Talk:Boston College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject United States / Massachusetts / Boston (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Atlantic Coast Conference articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Early history & founding[edit]

The author of the main section states, "[Boston College] was the first institution of higher education to be founded in the city of Boston..." I'm not sure that this is technically accurate. M.I.T. claims that it was incorporated in 1861--two years before B.C. I seem to recall that MIT began on the opposite banks of the Charles River, in Boston. It would seem that MIT is, in fact, the first institution of higher education in Boston.

What say, anyone?

--Ptemples 14:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This would appear to be a semantic distinction between "founded," "chartered," "established," "incorporated," etc. BC's "founding year" of 1863 would more accurately be described as the year in which its charter was approved by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since it had already been in operation since at least 1859. In that year, the original BC buildings in the South End were completed and the first class of scholastics was admitted. BC's earlier incarnation, established by Bishop Benedict Fenwick, SJ, in the basement of the cathedral, opened in 1827 but closed with the founding of Holy Cross College in Worcester in 1843. Meanwhile, the approval of MIT's charter in 1861 represents an early stage in establishing MIT. Only after the charter was approved, did William Barton Rogers begin to organize fund raising, plan for buildings and develop a curriculum. His efforts were hampered by the Civil War, and as a result the first classes were held in rented space at the Mercantile Building in downtown Boston in 1865. Construction on the first MIT building, later named for Rogers, was completed in Boston's Back Bay in 1866.
I've changed "founded" to "established." Technically, the infobox claiming BC was "established" in 1863 is not correct. But in light of the significance of this year, I decided not to change it there and instead added a section on BC's history with a discussion of the pre-charter era.
It now reads "Established 1827 Chartered 1863." I decided against adding reference to 1859 for three reasons: 1. I wasn't sure what verb to use. "Opened" is accurate, but misleading since BC closed and then reopened again in 1864--not to mention that it must have been "opened" in some form in 1827. "Founded" is problematic because of its ambiguity (and contradiction to the Latin "founding year" in the university shield). 2. Aesthetically, it crowded the info box and looked awkward. 3. I decided the most important years for this in terms of when BC was "established" are the earliest year and the charter year. Anyone interested in more detail will probably read the history section anyway.

Bishop Fenwick's decision to move his faculty 45 miles East of Boston must have been met with some resistance as it would seem highly impractical to start a school the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

  • So why not correct it, smarty-pants? I just did.

The discriminatory policies at Harvard were not limited to admission. Those who attended faced challenges once they got there. See Owen Wister's Philosophy 4, for an account of immigrants, Catholics and other minorities at Harvard in the 1800s. 13:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Ignatius Gasson, SJ, on the New Boston College (1907): "In the University Heights we have truly a magificent site--one of the finest in the country--and we are determined that the Society's flagship in America will be planned and designed on such a scale that it will rank with the leading universities of the land."

  • from A Short History of Boston College, The College: Chestnut Hill, Mass. (1938), p.25.

In this quote "University Heights" refers to Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, where the new campus was built. "The Society" refers to the Society of Jesus, the formal name of the Jesuits.

As noted above and in the body of the History section, the significance of 1863 is that it is the year in which the college was chartered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, since it had already been established once before in 1827 and had been hosting Jesuit scholastics in the same South End location since the 1850s. This period is covered in the first two chapters of David Dunigan's "A History of Boston College" (Milwaukee, Bruce Pub. Co. [1947]), though it is glossed over in Charles Donovan's "History of Boston College : from the beginnings to 1990" (Chestnut Hill, Mass. : University Press of Boston College, [1990]) and the school's web page. 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

From the "History" page on Boston College's Web site: "Boston College was founded by the Society of Jesus in 1863 and, with 3 teachers and 22 students, opened its doors on September 5, 1864." (

If the university does not find 1827 worthy enough to put onto the page devoted to the school's own history, then why would it be on Wikipedia? BC was not "established" until 1863. BC is pretty darn old, we don't need to be disingenuous to make it seem older. EaglesCVR 15:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The scholarship cited above would indicate that the college was "established" well before 1863. So long as it is not original research (and the bibliographic information suggests that it is not), this information is most appropriate for this article. The college's official web page and what it chooses to include or omit in its "authorized" history should not be a litmus test for what is included or omitted in this article. This is not being "disingenuous;" this is being accurate. __90.27.71.69 09:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


BC received 14 Fulbrights this year ... 8 from their German program. Here is the link:

Perhaps it is best to wait until all the major awards are out before updating.

I went ahead and added it, figuring it can always be updated. Based on last year's numbers, this would rank BC 14th in the country for Fulbrights produced (up from 16th last year).

Article size[edit]

I've added significantly to the sections on History, Landscape & Architecture, and Jesuit Identity, though I fear the article is becoming somewhat too long. Any thoughts?

Its very long, but its also very good. Nice job. Pics are great too. BC now has one of the best articles in Wikipedia, IMHO.

Size is not bad if the sections are well indexed. In fact size becomes a positive if such organization is maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First Heightswoman?[edit]

I've encountered conflicting information on the first woman to receive a BC degree: the image is identified as Mary C. Mellyn '25 in undergrad bulletins from the 1990s and as Margaret Ursala Magrath '26 in the @BC slideshow.


I am a recent graduate and have never heard of this term to describe an alumnus of BC. As matter of fact, if you go to the alumni association website, there's no mention of this term (from what I can see). What gives?

Its probably either a PC thing or an old-school word that people don't use anymore like Brunonian (for Brown alums)
Not that it matters a hill of beans here, but "Brunonian" is perfectly current, and still in active use, both for alumni and current students at Brown. /blahedo (t) 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Switched this section back to "Notable Heightsonians" since its genderneutral. Also added an explaination taken from the List of Boston College people page. 17:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's incorrect and I edited it out. I took a class on BC history -- no reference of "heightsonians"(This unsigned comment added by User:RH1 at 02:13, 8 January 2006)

"Old Heightsonians" is one of the cheers/drinking songs listed in Athletics at Boston College vol. 3, Nathaniel J. Hasenfus, Heffernan Press: Worcester, Mass. (1943), p. 27, and a piece with almost identical lyrics (but entitled "Alumni Song") appears in Songs of Boston College, Philomathea Club: Boston (1938), p. 8, suggesting that 1. the term exists, 2. it predates coeducation and 3. Prof. Burn's syllabus needs to be expanded. (This unsigned comment added by at 23:08, 22 January 2006)

Just because it was used in the early-to-mid 1900s doesn't mean it's still used and applicable to the alumni community.
Prof. Burns isn't the only person that teaches classes on BC history, but thanks for the suggestion.

