Talk:Shimer Great Books School

Ph.D. claim

Shimer College's doctorate productivity is as claimed in the article, which I have just updated. I'm on the faculty at Shimer and have included as much source info as possible (see the "Notes" section).
The '97 U. of Wisconsin study was never published, but it was produced by Prof. Gary Glen Price, Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
--Abf31 (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

third highest phd in the nation, according to whom? report possible bias because of small campus size —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.1.90.37 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think it's a sample size issue so much as a selection bias. Shimer students are probably disproportionately predisposed to academic careers. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This was from a ranking done by a researcher at the University of Wisconsin Curriculum Studies Dept. sometime around 1998.--75.57.139.245 00:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any such department at the U of W, nor am I having any luck locating the original study. I am fairly sure this is legitimate, I even recall news clippings about it from my time on campus, but if it cannot be verified it does not belong here. -- Visviva (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim does appear in news articles such as this one in the Sun-Times, but I still cannot locate the actual study. The claim itself is perfectly plausible and likely to be correct, but I wonder if this study was ever actually published in a peer-reviewed journal. -- Visviva (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Do you people have any respect for intellectual rigor? You are seriously going to site an unpublished study in the lead paragraph of this article? Did it ever occur to you that the study may not have been published because it is flawed? I don't believe the results to be terribly off base, but what does it say about the college to throw around numbers like that without any sort of reliable reference? Also, to be completely honest, a serious factor in the PhD. rate is that the degree and education one receives at Shimer are pretty much worthless outside the sphere of higher education. And then there is the attrition rate. I have no idea what it could be, but I am sure it is very high compared to other colleges. WHat would the PhD rate at another school look like if they lost half their students? I am not necessarily saying that Shimer looses half its students before graduation (although that seems about right), but it is a serious question and definitely skews the comparison to other colleges. Weber is rolling in his grave... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.241.234 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Smelts?

I'm a current Shimer student, and I've never heard mention of the "Flying Smelts." It sounds like it may be a running joke, unless someone can source it. It accurately represents the general sense of humor at Shimer, but that's not what this page is meant to convey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemoreglass09 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you've never heard of the unofficial mascot, but it's actually the Flaming Smelts. I believe it's cited in an old article that talks about Shimer's foray into basketball, along with the well known chant Sex, Drugs, and Socrates, We kick ass on GREs! --Jonathan Timm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.133.143 (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Shimer College: Heather Corinna

I've deleted Heather Corinna from the alum section because, although she did attend Shimer College, she did not graduate, which all others listed in the section did, and which is implied by such lists unless otherwise stated. Abf31 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Self Governance

I have reorganized the article to follow WP:UNIGUIDE. I would propose modifying the current text on self-governance to give a more complete and balanced view of the structure and administration of the college. From a WP:NPOV, self-governance is one part of a larger discussion of the board, advisory committee, etc. But I would like to have consensus on the topic as it may be contentious. I also deleted the long list of Board members, but only to comply with the guidelines in WP:EMBED. With no context, they did not add much. Please feel free to disagree.Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Shimer College is not located in Georgia (the former Soviet Republic). The coordinates 41.832 & 41.832 must be wrong.

24.148.74.217 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC) A.B. Fernandez, Shimer College

Indeed. Unless there is a branch campus we don't know about. Error corrected.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussing recent revisions

There are a number of folks watching and/or editing this page. While all the edits are no doubt in good faith, the unintended consequence of some edits has been to undo changes that have made by others after discussion and/or with supporting references. Almost all of the recent edits have been made by unregistered users, who one assumes do not check their talk pages, which makes it difficult to know how to discuss productively. I have reverted the latest mass change in the spirit of WP:BRD and hope to have the chance to discuss the changes here.

To avoid needless churn on this page, I suggest the following:

• Unless you are hugely uncomfortable with it, create an account and login to make changes. That will make it more clear who did what and how one may contact them.
• If you propose to edit or delete content that is controversial, for which sources are provided, or which has been recently edited by others, please post your proposals here and allow others to respond. In reality, most of the article has been recently edited. Things that are not clearly and verifiably factual (i.e., facts and figures) should probably be discussed at this point.
• In particular, accounts of currently unfolding events are generally not suitable here, as they are not really considered encyclopedic. Particularly where these are potentially controversial, they should probably be discussed first.
• In general, this page needs a lot of work. It especially needs more references. If you can cite reliable sources for any content you add or change, it will improve the article immensely.

