Talk:Public Ivy

Old untitled material

I'm not sure Rutgers should necessarily be on this list before the likes of, say, Ann Arbor or Chapel Hill. I'd like to see a little discussion about what schools would qualify for this distinction. (I don't disagree with the other three listed.) --BDD 01:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this page is that it's almost completely arbitrary which schools are listed. I'm sure nearly every major state university has been described as a "public Ivy" at some point; how is the University of Vermont any more or less "Ivy" than the universities of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine? The Ivy League -- which does not, of course, include Stanford, Duke, MIT, Chicago, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Caltech, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Emory, Tufts, or any of the elite liberal arts colleges -- is an eight-school football conference, not a comprehensive group of the top schools in the United States. If Miami University is a "public Ivy," does that make Lehigh, Syracuse, and Pepperdine "private Ivies"?

Take the term for what it is worth and what it represents. Those other schools you name are top notch private universities. These public ivies are schools that provide a similar enriching academic experience and ambiance to the ivy league schools in the Northeast.

Disputed: Reversion from/deletion of University of Mississippi

I dispute the following, taken from the history page:

"00:20, 4 January 2007 ExplorerCDT (Talk | contribs) (reverting. OleMiss ain't relevant, and there's nothing in the reference to substantiate OleMiss making a "bid for inclusion" to a group that doesn't exist formally.)"

The above, frankly, is a pile of horseshit. I was the person who mentioned Ole Miss. I alluded to the school's current advertising slogan ("One of America's Great Public Universities") and added a footnote cite and link to the school's website. The use of the slogan, therefore, is not in dispute. The claim that "OleMiss[sic] ain't relevant" manifests ignorance of the meaning of the word "relevant." I won't re-edit the article yet, but I think this reversion raises (or rather re-raises) the question whether this article is about the substantive pretention to Ivy League-level prestige or whether it's just about the the use of the word "Ivy". I would argue that the subject, to be articlae-worthy in the first place, must be the general idea of prestige for public universities; I would further argue that a necessary part of this must be the aspirations of public schools themselves. It seems that other parts of the article comports my view: the word "Ivy" is the only word distinguishing Ole Miss's slogan from Murray State's and SUNY-Geneseo's. ExplorerCDT in his infinite wisdom did not edit these out. The Ole Miss slogan, like the Murray and Geneseo slogans, expresses an aspiration towards Public Ivy-hood as a concept - something which, as the reverter himself states above, doesn't exist formally. (It bears noting here Ole Miss's colors are called "Harvard Red" and "Yale Blue," further proof of the school's longstanding aspiration or pretension to Ivy League status.) So, if in fact this Wiki is nothing more than a list of schools which have been referenced with the specific term "Ivy," I would submit that the entire article should be reduced to a simple list or else deleted as trivial. If on the other hand this wiki is about the pretense of public-academic prestige rather than name-dropping, must the article suffer the editing of fools like ExplorerCDT?

-Maalox

A Pox on Wikipedia

Seriously, people, every damn university has this label attached to it. Every time I look up a friend's university, I am greeted with the declaration that their university is a 'Public Ivy', as if the term 'Ivy League' had some mystical quality to it, that you wish to impart on every university of any quality. Maybe instead universities should stand on their own merits. Maybe we should instead emphasize that the Ivy League is an athletic league comprising universities solely in the Northeastern United States. I don't think any of us would have much difficulty naming Berkeley a better university than Cornell. It is as if Wikipedia is infected by a pox, driven by Korean parents, trying to play up the quality of their children's universities by attaching the label of 'Ivy League' to it by citing an obscure book made important by the discursive pressure of an insecure public. Maybe we should delete these damn references from everything.

Signed, a graduate of Oxford University, an 'honorary Ivy', or simply a damn good university on its own merits.