There was a similar discussion on the talk page for List of Boston College people. Here's my contribution:

While there is indeed a BC a capella group called "The Heightsmen of Boston College," that group dates only to 1990 and is in fact named after what used to be a common term to describe BC students and alumni. A look through past editions of The Heights (BC student newspaper) will confirm this. I recall my uncle using the term "Heightsonians" in old BC cheers. An internet search will also reveal some contemporary usage of these terms:

About BC[edit]

A Head of State is the President, King or Prime Minister of one of the 192 nations in the world, or a coalition of nations such as, for instance, the European Commission or the Organization of American States. I looked at Wikipedia's list and found no Boston College alumni among them. If I am mistaken, it would be helpful if the people section would indicate who the leader(s) is.(Perhaps, the author misunderstood the term to mean an Ambassador or Minister from a country.) Also, the list of Heisman Trophy winners only includes one from Boston College, Doug Flutie in 1984. The Heisman comment would bring needless heartburn to a whole army of Notre Dame people (isn't it enough to beat them every year on the gridiron?-they are having enough troubles in South Bend already and there is no reason to get them needlessly agitated before next year's game).

Also, everyone knows about John Kerry, but I do not remember any of the BC Massachusetts congressmen or Tip O'Neil ever running for President. Perhaps the author could help jar our collective memory. (I think the article would actually read stronger with a statment that "a major party nominee" for President is an alumnus of B.C., which is an extraordinary accomplishment.) Oh well, in the wikipedia process, someone will eventually get it right. A strong unimpeachable true statement is always more powerful than exaggerations which begin to stray beyond truth. Boston College has much to take legitimate pride in and doesn't need unecessary hyperbole to prove its worth.

This section should provide a concise overview, with just relevant facts and summaries of main points that are covered in more detail further down or on other related pages. I don't think mention of the specific achievements of alums is appropriate here. I thought about usung bullet points but decided against it since its not really a list.

Recent History[edit]

The statement world's foremost Jesuit University is debatable.The statement "one of" is not and is unassailable.

This isn't mentioned as a subjective opinion. Its Leahy's unmbiguously stated goal and should therefore be included as such.

"large areas of suburban fauna are replaced with buildings". Campus animals? GerixAu (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo arrangement[edit]

Pics were starting to look all over the place, so I tried to work a standard: arranged as a bar down the right-hand side of each section (i.e. all listed in decending order at the top of each section), with smaller (landscape oriented) pics embedded in the paragraphs at left when needed (i.e. listed in the body of the text where appropriate). Zigger's points are well taken and I don't know how this looks in Firefox. Let me know.

There seems to be just too many pictures for many of the sections. There are a few where the pictures dominate the entire first part of the heading to the point where there is a line of three pictures or so before any text. Is there any way to keep the pictures anchored to the left and right sides of the page without doubling up on each other? PaulC/T+ 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur. The number of photos is too high and their placement is chaotic.--Xtreambar 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Football History/ND/Cocoanut Grove[edit]

The Cocoanut Grove fire seems pretty tangential to an overview of BC athletics, though it might be appropriate for a section on BC Lore ? Jdonovan 17:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr. JDonovan, sir. While I don't know who you are, and hesitate to be critical, as clearly you have contributed greatly to this article, I am concerned that you removed material that other alumni believe to be relevant. Other contributors' additions should not be deleted unless they are factually inaccurate, which those were not. Your argument that the contribution is tangental is opinion only.

One could argue that the whole history of the long-ago rivalry with HC is pretty tangental to BC's athletic history. ND is really the main football rival now (not just a "Catholic" rival, whatever that is). The rivalry was effectively history by 1970 when it became and iconoclastic annual rout held as a result of an arguably misguided allegiance to tradition. I doubt that anyone under 45 today ever considered Holy Cross a rivalry. They have been a 1-AA team for two decades. By 1980 BC was a nationally-ranked univerisity, and HC had become an elite but small liberal arts college. At no point during the 1980s was the BC-HC even part of the Student Ticket package. My recollection is that everyone scratched their heads wondering why BC wasted a game playing a school that had turned itself into a Jesuit version of Williams or Middlebury. When you asked anyone in the Administration, you were told "well, it's important to the the alumni". The discussion of ND should lead it and be longer than it. If you don't agree with me, consider that the BC-ND football series has even been discussed on Meet the Press, and the BC-ND basketball game is held during the networks "Rivalry Week".

I also think it is odd that there is no mention of Frank Leahy in the history.

Regarding Cocoanut Grove, if the section on the HC rivalry is going to consume a whole graf, then the loss the day of the Grove fire is probably the most important historical component of BC's history with Holy Cross. The BC football club's loss mitigated the number of deaths and probaby saved the lives of the team. In this instance an athletic event (the loss) became a part of much larger history. The Cocoanut Grove tragedy remains one of the worst fires in American history and even contributed to our current laws on building egress. It might well have been worse had BC won and the victory party been held.


I disagree that ND should lead and be longer than the HC section. B.C. has played Notre Dame a total of 16 times. They've LOST more games than that to Holy Cross. All totalled, B.C. has played Holy Cross 82 times, wildly exceeding the next highest total (Syracuse and Villanova, each 45). The two teams played almost every year from 1913 to 1986 (missing only two years), and in that time, the game was almost always (70 out of 71 times) the final game of the regular season (when rivalry games typically occur). The game was also a REGIONAL rivalry, born from two local, regional Catholic schools. The fact that its importance was diminished and the game itself altogether cancelled when Holy Cross committed to the Patriot League doesn't diminish its place in Boston College's football history.