The comment in the history about "unauthorized" changes runs counter to the Wikipedia philosophy. No one owns any page and all are free to edit. Wikipedia does work by consensus, however. Using this space to discuss proposed changes is the best way to achieve that.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the repeat attempts at censoring this Wikipedia article, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the IP address 192.41.245.38 tracks back to: "AS29825 IIT-NETWORK-AS Illinois Institute of Technology 10 West 31st Street Chicago, IL 60616 US." Note that that's the registered main address, it doesn't mean the censoring isn't coming from a building closer to 35th and State.

Cheers, Danopticon (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As former Shimer tech guy, I can confirm that 192.41.245.38 is lists.shimer.edu and is none other than the internet-side IP address for all internet-connected systems within Shimer College. Someone in the building is doing the edits. --Zachary Hamm 22:08, 13 April 2010

Citations needed

• The only online version of the ethics statement I can find is this one, which doesn't mention fraternities or sororities. I suspect there may be a more recent version.
• The very specific claim about doctoral productivity in 2007 must come from somewhere.
• Can someone please locate the actual Harvard Educational Review article "cited" by Time? -- Visviva (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Stem, George G. "Characteristics of the Intellectual Climate in College Environments," Harvard Educational Review, XXXIII (1963), 5-41. Harvard University Graduate School of Education. See also "The Little College that Wouldn't Die," Newsweek, 100, part 1 (1982), p. 10. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking for copies of both of those. -- Visviva (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the Harvard article in these Chicago libraries on Worldcat. You can enter whatever location you need.Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but most of those don't go back to 1963, just as the online archives don't. The microform holdings are probably worth checking out, though. -- Visviva (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Lindsay and Resolution

Why isn't there a section on this? The blogs have a wealth of information that can be cited as "according to alumni bloggers" or "according to student in blog x" as well as plenty of links to journalism on the topic. The battle that just occured/is occuring at Shimer is hugely significant; the story should be fairly summarized on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.171.158 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe these events are discussed now at History of Shimer College --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Campus

General information about the IIT campus doesn't seem terribly pertinent to this article. Can we simply summarize it in a paragraph or two, and fill up the rest of the section with whatever information can be substantiated about the actual space occupied by the school? (Which, granted, scarcely qualifies as a "campus" any more.) -- Visviva (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The IIT campus is the Shimer campus now, and the article would be incomplete without the discussion of the facilities and surrounding area one expects of college articles. Also, the campus section of the IIT article is very thin. While this treatment is not enough for that article (which would have to describe more of the buildings), it seems like it would be of interest to a general reader researching the school. I think its absence would be glaring. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's mostly the last two paragraphs that bother me. Without some specific tie-in to Shimer, the description of these two buildings just feels tacked on. -- Visviva (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I assumed that they were facilities the students use. Guess it could be more explicit. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See also and External links

I propose to delete the See also section per WP:ALSO since the items there will definitely be linked in the article body. Also propose to delete all but the official website and alumni website in the External links per WP:EL. Any objections? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not from me... I would be inclined to delete the alum website as well, since it doesn't have obvious encyclopedic relevance and is readily accessible from shimer.edu. A link to the DMOZ category would be nice, except that it is sadly out of date. Alas, poor ODP, I knew you well... -- Visviva (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I do think a strong case could be made for a couple of the community blogs under WP:ELMAYBE #4. However, given my own current involvement, it's not something I'm inclined to get into. -- Visviva (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Could they be candidates for the History article as well? There is a much better case that they add to the chronicle of events than a summary of the school itself. I'll wait to see if others have strong views on those. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Governance