Zweifel (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't blame the messenger for the message. There obviously is a lot of controversy about ambiguous status symbols in the US, which lacks some of the officially-recognized credentials of the UK (e.g. OBE, KBE, FRS, KG, RA, CH, FBA, etc. etc.). Accept the fact that the old established order is giving way to a situation of flux, including new heterarchies of credentials and honors from China, India, Russia, Brazil, and Internet citizens at large. Wikipedia doesn't decide or arbitrate any of this, and is only trying to document this ever-changing world. If you don't like watching sausage being made, get out of the kitchen (and you don't have to order it from the menu). Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Public Ivy from college and university article leads?

Setting aside the bizarre opinionated (and slightly racist) rant above, I think it's time to remove the mention of "public ivy" from the lead of all college and university articles. It is not a defining or essential characteristic of any institution and it's POV for Wikipedia editors to force this factoid into such a prominent place in articles when there is no corroboration that this fact is indeed significant. Such evidence of significance, of course, would have to come from sources that aren't directly controlled by the subjects of these articles or those associated directly with the books in which this term was first published. Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's just a loose term, with no public agreement on which universities are included, then we shouldn't include it in the leads of articles. A short mention in the body of the article may be appropriate if there's a good source, preferably more than one. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Judith, there are only two sources of which I'm aware: the two books on point that were responsible for popularizing the term. All other sources are derivative. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There are incontrovertible sources in the two books published on this subject so my objection is not that the term doesn't exist or is poorly defined in any way. My objection is that it's not a term that's widely used by anyone not already in the business of promoting specific colleges or universities that are included in those books. So my argument boils down to this: In the absence of significant, independent sources that establish the importance and noteworthiness of this designation, it's undue weight and perhaps even a violation of our neutral point of view policy to give this specific fact prominent weight in an article. It may belong in the body of the article but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Kevbo, I will try to avoid a counter-rant. To put it concisely, mention of "Public Ivy" recognition is a subjective reputational counter-balance to the purportedly "objective" numerical rankings. At worst, the "Public Ivy" status is an over-emphasis of harmless puffery; when over-played, it looks pretentious in a silly way for the institution. At best, it deserves a one-sentence mention in the lead, together with real credentials such as membership in the American Association of Universities, USNWR rankings, etc. What I have observed are (a) those editors who want to delete it because their alma mater was not recognized, and (b) those whose alma mater was recognized and wants to over-emphasize it. On balance, maybe it deserves to be buried in the main body text, but I'm not sure how you mandate that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am seeing if we can find a common consensus to avoid both of those scenarios and all others and bring this into line with our appropriate policies. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In light of the fact that only a few editors have weighed in, I am opening a request for comments to seek wider input. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for excluding this designation from the articles of the colleges and universities named in this book? ElKevbo (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I vote for this designation to be excluded from these articles since this designation is meaningless. For example, Georgia Tech is included in the "Public Ivy" template as one of the "worthy runners-up," but GT aspires to be the "MIT of the South," not the "Princeton of the South." The Ivy League schools provide more prestigious college degrees but they actually provide inferior engineering education compared to these two schools. Also, based on the Ivy League article, the term Ivy League has connotations of social elitism, which is not a main focus or aspiration of most public universities. - Mistercontributer (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources deem a school as "Public Ivy" then it should be included in the body of the page. I do not agree with its inclusion in the lead section as it lacks notability to be placed there. The argument of whether or not a school wants to be called "Public Ivy" is irrelevant. The term "Public Ivy" can be seen through both lenses with both a positive and negative connotation, depending on the reader. I support its inclusion, obviously backed with reliable sources, in the body of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I was using GT as an example to demonstrate the absurdity of the designation of "worthy runner up" to "Public Ivy" colleges which have been subjectively determined to be public equivalents of Ivy League schools which have been objectively ranked lower than the college determined to be a "worthy runner up." In other words, these designations are meaningless and should not be included in these articles. -Mistercontributer (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this information is suitable for the body of articles. I narrowly crafted this RfC to focus on whether the information should be included in the lead of articles. ElKevbo (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - These are classifications by reputable college authors in reference to the quality of public institutions. I view this suggestion as an attempt to further provide separation from 'Ivy League' and those not 'in the Ivy League'. Will there also be RFC removing references from private institutions? or For example, references to the Black Ivy League? As per the point of an encyclopedia, why wouldn't references to a popular university classification schema be included. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the books are reliable sources for this information but what evidence exists that this is sufficiently important for the lead of articles? As per the point of this encyclopedia, we do not include every piece of information that is available and we only include information in proportion to its weight in reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, commonsense, to make a rule only applicable to certain types of 'Ivy' universities is also POV. Will you treat each of the other 'Ivy' Classifications equally? Or are you interested in only applying this to a pointed, specific category? You state these are reliable sources. To what extent do you presume to know the weight of the reference for the entire category? Is it not possible that certain universities have closely identified with the culture or classification of Public Ivy in reference to the quality of/approach to education (example: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). A better method of achieving your aims would be to edit those lines which are verifiable puffery. Otherwise I would apply good faith by applying a two pronged test the reference: 1. is concise and 2. NPOV. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please answer the question: What evidence exists that this is sufficiently important for the lead of articles? ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Social, cultural, and educational importance related to the identity of the university. Asking an open ended, abstract question will receive the same type of answer. Why is the locus of Ivy League important to the Ivy Leauge? What evidence exists to suggest that the Black Ivies are sufficiently important to be in the lead for certain HBCU institutions? These are rhetorical questions, because they are a piece of the sociocultural identity. There is an even specialty ranking put on by http://www.uscollegeranking.org/national-university/2013-2014-top-public-ivy-college-university-rankings.html#axzz3Pz1Sir8l Now that I have answered your prime question, answer mine. I have offered a suggestion for an alternative approach. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.uscollegeranking.org/ doesn't appear to be a very good source. I don't see much evidence there that the (unnamed) editor(s) have any relevant qualifications or experience or that the website meets any of our criteria for reliability.