The Notre Dame rivalry was much more of a manufactured rivalry, and wouldn't have become nearly what it did if not for Notre Dame's extraordinary arrogance, and the fact that B.C. managed to win more games than they "should" have. Notre Dame was always the "hot ticket", but games against conference opponents Miami and Syracuse were almost always more important. I don't buy the argument that Notre Dame is more important because it was featured on Meet The Press or ESPN's Rivalry Week. I don't recall Harvard-Yale featured on either of those, but what I'm hearing is that if Harvard suddenly rose to prominence in football and started playing Stanford on national TV, this would suddenly become more important than the storied Yale rivalry.

I realize this isn't the crux of the original argument... I just worry that the entire rivalry will be diminished because of the direction the two football programs went in. Honestly, the whole discussion probably belongs in Boston College Eagles.

= = = END: ADDED BY ED LOVER = = =


What is the point of linking terms like "The Rivalry" or "Holy War" when they don't link to other articles. The Rivalry link went nowhere, and Holy War linked to an article on the Crusades and Jihad.


As an overview of BC athletics, I think this section should avoid box scores and detailed accounts of specific games. The win over UNC in the Continental Tire Bowl, for example, is sufficiently mentioned in the list of bowl games and in my opinion should be deleted from the paragraph. I'm also not convinced of including stats that fluctuate over time (like the "winning record of over 70% in the 21st Century"). Technically these would have to be verified after each win/loss. --Jdonovan 18:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think moving the bulk of info about BC athletics to a new article was a bad idea. It would be nice to ask for opinions before doing something like that.

This article is way over-length even with the athletics section taken out. There are probably other sections that should be moved to their own articles as well. The athletics section was becoming way too long to be included, and certainly is sufficient in content as to warrant a separate page. - Pal 15:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Oldest university in Boston[edit]'s edit claiming that the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy is the oldest institution of higher education in Boston is supported by the college's own claims. MCP’s website states that the college was "founded" in 1823 ( However this claim is flawed: Dec 8, 1823 represents the date on which the Boston apothecaries first met to organize their guild. Their reason for meeting was not to specifically to found the college. The college officers were only organized in 1830, and their charter granted in 1852. More importantly, MCP's first lectures were only held in 1867 and its first actual class graduated in 1869. Given that Boston College was holding classes as early as 1827 (albeit without a charter from the Commonwealth), this would still make BC the first institution of higher education established in the city of Boston. 23:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

From ( "MCPHS is the largest college of pharmacy in the United States. MCPHS was founded in 1823- the second oldest college of pharmacy in the United States and the oldest institution of higher education in the City of Boston-, and is located in the heart of the Longwood Academic and Medical area of Boston." Another source from ( : "Founded in 1823, MCPHS is the second oldest pharmacy school in the U.S. and the oldest college in the city of Boston. In response to change, MCPHS expanded its mission over time to include a number of science and healthcare programs. With its distinguished history and international reputation" It seem that MCPHS is, technically, the first institution of higher education in Boston. What reasons could MCPHS have to lie on its official site?

It is not lying per se, but PR-copy often involves tweaking the facts. Without the meeting of the Boston apothecaries in 1823, it is likely MCPHS would never have come into existence. By the same token, Boston College could point to the meeting of the first Jesuits in 1534 as the root of its existence. However, neither can be considered a founding date. For a detailed account of the history of MCPHS, see Ernest C. Marshall's Early History of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy. 17:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging with Jesuit Ivy[edit]

As it seems a bit of overkill to have an article about a single nickname for BC, itself only in limited use, I think the contents of Jesuit Ivy can be integrated here. - choster 15:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems to make more sense to expand the Jesuit Ivy article rather than merge it with an already lengthy BC article. In my opinion the BC article could itself be subdivived into other articles. 21:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Tried to find sources for the US News and other rankings. Did not find anything about "Top 500 research universities."
Quite a few actually seemed irrelevant as well. I'm not sure how much of them are useless trivia and how much are notable facts about BC --Banime (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization & Length[edit]

I did a little reorganizing of the article to make it flow a little better. The "media" list is now at the bottom, and I made the "libraries" section a sub-section of the "campus" section.

This article is still longer than wiki-standards, so we should probably look into splitting off more sections into separate articles like I did with Athletics. - Pal 23:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


Assuming #40 refers to the NACUBO rankings, this was published in January 2005 and based on information submitted in September 2004 ( $ 1.15 billion for BC). BC's endowment size has subsequently been reported in the Associated Press and the Boston Globe as exceeding $1.4 billion, though how this growth compares relative to other universities is not known. Jonhouse 15:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The latest BC endowment figures from Bloomberg say the school has about $1.3 billion. I've updated the stats in the article, so would somebody please take care of the school numbers at the top right of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readeraml86 (talkcontribs) 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit tradition[edit]

here is how the Jesuit tradition section of this article begins:

"BC's Jesuit identity is rooted in the distinct Ignatian vision of its founder, Ignatius of Loyola, who believed in "finding God in all things." "

Does anyone else think this makes it sound like Ignatius of Loyola (who died in 1556) founded Boston College? Unless someone is very attached to this wording, I will change it.--Alhutch 22:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the text in the article, not that anyone seems to care or anything :-) Alhutch 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I care :) -- 22:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I reworded it. It seemed like there were a few too many redundant adjectives. Yes I know that Ignatian refers to Ignatius and Jesuit refers to the Society as awhole, but the two are interchangeable here, I think. -- 22:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Good job on the rewording. thanks for caring :-) Alhutch 00:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the edits made by, as they were flagrantly militant and provided no backup by means of citation.
Of course you can see these at the page for that edit.
I think it's worth mentioning that the proper wording of Ignatius' quote supporting the authority of the "hierarchical Church" is misquoted in this revision. The proper phrasing is:

To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed. - St. Ignatius Loyola: Spiritual Exercises

This, I believe, would be more suitable for the article about Ignatius of Loyola than the one about Boston College. --Alekjds 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jesuit identity and diversity[edit]

Is the Jesuit identity of BC having negative effects on the amount of diversity at the school. Some students there tend to think so...

