category back, no reason to have deleted it". Well, actually, since Reed now has its own category, it doesn't need to be in the parent category (colleges and universities in Oregon). See: Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. It's fine if you disagree, but it wasn't removed for "no reason". 14:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I came to say the same thing. It's unclear to me, mind you, that a minor college needs a separate category, but that's another matter. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, I didn't create the category, but since I stumbled across it, I figured it should be populated. There's probably a few other things that can go in there. And since there's an alumni subcategory, its probably best to keep the Reed category to put it in. Katr67 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that you didn't — I wasn't accusing you... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of accusing me. :) Katr67 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good (I was misled by the edit summary). Nice to have one discussion on a Talk page that doesn't involve me being accused of something. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, and full disclosure, I looked it over and I did kinda create the category, because it was redlinked from the faculty category, and I added it to the Oregon universities cat, thus making it "real", so I guess it kinda is my fault. :) Happy editing! Katr67 14:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. It is a convenience to readers interested in looking up colleges and universities in Oregon to find Reed in this category. That this category has been around for a while and Reed is not listed in it defeats the purpose of having such a geographic category in the first place. In addition lists and categories like that are not intended to be "exclusive," as if Reed's being in its own category means it can't be in another. In fact, if we give every college its own category, we could dispense with general lists altogether. And that would truly be taking things to the absurd extreme -- eliminate categories altogether, and place every article in Wikipedia in its own discrete category. --Mack2 07:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have read the guideline haven't you? And you have looked at the category pages — the ones that link to each other very clearly? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that the guideline doesn't mean the categories have to be mutually exclusive. However, as it stands now, Reed would be the only Oregon college in both the category and the subcategory. An edit war isn't going to resolve the issue. I'd suggest taking this to the WikiProject Oregon talk page and get an opinion on the categorization of Oregon colleges in general. (A discussion could be conducted on the category talk page, but hardly anyone looks at those.) Katr67 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I heartily second this. No reason to edit war about an uncontroversial category. IronDuke 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

School song

I see there has been several reverts in regards to the school song. As always, I look to the featured articles for guidance (Duke University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Cornell University). Those articles only refer to the name of the fight song. Michigan, which is a very notable song, leaves out the lyrics. Therefore I don't think they should be contained in this article Cacophony 01:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure if Reed's song is used as a "fight song" (I spent 4 years at Reed and don't recall ever hearing it), but even if it is, I'm not sure what sports fans would sing it. Not much of a sporty school (not much of a "school spirit" kind of place either, for that matter.) -Pete 01:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I recall a bawdy sport fight song or two. One cheer from the sidelines of a 6-man tackle football game between Reed and Columbia Christian College. "Down with Christianity. Up with Sin. Come on Reed. Win win win!"--Mack2 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Grades

Did I miss it or shouldn't this article explain how Reed doesn't (or didn't used to) use grades in its academic appraisal of students? --Noetic Sage 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reed has always used traditional letter grades. Perhaps you are thinking of Evergreen State? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.32.239 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I have an article in front of me called "The Organizational Saga in Higher Education" by Burton Clark that says "Not reporting grades to the students becomes a symbol, as at Reed, that the college cares about learning for learning's sake" (p. 182). Maybe they got rid of this long ago? Or maybe this article is just wrong. -- Noetic Sage 00:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

-reed issues grades but they are not reported. students can choose to see them by request. they are helpful if you want to go to grad school, which a lot of us do.

...The faculty also have an ethic of questioning or discouraging students from requesting grade reports. My advisor did circa '82, and so did many other profs. So that quote is effectively true to a certain extent. -- Wabobo3 (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Alumnus Vs Drop out

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html here Jobs himself says that he is a drop out. more over, http://web.reed.edu/alumni/about_the_alum_association.html here Reed College states that, you can be a alumnus only if you attend the college for more than a yr. But Jobs state that he dropped out in 6 months in the prev link. Either way, he cannot be considered as a alumnus. Please discuss here before reverting back...Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The college seems to list him as an alumnus: [12]. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but my understanding is that they changed the definition of an alumnus from one semester to a year quite recently (since I graduated in 2006, certainly). I don't know where that leaves this whole debate if he was considered an alumnus and now he's not. Thatjenn (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a reasonably distinct recollection of being in Paul de Young's (Career Office honcho) office when someone came in asking for job placement help, citing the one-semester rule. This would have been sometime in the midst of Fall '83. I would often read The Oregonian in the Alumni Office foyer (tussling over the Sports section with my good buddy Chuck Svitavsky), and I'm pretty sure I heard Florence Lehman state the one-semester rule at least once.

As I've commented elsewhere, I don't think Jobs qualifies as an alumnus even under the one-semester rule, strictly speaking. But once the college officially embraced him as an alum--for whatever reason--such debate is moot.