I don't think you've presented a reasonable answer to my question - because if there was sufficient evidence then I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place - but in the spirit of good faith I'll answer yours. I have no idea what you're asking when you ask about the "locus of Ivy League." If you're returning to your boorish accusation above that I'm engaged in some sort of editing conspiracy against all non-Ivy League institutions then then I'll simply ignore further questions along those lines. Your second question seems to ask if (I believe that) we should remove Black Ivy League from the lead of those institutions. If so then I haven't looked into it much so I'm not really prepared to offer an opinion. But I imagine that my answer would be "yes" since it seems unlikely that the term is any more notable than "Public Ivy."

I don't know what "alternative approach" you've offered but the burden of proof is almost always on the editor(s) who believe that material should be added or maintained in an article. So again I ask: What (credible) evidence do you have that this term is important enough to include in the lead of these articles? What reliable sources can you cite that establishes this term as being critical to readers' understanding of these institutions? ElKevbo (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You've asked a question which requires original research. I'm going to have to go find an article that's thesis is basically gee being an 'public ivy is important'. That's not only silly it's not common sense. Just because you ask a question doesn't mean "the answer" doesn't already exist. My point in reference to locus was the culture of the colleges. Being that you cite that you have worked on the NSSE, I think you are deflecting the point.

I suggest that Wikipedia should treat these categories equally. If you remove Public Ivy, then do so also with Ivy League, and Black Ivy from the introductory paragraphs. No favoritism under NPOV. This was the point of my questions. Not "some sort of editing conspiracy against all non-Ivy League institutions". For your information Black Ivy has a specific connotation of meaning the highest, most well regarded of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. It is of significant importance as a part of history (E.G. the internal struggle and advancement of higher education in the African American community in the United States). You can read this for yourself on the Black Ivy page or you can just be dismissive.