I don't see the correlation between diversity and Jesuit identity. Stats don't back it up either, when comparing BC's diversity with that of other Boston-area schools that are not Jesuit:

African American 7.1% 8.0% 2.4% n/a 7.0%
Hispanic 8.6% 8.0% 4.8% n/a 8.0%
Asian 10.2% 17.0% 12.3% n/a 13.0%
Native American < 1% 1% 0.3% n/a < 1%
Total minority 27.1% 34.0% 19.8% 16.0% 29.0%
International 10.0% 9.0% 7.0% 11.0% 6.0%



I deleted the following BS, by user "(analysts suggest that the drop was due to the transfer of Presidential Scholar student ERB to neighboring Harvard University)". As an aside, I would add that anyone who chooses to transfer from undergraduate-focused BC with a full scholarship to graduate-focused Harvard without one is a certified fool. - 21:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I advise you to get an account on wikipedia. it makes people less suspicious of you :-) Alhutch 21:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Shove it :-) 21:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No thanks :-) Alhutch 23:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
C'mon now, kids. Play nice :) -- 22:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged copyright violation from[edit]

This text is not a copyright violation since regularly mirrors text from Wikipedia, which is considered fair use. The text in question appeared on Wikipedia before it was mirrored at -- 16:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll grant you the wording, but look: (a) it's wrong -- Kennedy was a senator when he gave the speech in 1956, not President -- and (b) it's unsourced. I contributed a link to the "Jesuit Ivy" commencement address that he gave in 1956. If you have documentation that dates the speech between 1960 and 1963, or that Kennedy was elected president in 1952 :-) then I'll cede that point too. But please don't continue to revert factual changes or remove verified information! Tim Pierce 20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ended a Train Wreck[edit]

The fields with Boston College and ACC links ran into each other, and I just fixed it. --DodgerOfZion 20:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The ACC links box is now obscured by the categories links box. -- 00:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Does someone want to bring over the infobox and set into motion the deletion of the old template now that the style has been changed to be more Wikipedia friendly? Shipster 05:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I revised the first paragraph to more accurately reflect BC's position in the context of Catholic higher education. The opening sentence claiming that BC is a "Roman Catholic research university" is potentially misleading, since the Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over the university. Boston College maintains its Jesuit identity in spite of the fact that it severed its formal ties with the Jesuit Order in the late 1960s/early 1970s when it was independently incorporated under a lay board of trustees. Unlike the Catholic University of America, which is under the direct auspices of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the University of Notre Dame, which is governed by "fellows" who must be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross and whose president must be a priest of that order, The Trustees of Boston College (BC's governing body) operate independent of any religious jurisdiction. BC's trustees have voluntarily chosen to elect members of the Jesuit Order their ranks and to the BC presidency (though they are not required to do so). Similar arrangements exist at other Jesuit colleges and universities, where both women and non-clerics have been elected to presidency (most recently at Georgetown).

The following article from the journal Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education helps clarify this topic:

[[1]] 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


This aerial photograph shows that over half of BC's campus is in "Boston proper" (the area to the East [right] of the dotted yellow line):

FYI, Greycliff and 2000 (a recent purchase), both in Brighton, are missing from that document. ~ PaulT+/C 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


Shameless boosterism has been occuring on the BC entry for quite some time; quite a bit of misleading (by virtue of omission) admissions info, etc.

For example, although there are indeed 12 applications for every spot in BC's freshman class, actual enrollment of those who applied is considerably less selective. BC does not have an 8% acceptance rate, dispite the misleading nature of the article's phrasing.

Comparisons to Oxford are ridiculous, even if they do reflect the title of a pretensiously named master plan. How about some pictures of the mods, or perhaps Edmonds? (

  • The facts about the number of applicants per spot is still true. You complain about the lack of pictures of The Mods, and yet there is a clear picture called 'Lower campus in Autumn' that is a direct shot of them (and the equally ugly Plex). I've checked out your edits to Northeastern and see similar boosterism about how 'awesome' of a job your president has done, and the accolades thrust upon him (without a proper citation like you will find on the 'misleading' information in the BC article). 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BC admits about 27% of applicants last year (2006-2007), and this year that number is bound to go down further with the increase in application. It would be disingenuous, however, to suggest that BC admits less than 10% of applicants. Although it desires about 2250 students per incoming class, it usually admits 7000+ of them. You can check the data on BC fact book 2007-2008 edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinhhu (talkcontribs) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsections --> new articles[edit]

This article is getting extremely long. How do people feel about providing just a brief synopsis of the longer subsections in the Boston College article and starting new articles for the major subsections (e.g. "Boston College history," "Boston College campus," etc. a la the Boston College Eagles article)? - 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea (History of Boston College Boston College campus), but I think the article should be improved before any expansion. There needs to be a LOT more references (see Harvard University, MIT among others) and really more articles about specific things about BC (such as many of the buildings, notable people such as presidents, lists of residence halls, libraries, etc.) should be started as well.
Additionally, no other university article has condensed subsections and separate articles for them. Any change like that should be well thought out and the article should be really well put together before any expansion.PaulC/T+ 19:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually... I take that back. Cornell University has a bunch of different subsections other than athletics (libraries and history are the two that I saw) as seen on their template: (Cornell)... so, if there is enough (verifiable) content... why not? PaulC/T+ 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"City of Dreaming Spires" is a reference to an entire _city_.[edit]

The "City of Dreaming Spires" is a reference to the entire City of Oxford and was coined by the poet Matthew Arnold. Admirable as BC's neogothic buildings are, they are not so numerous or large as to make Newton, Massachusetts into a "City of Dreaming Spires" or anything of the sort.

Is it reasonable to point out that Charles Donagh Maginnis called his ambitious and largely unrealized plans "Oxford in America?" Sure. But if all twenty buildings had been constructed, "Oxford in America" would have been an wild exaggeration.

BC is a wonderful and influential example of "collegiate Gothic" or "neogothic architecture?" Sure.

If there is an American poet who has used poetic language about the atmosphere that BC gives to Chestnut Hill, by all means quote it.