--Wabobo3 (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Endowment

Reed Magazine's article on the college's bond rating indicates an endowment of $443 million as of April 2007. I revised the page accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.208.72 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Junior Qual, Senior Thesis & Orals Board

I think a major distinctive trait of the Reed curriculum is the junior qual. I am not aware of any other undergraduate program having a similar qualifying examination. I think perhaps the 'qual' should be added to the first paragraph of distinctive traits, perhaps linked to the senior thesis. It should be emphasized that the qual + thesis at Reed approximates MA work in the intensity of focus and the time required. The optional honors theses at other schools simply can't compare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.208.72 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you are considering going to Reed, whether as a regular student or a transfer student, it's important to understand that what undergraduates undertake there is a course of study that, if completed successfully, gives them the equivalent of a respectable M.A. or M.S. in their major at most universities, but compressed into four years. One can get through Reed with something less than this amount of work, and some do. But what you work toward at Reed is really a solid M.A. or M.S. disguised as a B.A. I've heard Reed faculty characterize the Reed B.A. in this way, although it is not something you'll find advertised in the College's literature. If you visit Reed, be sure to spend some time in the Thesis Tower at the library and sample some of the recent theses. Then, look at some recent Master's theses in the library of another institution. A good Reed thesis is not the equivalent of an undegraduate "honors thesis." It is a serious Master's thesis under another name. Working on a thesis at this level and being qualified to do so is part of what it means to be a successful senior at Reed. Once completed, it's something to be very proud of. But do be aware of the kind of work you'll be doing if you decide to attend Reed.

---

Whoa now, let's not forget about the orals board. The eye of the needle one must navigate in order to obtain a Reed College degree is a definite trifecta. My thesis advisor turned against me in the midst of my orals, the lecherous, Pommy bastard! Visiting faculty, mind you, but I was damn sure relieved when Ottomar Rudolf stuck up for me.

When I was volunteering for the Admissions Office, I mooched around to see if any other American baccalaureate program required a junior qualifying exam, senior thesis and orals board review such as Reed. Didn't want to oversell the ol' alma mater, y'know. Not only couldn't I find a standard, "everyone through the hoops" program, I couldn't find an honors BA/BS program with those requirements. To be honest, in my time at the ranch the junior quals for some depts. weren't really that tough, and if you turned in a rock-solid thesis your orals board was probably a skate...provided you hadn't been stupid enough to invite Gail Kelly or John Pock to sit your orals.

Anyway, as to the "Reed BA/BS = [Generic Institution] MA/MS" assertion, my data point is thus: I have talked my way into graduate seminars at Cal (historically a Top-Five graduate program for English Lit.) as an extension student. Twice. And both times the professor was noticeably blasé that I already held an MFA (ostensibly a terminal degree), but when I mentioned that I was a Reed grad, I was in. And when i was "earning" that MFA, I found that I'd already read 30% to 95%, on average, of the assigned syllabus for every graduate-level academic class I took.

Was my experience unique? As to the second part, no. I've chatted with innumerable Reedies who had had exactly that experience, walking into their first or second year of graduate seminars and already knowing the syllabus cold. --Wabobo3 (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Steinberger on the Honor Principle

As a Reed alumnus, I consider Peter Steinberger's discussion of the Honor Principle in "What is an Honor Principle?" (quoted in the article) to be well-intentioned but more than a little worrisome. I find it worrisome not so much because it is easily misconstrued as endorsing a curtailment of the civil liberties of Reed community members, but rather because it legitimates a pathological element of the Reed ethos, an element that I believe is known only too well to students and faculty alike. Steinberger's speech should of course be read in its entirety, at http://web.reed.edu/dean_of_faculty/speeches-articles/honor_principle-3-98.html. But here is the passage currently quoted in the article:

"What this means is that a community governed by an honor principle is a community not of rules and procedures but of virtue. As such, it is a community of unfreedom. There is no protected realm; one can never take refuge in, seek protection from, or hide behind a doctrine of rights. Anything that anyone does is, in principle, subject to evaluation. Was it a virtuous thing to do? Was it consistent with notions of honorableness? Does it contribute to the well-being of the community? Is it the kind of behavior that we value and wish to encourage? In the absence of rights, behavior that we do not wish to value and do not wish to encourage has absolutely no protection."

There can be little doubt that students and faculty who have been guilty of dishonorable and even destructive behavior have, at times, sought protection from the consequences of such behavior behind a doctrine of basic rights. Steinberger is of course correct to make the basic point that the Honor Principle does not license an "anything goes" approach to citizenship or community membership at Reed. He is correct, moreover, in pointing out that membership in a community governed by an honor principle entails real obligations to one's fellow community members. And he is certainly correct when he says (elsewhere in the speech) that membership in the kind of community that Reed aspires to be entails participation in ongoing discussion and debate about what our conceptions of virtue and honorableness ought to be and how those notions ought to apply in particular cases.