In anticipation of potential questions, I have rewritten the Governance section, incidentally omitting the discussion of recent controversy concerning self-governance. My rationale is simply that it seems like it belongs in the History of Shimer College article where there is a context of it. In the end, there were no changes effected that would alter how the governance should be summarized here. Open to discussion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We do need (better) coverage of the 2008 bylaws change and subsequent controversy somewhere. Agree that History is a good place for it, although the controversy is also ongoing... Not sure where to start with it, really; the February 2010 Promulgates may be the closest thing to a reliable source online. (And are the bylaws themselves an RS, given that only leaked versions seem to be available, despite their nominally "public" status?) -- Visviva (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't the bylaws published anywhere? Maybe that's just not something schools do. But I don't think they get past WP:V unless they are. Ditto all the assembly memoranda. Hmmm. Something to think about. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible spinoff of Academics

I've been working on an expansion/spinoff of the Academics section at User:Visviva/Academics of Shimer College. It seems to me that there is enough to say on the topic to merit a full article, especially when combined with the content that has just been added on rankings and reviews, and blended with what can be gleaned from the (mostly somewhat dated) academic studies of Shimer. On the other hand, the only precedents I can find for this sort of thing are articles like University of California, Riverside academics, which are, needless to say, rather different in content. On the third hand, there aren't many small schools that would have as much to say about their academics as Shimer does, and none of their articles (e.g. St. John's's) seem to have been worked on extensively.

I see that the FA criteria are somewhat looser than in years past, and no longer actively proscribe subsections. So perhaps there is less reason for a spinoff than I had imagined... Not sure exactly where to go with this. I guess the question is, what is the optimal level of granularity for this article. -- Visviva (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also started working on an expanded version of the Academics section, but have only gotten started. I'm still on the first two paragraphs. I will be sure to compare notes before I replace anything, and I may leave it be for now if I know you have a version in progress. In general, I think it would be odd to break it out, especially as it is so central to what is unique about the school. The most common criticism of school articles at FAC is that they read like the school catalog. With that in mind, my tendency would be to keep it in the article but summarize, omitting any of the detail that would primarily be of interest to someone who should be reading the catalog instead. I've been playing with a table for the core curriculum that is not ready for prime time yet, but could help some.

In general, most FAC articles you see are 65-85k of text. (Over 100k and they automatically get the boot). This one is at 50k, so I think there is plenty of room -- and need -- for more detail. I can blow out the Student life section a bit. And I like what you've done in the sandbox with the special programs. I'd like to do some more on the background of the Hutchins Plan and the Shimer version thereof. I think that would get us somewhere close to the "comprehensive" standard. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

65-85, dang. Back in the day, anything over 32k got you hassled. (Though I think it has more to do with the proliferation of inline cites, which used to be only an occasional thing. FAs seem to still be about the same actual length.)

I will stand off on the academics for now, then. Once you've done what you're doing, I'll see if I can build sufficiently on that for a standalone article. In the meantime, I should probably be attending to History of Shimer College, which still has rather large and rectifiable lacunae... -- Visviva (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

The college filed chapter 11 in August of 1976 ("Tiny College Get Bill Extension", ref 20.) That they went into receivership before that is doubtful, since the Trustees were clearly in control -- voting three times in that period to reopen the school after voting to close it. In a receivership, the receiver would have called the shots. "Shimer a small place, but loved" (ref 19) supports the idea that while it was on the brink of receivership in 1973, but the "11th hour fund drive" averted that. Other good articles on that time include: "Students Not Surprised; Shimer to Reopen for 3d Time," Chicago Tribune, 1977-07-17 and "Shimer College down, but still not out," Chicago Tribune, 1977-06-05. I have not found anything that says definitively when they emerged from chapter 11, but the jist seems to be that the sale of the campus in 1979 satisfied all the creditors. I'll keep looking. I suppose one could just go look up the court filings. That might be fun.

The business about opening, closing, opening, closing and then the students taking over is just a great story. Maybe there is a way to highlight that part even more while still keeping with summary style....