Dpbsmith (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your objection is with the section heading. You are certainly entitled to consider Oxford in America an overly grandiose title, and I am inclined to agree with you. Are you suggesting to include commentary on whether or not we think the title was appropriate? The scope of Oxford in America, the ambitions it represented, the extent to which it was completed, its role in guiding subsequent development, and its influence elsewhere in the country are all explained in the section. This goes beyond just "Partially realized plans for Oxford in America" as you have renamed the section.
By the same logic, A College in the City is overly grandiose and should be renamed "An essentially glorified high school that strove to become a legitimate College in the City." In both cases, I think the names of the plans are sufficient for section headings, and the detailed narratives are sufficiently explained in the text.
I'm also not clear what your shtick is regarding the "dreaming spires" caption in the photo. I see no implication in the caption--or the text--that either Chestnut Hill or Newton is a "City of Dreaming Spires." Having spent a semester at Cambridge, I can assure you that, "dreaming spires" abound outside of Oxford--and yes they are indeed often referred to as "dreaming." From the prospectus of my own Alma Mater [3]: "Cambridge has a reputation for being a sleepy, dreaming spire idyll; it does indeed have many very well constructed dreaming spires, but it is also a thriving city...." Need further proof? Check out the adult novel Dreaming Spires by Juliet Hastings [4], an enchanting tale of the steamier side of Cambridge. An internet search [5] will reveal the presence of "dreaming spires" in places from Toronto to Liverpool. Thanks to Arnold, I'd say it's hard to imagine spires anywhere that are not in fact dreaming. Droitet 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The Great Dome at MIT, illuminated at night.
MIT's Great Dome recalls the magnificence of Augustan Rome
First of all, the plan entitled "Oxford in America" was not carried through.
Second, I continue to feel that a caption "Collegiate Gothic buildings" or "Neogothic buildings" is a reasonably objective, neutral description of the buildings, whereas "dreaming spires" is poetic, or purple prose, and the expression of a fairly subjective opinion. Look at these pictures to see what I mean. The caption at the right is the one actually used in the articles from which it is taken.
If you can find a citation in which BC itself refers to its buildings as "dreaming spires" then I'll withdraw my objection, though the caption should say "Building known at BC as the 'dreaming spires.'" I certainly have no objection to the picture at Brandeis University calling its landmark building "Usen Castle," even though it is not actually a castle, because that (or "The Castle") really is the name by which it is often called. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden eagle on Linden Lane[edit]

I'm pretty sure I have head that the bird isn't actually an eagle. Does anyone have an idea where this information could be verified? PaulC/T+ 01:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, there's no way of knowing unless you're an ornithologist. See this article from The Heights for a detailed answer to your question. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

According to The History of Boston College, published by the University Historian in the early 1990s, the "Eagle" was in the garden of the home of the US ambassador in Tokyo who brought it back to Boston with him when relations were severed with Japan at the onset of WWII. It was cast by a Japanese artist who had never actually see an American Bald Eagle or a Golden Eagle. It is therefore not an ornithologically-accurate representation of the species but rather the Japanese artist's attempt at his own conception of an "American Eagle".

Trustees of Boston College[edit]

All: I added the phrase "Legal Name The Trustees of Boston College" at the beginning of the article primarily to mirror the articles for two other schools (Harvard and Georgetown) whose pages, as of this writing, had similar entries.

There is really no need for this, especially in the introduction. - Pal 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. - This is a passage from the first sentence of the second paragraph in Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. The anon edit was not vandalism, and, again, it was a valid edit. As such, I'm going to restore the edit. If you wish to continue the discussion, we should do so on the article's talk page hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I can agree that the intent may not have been vandalism, but not every good-faith edit must remain in an article, especially if it does not add anything to the article. - Pal 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's the official name of the institution. It's valid and encyclopedic. I don't understand your reasoning for not including in in the article. I'm going to put it back in there and please don't change it unless consensus is reached in favor of deleting it again. As it stands now, there are three editors involved and two have advocated leaving it in there hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The official name is Boston College. The legal name is used only in a legal setting (i.e. when the school is involved in a lawsuit). Such information is quite trivial. Maybe you could argue it is worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article, but it's certainly not intro-worthy. - Pal 03:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If one looks on the website, all of the publications are copywrited to the Trustees of Boston College. I'm staying on record that it should be in the intro, however I don't have any personal investment and do not wish to get into an edit war with you, as you perhaps seem to welcome, given your constant reversions. The majority of the editors involved feel it should be in the intro (granted, the involved parties are thrice). That alone should prompt you to revert your reversion, but I'll leave it to you to do the right thing; I won't edit any more on this point, as our discussions are not proving at all fruitful hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Why can't it be put in the infobox on the side? That way it's not the first thing people read, but if someone wants to know, it's there on the page in a place that makes sense? That seems to be a good middle ground for this edit war. 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm the original poster who put in the official name in the first place. I agree with the above post that placing the legal name on the side bar is a fair compromise. I will put it there myself soon, but if I don't get to it, I kindly ask one of the main editors to add it in. Thanks.

The fact that the name of the legal entity in charge of Boston College is "the Trustees of Boston College" does not mean that the school itself is called "the Trustees of Boston College". john k 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Rankings Additions[edit]

The recent edits about BC's supposed international ranking which cite a fledgling study that admits it has "many methodological and technical problems" [6] are not worthy for inclusion (and the other one is a registration site). Additionally, the edits are written in a way that is not NPOV, clearly by someone with a bias against BC. Thus they are reverted. - Pal 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be assured that I have no bias against BC. I'm sure it is a wonderful school. However, the article includes a favorable ranking from US News, which is not without its numerous critics, yet you have not deleted that part of the article. The fact is, BC was not ranked favorably by the publications I listed - that is indisputable. Obviously you do not want anything critical of BC in this article, as you have gone to great lengths to edit any criticism. Who are you to decide what facts are worthy of being included in this article? I feel the people deserve a fair and truthful article about BC, and every other topic on Wikipedia. Let the people read the article with all the facts (good and bad), and let them evaluate BC based on the whole picture, not simply your view of the school. If BC is as wonderful as I assume you believe - then the people will weigh the pros and cons - and likely decide the pros outweigh the cons. You shouldn't have to worry, if BC is as great as you believe. Please stop deleting my addition to the article. It is a factual addition, it is not written in a biased tone, and it is backed up by proper citations. You can go to the websites and see for yourself. FYI - The Times website lets you try it for 14-days free. If it was you who blocked me from editing - I request the you unblock me immidiately. Otherwise I will dispute the block more formally. The people deserve the truth, the whole truth - not just your belief.