But why should government by an honor principle necessitate jettisoning altogether any doctrine of basic rights as a fundamental feature of the standards of conduct and of the moral and ethical attitudes of Reed community members, qua Reed community members? Why does Steinberger say this? Is not some basic notion of the right of one's self and one's fellow Reed community members to be treated as ends in themselves implicit in all the notions of honor that could realistically be in play at Reed? Surely, any conception of virtue or honorableness upon which Reed community members might agree will include some basic ideas of fairness and justice toward one another that in turn underwrite some basic procedures for conflict resolution and accountability in cases of dishonorable conduct. Reed of course has such procedures.

Perhaps Steinberger's enjoining us to do away with rights in the context of the Honor Principle reflects a desire to come down firmly on one side or another of conceptual oppositions and debates in his field.

Consider the strong language about a "community of unfreedom": "There is no protected realm . . . Anything one does is, in principle, subject to evaluation. . . . In the absence of rights, behavior that we do not wish to value and do not wish to encourage has absolutely no protection." This only makes sense, I think, against the backdrop of cases of actual dishonorable behavior that amount to violations of people's basic rights as understood within this particular academic community, as well as failures to take responsibility. Certainly, dishonorable conduct is sometimes artfully defended on pseudo-libertarian grounds. One can of course err on the side of putative individual rights at the expense of one's responsibilities to fellow community members. But surely, in respecting one another as ends in themselves, Reed community members must allow one another a certain sphere of personal freedom and privacy, a sphere marked by clear personal boundaries that they may rightfully demand to have respected.

I think many Reed alumni and faculty will recognize in Steinberger's words here an oppressive, hypercritical, pathological seriousness that tends to efface the private sphere and make people forget how to have fun and lead a happy life. This sometimes begets destructive behavior and callous disregard for others. It also makes Reed much more of a pressure cooker than it needs to be. One can get so caught up in trying to be worthy of honor as an intellectual in the eyes of one's peers that one forgets that there are non-intellectual virtues (arguably, the most important ones) and thus forgets how to be a healthy human being who honors and respects her or his fellow beings in community.

Some of those who make this mistake are among the most adept at rigorous academic debate about honor and virtue.

The irony behind the Honor Principle that I experienced while at Reed was the appalling way a lot of the students treated each other. One example is of a guy who while making ramen noodles in the house up the Hill on 39th had it dosed with some hallucinogenic drug by some guys hanging out there. He said he hallucinated for a couple hours. He was a really effeminate dippy guy, so he didn't do anything about it. So I didn't see the honor principle abused in the manner described above, though I can't say it doesn't happen.

Achtung.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.228 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that none of the above remarks were meant as commentary on Steinberger's exchange with David Horowitz. I wasn't even aware it when I wrote them. I've just read a transcript of that exchange (a poorly transcribed one, at that) and consider Steinberger to be the more civil, fair, and by far the more cogent of the two speakers. Horowitz seems blind to his own blinkered, partisan mentality. (See http://web.reed.edu/dean_of_faculty/speeches-articles/horowitz-11-05.html and http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2210/ReedCollegeSteinbergerDebate082806.htm.) The comments above were not written in support of Horowitz's so-called Academic Bill of Rights. Furthermore, I must concede that these remarks constitute the expression of an opinion and not yet an argument for that opinion. The first sentence of the penultimate paragraph ("I think many Reed alumni and faculty will recognize . . .") is overly polemical, although I believe it does make a point that needs further spelling out. The talk of community members as "ends in themselves" and the "Achtung" allude to Kant. I'll be interested to know if anyone else out there finds some resonance with any of the above.

Too many Reed Houses listed?

I think the list of Reed Houses is spiralling out of control. New users, anonymous IPs, and everybody else and their brothers seem to be adding to this list virtually non-stop and now it's clearly too long. Not only does this violate the spirit of both WP:LIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, being both a list in prose inside a paragraph and a quasi-directory of Reed Houses, it is virtually guaranteed to keep growing ad infinitum, since Reedies (or whoever) will keep looking up their house on the list and feeling slighted because "OMG it's not there, Wikipedia is totally biased against House X" and add it. Or they might have a less-extreme reaction like "You know what? The wikipedia article on Reed would really benefit from an added mention of my house's name alongside these n others."

Whatever the reason, adding these also clearly violates the spirit (and in my opinion the letter) of WP:MADEUP. I will quote the introduction:

Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website instead.

All this being said, I would definitely argue that at least the names of some Reed Houses ought to be preserved, since they do demonstrate the college's unique character and the inventiveness of its students. I think I would prefer a variant along the lines of "…houses with names such as House A or House B" with a suitable comment in the code such as "Please don't add more house names; see discussion on talk page". The question is, naturally, which house names should be included in this, and this is not a question I feel qualified to answer. Does anybody have any ideas here? Or am I wrong about this last point, and should the whole idea be scrapped? --Makaristos (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)