You can choose to ignore my suggestion also, that's fine iron over it. Let me ask does the RFC require, said 'proof' to your question? No. It is based on consensus not on Verifiability alone. Each university that cites one of these classifications has their own source within the article. I have no reason to look through each of the articles. Further just common sense here, if I search Google Public Ivy, there are over 165,000,000 results. It's in popular culture. It's also frequently mentioned in college admissions websites. For example:

• http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/public_ivy_input.php
• https://ink.niche.com/public-ivies-bigger-better/
• http://www.collegeatlas.org/public-ivy-league.html Randomeditor1000 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Bot sent me. Yes, remove the designation Public Ivy. But do not remove Ivy League from the schools that actually are Ivy League schools. The use of "Public Ivy" is something one writer made up to sell his books to anxious parents of high school students applying to colleges. The actual Ivy League was created by the colleges in that league for sports purposes. So no, you can't remove that designation from the articles about the real Ivy colleges. But you can remove Public Ivy from the public schools since it's a totally made up BS term by a guy pushing his books. Public schools have their own identifiers such as Big 10, Pac 10, etc. These are sports identifiers agreed to by the colleges and universities involved. As for the quality of the education, the quality of a department like Biology or engineering is dependent upon the size of that department which is dependent on it's funding. The funding all depends on the number of students that the department can attract. Which means, if a department can't attract students, it's probably because it's got mediocre profs. Every school has that problem. Every one. There's nothing elitist about the Ivy League. It's the opinions about the Ivy League that are elitist. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, the "elitist" comment above was based on information included within the Ivy League article. If that information is not accurate then that section of the article needs to be revised. I am not surprised the term "Public Ivy" is included within college admissions websites. I am also not surprised there are so many Google search results for "Public Ivy" since "these uses of 'Ivy' are intended to promote the other schools by comparing them to the Ivy League," again per the Ivy League article. Neither of these points justify including this terminology in the lead section of these articles, which does seem problematic. -Mistercontributer (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The users above are confusing college sports teams with colleges. The Ivy League existed before the sports league did. So, no, there is no correlation between the two. The connotation of being a private institution in the Ivy League was made up purely for promotional purposes as well. So, that arguement has no bearing in this discussion either. The fact that both of the posters above then go on to compare opinions versus facts is a part of the problem with regard to the actual [college]s. Additionally, I in reading through this I think (talk) was refering to the heading only. Not the entire article, is that correct? In sum, these classifications/titles are both promotional and for that matter should be treated equally. I oppose across the board changes or defacto rule making. Every article should be allowed to include context specific information that is based on notability and verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.160 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct: I am only asking about the inclusion of this term in the lead of articles. I am not proposing that the term be removed from the body of articles nor am I asking about any other term, including Ivy League. If other editors believe that other terms should be removed from the lead of articles then those discussions should be held separate from this one. ElKevbo (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the users who have commented so far seem to agree that colleges are using Public Ivy terminology for promotional purposes, which does present problems. Should Wikipedia take part in that? This seems to be the underlying question. The proposal "to remove the mention of Public Ivy from the lead of all college and university articles" would not be "de facto rule making" if the implementation of that proposal would resolve NPOV related issues. Mistercontributer (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The terms "public ivy" and "ivy league" have pages in the encyclopedia, because they have been deemed "notable" terms (not that that is a permanent designation by any means). The term "public ivy" arose from the specific books mentioned by others and were not made up by the editors of Wikipedia. Ad hominem arguments regarding the intent of the origination of the terms are not relevant to the fact that the terms exist are are notable enough for a page on wikipedia. An article about any college that has been designated as either term can make the claim they are such so long as the claim is verifiable by a third-party source, per wikipedia guidelines. I do not believe this is an issue of NPOV, because there is no contention around whether or not a college has or has not been designated as a public ivy. It either has, or it has not, and it is up to the editors of individual articles to ascertain the veracity of those claims and to ensure the claims are made in a manner that does not confuse the reader as to who or what body gave it that designation. The decision to include information in a lead (and, by extension, whether or not the term is critical to the reader's understanding of the article) is also up to the editors of the individual pages, and so long as the claims in the lead abide by WP guidelines, they may stand. Individual claims on specific university pages that are potentially puffery should be handled on a case-by-case basis. I oppose any blanket decision.Lhakthong (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)