DEAR POMPOUS MISPELLER: Do you seriously think anyone takes some wacky Chinese university's rankings seriously, especially when if you look at their data it is obvious they are missing entire catagories for some American universities, including BC? Can you find a single other univeristy entry in the Wikipedia that references this ranking? Yes, US News' rankings are often criticized, but they at least attempt to be objective and comprehensive. You are citing a study which listed its purpose as being to compare Chinese Universities with the great institutions of the world, and the authors admit their data is incomplete. Your effort to shroud your obvious slant in objectivity is laughable. In what year did you graduate from Notre Dame anyway? (That was a joke, please chill.)

Young man, please don't call me names. Name calling is a sign of insecurity. Are you insecure about yourself, or BC? I am a parent looking into colleges for my child. I read the article about BC assuming it was impartial and truthful, not propaganda. I walked away from the article with a favorable impression of BC. However, I did some additional research, which led me to the rankings of colleges. I found three major rankings (US News, Times and the Chinese). I found that all three have their critics, including US News. In the three rankings, all of which utilize different criteria, I found that generally the same schools were ranked among the best. Coincidence? However, BC was only ranked favorably by one of the rankings, US News. Unfortunately, this is a fact that I did not learn by reading the Wikipedia article. Why is it that all the top schools keep popping up regardless of the criteria used, yet BC does not? I found that to be interesting. I think other prosepective students, or parents of prospective students, would like to know this as well. My contribution to the article is not to put BC down, but to enlighten other people in my situation, who are researching schools. Let BC send out its own propaganda - Wikipedia is for the people - for the truth. The BC article, as you would like it written, is not completely honest. I didn't go to Notre Dame - I'm just a hard working parent who is concerned about my child's future, and who is sympathetic to other parents doing research on schools. Please stop deleting my contribution. I notice you do not delete the US News ranking info from the article when you delete the other rankings info - that is troubling.

While I don't condone name-calling, the previous commenter was factual in pointing out that your writing did contain at least one mispelling. In any case, you both should probably cool down a bit. Also, you have no way of knowing that the previous poster was either young or a man, and the use of "young man" is generally perjorative so you are engaging in the same activitity that you are criticizing. Now, he or she did raise a valid point, that a Google search of the Wikipedia doesn't show any other US university entry that cites the Shanghai or Times rankings. You did not respond to that question. Perhaps a closer analysis would show otherwise but the overseas rankings do not appear to be typically cited in the Wikipedia entries of US colleges. Further, your assessment "I found that generally the same schools were ranked among the best." is not accurate. Speaking of Notre Dame, it quickly is obvious that both ND and Georgetown are ranked much lower by the overseas ratings than the domestic ratings. And others schools -- particularly large public universities -- that are not as highly ranked in domestic ratings (NC State, Maryland) are much more highly rated. Critics of those rankings note that they put more weight on science than arts, so liberal arts universities may be slighted. My subjective assessment -- having studied both in the US and overseas -- is that Americans place greater value on undergraduate education and the college experience, while in Europe and Asia, more value is placed on faculty publications and graduate programs. I would guess that the US News rankings reflect that. Personally think that if the overseas ratings are going to be included here, they should be in a footnote.

What is the harm in including all the facts, and letting the readers determine the validity of the rankings? Why should these overseas rankings be in a footnote, while the US News rankings are in the body of the article? My contribution simply stated the fact that BC was not ranked highly in those particular rankings. Similarly, BC was ranked highly in US News. That too is a fact. However, those who want to protect this article from all the facts, have determined that the facts I have raised are not worthy. This is very troubling. What is everyone so afraid of? The truth obviously. Well I'm glad I discovered the truth on my own - no thanks to this obvious piece of propaganda - most likely protected by the BC administration, students, and/or alumni. I simply want to help others who are researching schools to learn the whole truth. As my research continues, I will make similar contributions to articles about other schools regarding their rankings. I'll see if they are afraid of the truth like BC.

I answered your questions already. You have not answered mine or those of the previous questioner. You can feel "troubled", but that strikes me as the cop-out of the white wine and brie set. Why don't you respond. You have raised a valid questiond, defend it soundly or drop it.

Since you do not condone name-calling, I’ll assume you did not intend to insult me by grouping me with the wine and cheese crowd. As to the argument, both you and the other person in this discussion seem to start with the assumption that the US News rankings are either more accurate, or better than the overseas rankings. I do not know which ranking is more accurate or better, and neither do the two of you. My argument starts with the assumption that the reader has the right to know certain facts, and make a determination of his or her own. One of you stated that one of the major criticisms of the overseas rankings is that they give more weight to science than arts, and therefore slights liberal arts schools. However, the opposite argument can be made about the US News rankings, which perhaps do not give enough emphasis to science, and therefore slight schools with strong science programs. If US News altered its criteria, perhaps it would have different results, and larger public schools would be ranked higher than they are currently. Therefore, it is only fair to the readers to have all the facts laid out before them, so they can get the whole picture, not a limited picture. Also, it makes little difference whether or not other Wikipedia articles about schools cite these overseas rankings. There has to be a first, just as there was a first to include information regarding the US News rankings. I am trying to contribute facts to this particular article. The fact is that the overseas rankings did not give BC favorable marks. The reader deserves to know this fact. The readers of articles about other schools deserve to know that particular school’s overseas rankings as well – good or bad. I hope that other writers and contributors to articles about other schools will include the overseas rankings. I know, as I research other schools, I will be contributing to their Wikipedia articles with this information. One of you stated, “Further, your assessment ‘I found that generally the same schools were ranked among the best,’ is not accurate.” Well, as it turns out, your statement is inaccurate. To prove this, I will focus on the Chinese rankings. I looked at the top 50 American schools ranked. Of these, 3 were graduate schools only (UCSF, Rockefeller, and U. Texas Medical); therefore, these schools were excluded and schools ranked 51, 52, and 53 in the country were added to get the Top 50. Of the Top 50 US schools in the Chinese rankings, 35 were also ranked in the Top 50 in the US News rankings. Of the 15 schools included in the Chinese ranking’s Top 50, which are not in the US News Top 50, they had the following US News rankings: 52, 55, 58, five tied at 60, three tied at 74, 78, 97, and 120. All of these schools fell within US News’ category of “Top National Universities,” which includes schools ranked 1-120. Conversely, of the 15 schools included in the US News Top 50, which are not included in the Chinese ranking’s Top 50, they had the following rankings: four in the 54-71 range, three in the 72-90 range, four in the 91-119 range, three in the 141-168 range, and one was not ranked. Therefore, all but 4 schools are within the Top 120 in both rankings. BC is one of the 4 schools not in the Top 120 in both rankings. This is the kind of information the reader deserves to know. For some reason, someone does not want these facts to be included in the article. Any ranking can be configured to produce certain results. No ranking is perfect. To include only the rankings that favor BC is to deprive the reader of the whole truth. I seriously doubt my contribution to the article would’ve been deleted if the overseas rankings were favorable to BC.