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely need more data on this, but Severson's dissertation goes into considerable detail on the events of 1973-1975 (the dissertation is actually entirely about Shimer, despite the generic title ... some major changes to History of Shimer College are required once I finish digesting it). Severson (pp. 9-10) describes "financial control" being turned over to the Assignee in November 1973, and returned to the Board in August 1975. Also, while the available media accounts from 1973 don't go into much detail on the legal aspects, this AP story that turns up in various non-local newspapers indicates that Leonard Spira resigned as liquidator shortly before November 1, 1975. He presumably could not resign without having previously been appointed. :-) None of the local papers from the Carroll County area seem to have been digitized, but I'm guessing some of them describe the proceedings in more detail, since the local community was very engaged in this phase of the Save Shimer effort.

I'm thinking there was no Chapter 11 filing in 1973-1974 because this was a liquidation rather than a reorganization -- it was fully intended to be the end of Shimer. I have seen "voluntary bankruptcy" in some media accounts, but this may not have been intended as a legal term. -- Visviva (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. "Voluntary bankruptcy" and "liquidation" would suggest chapter 7, but could have been a receivership. A point of legal interest only. So the timeline would seem to be: chapter 7 in November 1973, emerge in October 1975, chapter 11 in August of 1976, emerge (presumably) in 1979. I'll have to look at the news reports again -- clearly the Board voted between 1973 and 1975 to keep the school open. How did it keep running? Why did it take that long to shut it down? And what to make of the news accounts that receivership/bankruptcy was "avoided"? Just keeps getting better.... --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Other sources for financial problems, by whatever name (nothing definitive on liquidation though):

• By their bootstraps
• Officials consider relocation of Shimer College campus
• Shimer College will close doors December 31
• Shimer College spirit triumphs over debt woes
• Shimer good news
• Shimer clings to life
• New plan implemented

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. It all becomes clear. The Moorhead dissertation explains that the 1973 "liquidation" was a "assignment for the benefit of the creditors", (also known as "ABC"), which is not unlike a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, only governed by state and not federal law. It is similar to a "receivership", but "assignment" is technically more correct. "Bankruptcy" is also accurate, just an alternate form thereof. Spira, the Assignee, apparently dictated terms to the Board according to which the school would be allowed to remain open each term. This coincides with the "four votes in three years" to close the school. In August 1975, satisfied that the school was solvent, he terminated the assignment. And we all know how that turned out.

He also confirms that the 1976 bankrputcy was a Chapter 11 restructuring, which concluded in August 1980 when the proceeds from the sale of the campus were used to pay creditors 70 cents on the dollar. Lucky them.

This is way too much detail for the summary, though. I'll give some though on best to cover it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto

Steve Werlin (faculty) has said many times that the motto is not "To serve rather than be served," but is actually "Not to be served, but to serve." I think the latter sounds better, so if someone can confirm the translation of the latin, I think we should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.186.61 (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Those mean the same thing, don't they? I think it is less a question of which translation is correct than which is canonical. The "rather than" syntax is certainly canonical within Shimer, but then again, the phrase is not unique to us. Some data:

• This is also the motto of Wellesley College, where it is conventionally translated "Not to be ministered unto, but to minister." [Your joke here]
• The Wellesley College translation is from the King James Version of Matthew 20:28. Matthew 20:28 is the original source of the phrase (I think): sicut Filius hominis non venit ministrari sed ministrare et dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis -- KJV: "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."
• The New Revised Standard Version follows Werlin's translation: "just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."
• The Cotton Patch Version does likewise: "Your example is the son of man himself, who didn’t come to be served, but to serve and to give his life for the life of the masses." [1]
• Good News version: "like the Son of Man, who did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life to redeem many people." "
• New International Version: "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Based on all of the above, I think we can consider Werlin's translation canonical, even if it lacks currency within Shimer. There has, however, always been some question of the extent to which WP:NOR applies to translations; within the Shimer context, the "rather than" syntax is the only one that can readily be cited, e.g. [2]. -- Visviva (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, off-topic, but it would be really awesome if Shimer had a Greek motto instead of a Latin one: οὐ διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι. Ah well... -- Visviva (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the poetry of Werlin's version, but cannot find it published that way anywhere. I find "to serve rather than be served" as far back as 1998, and then nothing. (Which is odd in and of itself). On the other hand, List of mottos has "not to be served...." Sadly uncited, however. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is the question: per the above, "not to be served, but to serve" is well-attested as the standard modern translation for the Latin phrase ... but not specifically as a translation of the phrase qua Shimer motto. WP:NOR#Translations offers no guidance for this situation one way or the other, AFAICT. -- Visviva (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon reflection and lack of further comment, I find Visviva's analysis persuasive. I shall be WP:BOLD and make the change. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shimer College/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Well-written

• History section
  • In the third sentence of the fourth paragraph, put "of" between "end" and "1973".