To further illustrate my point, I also looked at the Times rankings from England. This ranking included 53 US schools (the graduate school UCSF was excluded for these purposes). Of the 53 schools, 42 of them were ranked in the top 53 by US News. The other 11 had the following US News rankings: 55, 58, three at 60, two at 74, 78, 97, and two at 104. Again, all the schools are ranked within US News' "Top National Universities." It seems that both of the overseas rankings, in terms of their results, are pretty similar to that of the US News. Although the overseas rankings have different criteria, most of the top US News schools are still ranked highly by the overseas rankings. I just wonder how you can assert that the overseas rankings are not as accurate or not as good as the US News rankings. I can only assume that you discredit the overseas rankings simply because they do not rank BC highly.

>> I am going to throw in the towel on this conversation. You keep ignoring my questions and just going on with your own argument. Either this is intentional or you just are not focused on the points in discussion. In any case, I give up. All I can tell you is that if you convince your son or daughter not to go to BC because of these overseas rankings they will be missing one of the great college experiences in America.

I've addressed all the questions. It is quite reasonable to conclude that the overseas rankings have merit, as their results are very similar to those of US News, which is included in the article. The reader deserves to know how BC ranks in any ranking, not just those which rank it highly. I have not eliminated BC from potential schools for my child, simply because it did not rank highly in the overseas rankings, nor will others. However, it is simply another piece of information I will consider. Others in my position should be allowed to consider this information as well.

All surveys have critics, but what the U.S. News study doesn't have are "many methodological and technical problems", which the Chinese study admits it has. Maybe at some point they'll work those problems out, but right now such a flawed study should not be included. Additionally, it's not good form to include "The Times" study. You generally don't need a citation for every list a school didn't make. Do we need a sentence on every school that isn't in the top tier of the U.S. News rankings stating "School X did not make the top 120 of the U.S. News' list of best colleges"? Of course not. And I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policy on consensus instead of re-inserting this info again. - Pal 03:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, let's keep this discussion polite please. --AlexPorter 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Does anyone else think that this article is ready for a peer review and then possibly a GA/FA nomination? Merveilleux 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


To the person (persons?) who has recently added pictures, I just wanted to state that I removed them not because they should not be included (most of them are quite quality). Rather, since they are not formatted properly they render the article almost unreadable. Here is a link to Wikipedia's tutorial on how to insert pictures into articles without compromising an article's layout. - Pal 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I took this picture crossing the Charles aboard the Red Line

Just wanted to let you know that I do apologize about the pictures. Just figuring how to add images. I have reformatted the images and added them in other places. Please do not delete the pictures but reformat them to be appropriate for the articles. I am not the best at using this language so its not the easiest thing.

Thanks, Pal, for reorganizing my pictures that I added since I can't seem to make heads or tails of the correct formatting procedures for Wikipedia.

No problem. Just check and make sure all the captions are correct. I think I was able to figure them out, but it can't hurt to double check. Thanks. - Pal 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


The picture of the O'Neill Library steps is not entirely accurate. While the building does look as it does in the picture, there is a concrete plaza in front of those steps, not grass. That is something that has to have been edited in. I did not remove the picture because it does show the real building. Perhaps someone has almost the same picture, but without alterations. - New Rising Sun 11:54, 8 December 2006 (EDT)

An interesting observation, considering the repeated efforts to edit out (and block users to add it) references to the Boston College one-historic campus "now covered in vast expanses of concrete."

Featured status[edit]

This is a big and broad article. Have you thought about featured status? JHJPDJKDKHI! 12:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now the artcle is rife with unsourced statements, a good deal of POV, and needs better organization. It'd get ripped apart on the FAC page. I'd work on it if I had more time, but if anything it should probably undergo a peer review before even being considered as a featured article candidate. - Pal 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On a side note it would seem to me that a section on notable Boston College alumni would be in oder. Ed Markey, Paul Seluci, Tip O'Niel, Edward J King, etc.etc. should probably be noted here.


There seem to be a lot of extraneous pictures here; I've taken some that were destroying the flow and making section galleries (there was a precedent for this in one of the sections), but I think it would be a good idea to make a general gallery page in which to put some of the less illustrative scenery shots. --Alekjds 07:12 Follow-up: Some images could be done away with, I think. A specific example to me is the "Book of Kells facsimile" picture for Burns Library. How much does that really help the article? --Alekjds 07:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's interesting that Boston College has a copy of the Book of Kells.
(Digression: just how rare is a Book of Kells facsimile? According to this press release[7] "Trinity College of Dublin presented Boston College with a set of three Book of Kells prints, valued at $4,800," but that seems to be something different since the same source adds that "Burns includes a color facsimile of the Book of Kells in its collection." The article on the Book of Kells mentions two "facsimiles," a 1951 edition by Graf-verlag Bern and a 1979 one by Faksimile verlag. An Abebooks search shows that copies of the Luzern facsimile are available for about $20,000 while copies of the Urs Graf-Verlag edition are priced at about $10,000. So, OK, even a "facsimile" is rare).
OK, it's interesting that Boston College has a facsimile of the Book of Kells, particularly if it's on conspicuous display. So it warrants mention in the article. But there's no obvious need for the picture, since a) it does not appear to be a picture of the Boston College copy, and b) it's the same picture that appears in the Book of Kells article, which a reader would probably click on if they wanted to know what the Book of Kells is or looks like.
A picture of a librarian reverently turning a page in the Boston College copy, or even a group of students or visitors looking at it, might belong. But a random picture of some other Book of Kells? No. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Something about this sentence feels blatantly POV to me.

Its once-historic campus, one of the earliest examples of Collegiate Gothic architecture in North America, now covered in vast expanses of concrete, is set on a hilltop six miles (10 km) west of downtown Boston.