Y Done.

• • For the box comment in this section, put in quotations.

See response below.

• • In the fifth paragraph's fifth sentence, change "in the black" to "was making a profit." In the next sentence of the same paragraph, change $ to US$ and pipe in.

Y Done.

• Academics section
  • For the block quote listing by Adler, use {{cquote}} instead to show quotation marks. Also put quotation marks in the box quote.

I used quote box instead based on this discussion at FAC. Given the strong aversion to cquote there, I would prefer to leave the box quotes as they recommend. That examples both there and here also omit the quotes inside the box, so I feel like I should imitate that practice.

• Academics section, Curriculum subsection, Core Curriculum sub-subsection.
  • In the second paragraph, is political philosophy the same as political science? Elaborate if possible. Also on linguistics, it that the same as foreign languages and if so, what languages are taught?

Good questions. Political philosophy is not the same. It is basically political theory, which is often taught as part of political science. Linguistics is the theoretical study of language, not languages themselves. I do talk about language study under electives, but there are no standing language offerings. It seems that what is taught varies quite a bit. Since the mentions here are part of a quotation, I am struggling to figure out how to clarify them without mangling things. I linked the terms in question. Do you think that makes it clearer?

• Academics section, Admission subsection.
  • Put WM after Washington Monthly and USNWR after U.S. News & World Report.

Y Done.

• Governance section.
  • Who said the quote that was listed at the start of the second paragraph? No mention was made of this.

Y Done.

Factually accurate and well-written.

• WP:AGF assumed on references that are not online.

Thanks .

• Ref #22, Specify year and page of that reference.

Y Done.

• Several references listed did not have valid access. These were 24, 88, 96, 97, and 98.

They links are valid. At least they work for me. A subscription is required, however. Reading here, that should not be a problem. I have made note of it in all the citations where subscriptions or fees are required. In this case, they are archived on ProQuest, which is available through most public libraries and universities for free.

• Ref #31 was done on April 20, 2010 and not March 20, 2010.

Y Done.

• Internal Server Error was reached when accessing Reference #102.

Y Done.

Broad.

• Covers all aspects of the college. No issues.

Neutral.

• No issues.

Stable.

• No issues. Last edit prior to review was on June 11, 2010.

Illustrated.

• All images are valid. No issues.
• Captioning for all images must include years when they were taken, if possible.

Y Done.

• For Adler's caption in the Academics section, change "holds forth" to "speaking".

Y Done.

Overall

• Hold. Despite the complexity of the article. It is a good one. Needs a little work to get it to GA.

Reviewer: Chris (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review and helpful comments. I believe I have a addresses all of the issues, but please let me know if you have further comments. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Year of exclusion of male students

There does seem to be some conflict among the sources as to whether the correct year is 1866 or 1864.

For 1864:

• The History of Carroll County, 1878:

  Up to 1864, the seminary had been open to both sexes, but in that year it was closed against young men and boys, and devoted exclusively to the education of girls and young women.

For ~1866:

• Rose Glass, "Shimer_College_History_(1853-1950)", in Centennial Anniversary Record, 1953:

  By 1866 crowded conditions caused the elimination of young men students.

• Jeriah Bonham, "Frances Shimer", in Fifty Years' Recollections, 1883:

  The Mt. Carroll Seminary for the first fourteen years received both sexes, having as many young men in attendance as young women.

• Winona Branch Sawyer, "Mrs. Shimer's Life and Work", in Frances A. Wood Shimer, 1901:

  In 1866 the crowded condition necessitated the exclusion of young men, and the school afterward continued a "seminary for young ladies."

• Lawrence Boyd Evans, Samuel W. McCall, Governor of Massachusetts, 1916:

  Mr. McCall's education was begun in the public schools of Illinois, but in 1864 he entered the Mt. Carroll Seminary, a boarding-school for both boys and girls, which, however, about a year and a half later was converted into a school for girls, and its male attendants were compelled to seek educational advantages elsewhere.

In "'My whole ambition has ever been to do something smart'" (2003), historian Doris Malkmus attributes authorship of the 1878 passage to Frances Shimer, although her reasons for doing so are not entirely transparent; however, if true, this would make the 1878 history the closest to the original events in both time and space. So we have one source which ought to be highly authoritative, opposed -- or seemingly opposed -- by at least three sources which ought to be independent. The discrepancy itself does not seem to have been addressed directly anywhere.

(Numerous recent secondary sources, including Harold Henderson's influential "Big Ideas" (1988), use the 1866 date, but this seems to be based on Glass's authority -- and as seen above, the actual passage in her history is somewhat ambiguous.)

Not sure of the optimal way of handling this, though for the time being it may be reasonable to follow the most authoritative source and stick with 1864. -- Visviva (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I followed the 1878 source because it was the most contemporary and specific. That there is ambiguity at all is interesting, I think. Why? Perhaps no new boys were admitted after 1864, and no boys at all attended after 1866? Pure speculation of course. In this matter, I gladly defer to your judgment, Visviva. You are far closer to the historical sources than I. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

This might just a a Br Eng/US Eng thing, but ...

On the Main Page Shimer is described as an 'undergraduate college' and it goes on to say 'Shimer has the highest rate of doctoral productivity of any liberal arts college in the country.' This is confusing as surely if it is an undergraduate college, no-one there produces PhDs? Wouldn't it be clearer to say 'Shimer alumni have the highest rate of doctoral productivity of any liberal arts college in the country.' - I'm assuming they go on from Shimer to gain their PhDs elsewhere. Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me.86.159.192.87 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It was confusing. The sources cited use say things like "...the college third in the nation in percentage of students who continue their education with doctoral degrees." I have revised the lead and the body to stay closer to that construction (and hopefully avoid the confusion). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading that sentence on the main page blurb (now fixed) was what led me to read the article. And I'm very glad I did! It's well-written and an fascinating read. Are you an alumnus of the school, Nasty Housecat? NW (Talk) 18:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, NW. Yes, I am indeed an alumnus. Fondly (but I hope neutrally) so. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Unique name shortening

Now this was a brilliant edit. When speaking of this institution, people sometimes shorten it from "Shimer College" to just "Shimer"? I'm so glad this information was included in the article. Otherwise, I may have been totally confused when meeting someone who said something like, "I got my bachelor's degree from Shimer", I would probably have concluded that they found it on the ground while getting gas in Shimer, Pennsylvania, or perhaps that they had gotten it from a person named Shimer. I'm so glad that other colleges and universities do not engage in such a needlessly confusing practice. Can you imagine the uproar if anyone was to refer to The Ohio State University as just "The Ohio State", or if anyone called "Dartmouth College" just plain Dartmouth? I bet a lot of students would get so confused that they would not be able to find their way to their classes and would just end up dropping out. Thanks again to the thoughtful editor who made that point clear. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is common practice in school articles, as a quick glance at, for example Dartmouth College and Ohio State University would reveal. Recall that some schools are commonly shortened to non-obvious names ('Bama, Ole Miss), so it makes some sense to indicate what the common short name is. In any event, it detracts nothing from the article, so why rant about it? I have reverted the edit. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, your use of the examples "'Bama" and "Ole Miss" appear to indicate that you may not understand my point, though you yourself indicate that these are non-obvious. Look, a person could learn one day that there was a place called "Ole Miss" and a few days later learn that there was a place called "the University of Mississippi" and not necessarily recognize that they were one and the same (I know; it happened to me many years ago; upon learning that there was a university in Mississippi called "Ole Miss", I wondered--in no particular order--whether this referred to Mississippi State University, the University of Mississippi, or perhaps some private school that I had not heard of. It's just not obvious), and that's why such nicknames do need to be included in some places, so that the reader who arrives there--perhaps via a redirect-will realize immediately that, yes, she has arrived at the right article.

But when one is talking about colleges (and here, the opening sentence includes is a very small, private, undergraduate liberal arts college), and one mentions that the college is "Harvard University" or "Augustana College" or "the University of Texas", one does not then need to clarify that these are shortened to "Harvard", "Augustana", or "Texas", because this is presumed by the entire literate population of the English-speaking world. Insisting upon this would be the equivalent of requiring the following opening sentence in the article of the President of the United States,

Barack Hussein Obama II (often referred to simply as Obama) is the 44th and current President of the United States.

Now doesn't that look dumb? It is dumb, because all it's doing is enunciating a common practice in the language that does not need explaining.

The best argument you have is that other articles do the same thing. Well, sometimes there could be a reason. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but Ohio State grads have a penchant for referring to their school at "The Ohio State University", and maybe that justifies a clarifier there. But ultimately, if a stupid practice is happening at many other articles, does that mean you want to emulate the stupid practice as well?

You say it detracts nothing from the article, but clearly it detracted my attention. Step back from this and just think how ridiculous this looks. Simply put, it's bad writing. Doesn't your alma mater deserve better than bad, stupid writing? 98.82.34.127 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD, the point of which is to revert and discuss, not revert and just revert. I would prefer if you would discuss this point before further edits and I will do the same. Respectfully, this is a very minor point, the emphasis of your response is not proportionte to the issue, and this is not worth an edit war. It seems to me you are taking issue with a widespread practice with respect to articles about schools. What you call "emulation" I call "consensus" which we are supposed to to respect where we can. If you are adopting a universal point of view (i.e., that is, as you so politely put it, "stupid") you could bring it up at one or more project pages. If you take issues with this article, I think you must address the prior consensus. On the merits, it does add value to clarify that the schools nickname is something seemingly obvious (e.g., "Michigan") since so many nicknames are not obvious (e.g., "State" for Michigan State). To your query in the priot edit summary reagarding schools that are not nicknamed the way Shimer is, I offer Boston College (never "Boston") and Ohio University (never "Ohio") and there are others. Exceptions abound and it is not as safe to assume as you suggest. So it *is* helpful to clarify the point in passing. Stepping back as you suggest, I do not agree that it is ridiculous or distracting, nor do I believe the average reader would get seriously hung up about it. I do however, think your comments are condescending and insulting, which distracts from my ability to take them seriously. I would prefer to restore the edit. If you have further, hopefully helpful and collaborative, thoughts, I follow this page. Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it's your school, and clearly, it's your article, so I won't revert your inevitable return to the previous form. I admit that my arguments were hastily assembled, thus, were far from perfect. But I think that the Average Joe would wonder why my points needed any clarification at all. All the exceptions you point out merely prove the point I am making. Yes, there are exceptions to the standard expectation, and those warrant clarification. Maybe it's 50% of all schools. Maybe it's 60% Who cares? In this article, it's purposeless, adds nothing, and hence, constitutes crappy writing. Why is Boston College never shortened to "Boston"? Because Boston University is a similarly sized post-secondary school in the same town, so of course its necessary to clarify it. Now what exactly was it that people were going to be confusing with Shimer?

By the way, I've got several friends and acquaintances who are alumni of Ohio University, but even if you do not, a quick glance at the sports pages will reveal your information above about that school's nickname is in error. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying you don't have a point. I am saying that any argument which requires that all of the experienced editors who created and reviewed this article and others like it (including Dartmouth College) be stupid is not a very good one. There is a reason this device has been included and not objected to. It seems to me that where similar articles that use the "often shortened to" device (should you care to look), it generally proceeds the pronunciation key. That makes sense. In this case, the IPA and pronunciation key are for "Shimer", not "Shimer College", which is jarring and inconsistent. Even as a formality, it is helpful to say: Here is what the subject is usually called and here is how to pronounce it.

I claim no ownership of the article or I would not be striving for consensus with someone who is not apparently striving all that hard to be civil. Is your goal to improve the article? If so, please propose a solution. If your goal is to insult the writing, I would say you have already achieved it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting no further discussion or objection, I will restore the original edit. Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Was computerless for a spell there, keeping me from replying. But as promised, I won't revert you, even though I disagree. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)