I'm going to change it so that it's not so vitriolic against the school. While I'm slightly biased (I'm a student there), I don't think underhanded attacks deserve to be in the first paragraph. I'm going to remove the "once" from "once-historical", as it still is a historical campus, and there's no need to have "covered in vast expanses of concrete" in there, partially because it doesn't pertain to the sentence, and partially because there's no factual basis to back that up (plus, it's not true). I just want to justify that I'm not removing negative stuff about the school because I'm biased, but because I want this article to be as NPOV as possible. It seems to be just this one IP address ( who seems to be putting POV stuff in. Thanks! Sbrools (talk . contribs) 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at a campus map. Ever since the O'Neil Library was constructed, open space has been gobbled up and paved over, leaving little left of the campus of which T.S. Eliot wrote so eloquently. POV is the absolutely sickening syncopative babble that characterizes most of this advertisement posing as an enclyopedia article

Dude I know but all you were putting in there was negative comments about BC Yboord028 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, if one wants to know if this article is being adjusted for public relations periods, one need only observe if the phrase "the university" is included. Only BC insiders refer to the institution as "the university." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... By definition, it is "a university", it has a grad school. It'd be incorrect to call it a "college", even though that is in its name. Sbrools (talk . contribs) 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A few edits[edit]

I updated the US News ranking information (35th now), deleted some redundant and/or unnecessary information, and clarified a few sections. BTW, for fairness's sake, I am a BC student - but my edits were NPOV. 09:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I also made an edit, Wikipedia stated that BC has 12 million volumes. This is more than an a small exageration. Few universities claim that many volumes (inc. ND, Cornell and Columbia). According to the official BC website, it is over two million (2.4 million) volumes. I have corrected it twice and someone goes back and puts in the bogus number. I don't want someone to call us a bunch of liars for this misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Master Plan[edit]

BC has recently announced their Institutional Master Plan, a 1.6 billion dollar plan for the next 10 years to help renovate the campus and expand the university. Should there be a section on this? I added a small amount of information to the "Recent History" section, but expansion upon that would be nice. It'd be great if it had enough to be its own section. Sorry I don't have time to work on it more... Here are some links to a few websites: [8], [9], [10] Thanks! Sbrools (talk . contribs) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Frmonan.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Frmonan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: Fair use rationale added. Sbrools (talk . contribs) 15:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Eagles Up The River[edit]

I propose a special section on Boston College alumni who have done prison time or been convicted of serious charges. Naturally, Rick Kuhn, the basketball point-fixer, should be near the top of the list. But also there is Thomas Finneran, former speaker of the Massachusetts House, who was convicted of perjury, former University Research Director and alumni Charles Flaherty, former speaker of the Massachusetts House, who was convicted of tax evasion; there was a Director of Residential Housing convicted of skimming money from a student-operated sandwich delivery service; Thomas Capano, the graduate and Delaware political insider convicted of murdering his mistress; the basketball guard charged with using a stolen credit cards on a Neiman Marcus shopping spree and others.

There are also, of course, related topics, such as research irregularities including the Ph.D candidate blackballed by a federal agency for making up scientific research, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would we create this list specifically for BC? I mean, I'm sure just by sheer volume there are more people who commit crimes elsewhere at other schools. Out of any large group of people, you're going to find some that aren't perfect. A list of people who committed crimes who all happened to go to BC doesn't prove anything about the school. Besides, what would be the significance of this? (Note: I am a BC undergrad, but I wouldn't advocate the creation of this list for any school, not only mine, for the same reason.) Sbrools (talk . contribs) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: UP THE RIVER Perhaps the person who proposes a list of BC grads who have been convicted of crimes would also like to do so for all colleges and and universities. How about Harvard? Maybe all the Ivy league schools? It would seem to me that many high profile criminals have been graduates of the Ivy League. Yale grad Bill Clinton comes to mind. He surely trumps Mass. House Speaker Finneran or Flaherty. To speak of college athletes convicted of crimes...couldn't a gigantic article be written on U. of Miami or any of the other big time college programs? Simply stupid. (3-29-08)


This article is wildly self-promotional. Having attended BC as an undergraduate, I know intimately of its desire to emulate the Ivy League and other prestigious universities. The article is smattered with marketing brochure propaganda that overstates the historical significance of the university. Flowery, inaccurate language needs to be stripped from the article.

Also, as noted in the talk page, there are several photo-shopped pictures of the campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

- Obviously BC has changed greatly since you last attended... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Forbes survey placing BC as #11 amongst national universities should not be mentioned in the article. The survey uses only 4 weights to determine how the schools should rank; the weight that is most troublesome is the use of Correct me if I'm wrong, but most BC students don't use that site and instead use the PEPs available on the ugbc website. I don't know of anybody who uses At the very least, I think that methodological flaw should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilmets31 (talkcontribs) 05:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't this article be a link to the disambig page? The other Boston College (Lincolnshire) is similarly-sized. laddiebuck (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent name change of article[edit]

I fail to see how the recent name change improves this article or Wikipedia. The college in England is only 30 years old and appears to be a vocational or trade school perhaps similar to a community college or a Vo-tec school in the US. Clearly BC in Chestnut Hill is the far more important and notable of the two. This article should be reverted to its prior name with a hatnote reference to the school in England. This change should have been the subject of discussion here and should only have been done with consensus. clariosophic (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the change, so I thought it only right that I respond to your comments, clariosophic. I can understand your points, though I clearly disagree with them, and would like to point out that Boston College still redirects here. While I'm well-aware of BC's reputation, to mandate that this Boston College must be the Boston College (all redirects aside) seems biased, and I fail to see how that improves Wikipedia. There is an obvious naming conflict here; a rename eliminated that bias while a redirect struck a compromise based on notability. I acknowledge that I the move was WP:BOLD but not "too bold," since it was also in accordance with WP:UNIGUIDE. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that Boston College redirects here rather than to a disambiguation page since this is the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since this appears to be the case, I have no objections with the disambiguation. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There's obviously a problem here, as User:Clariosophic has dropped the conversation and started making moves himself, having neither presented a cogent argument to other editors for his actions nor referencing any consensus having been reached.[11] The move for the talk page also needed to be accomplished by another editor, it seems, to fix the shoddy move,[12] after I'd already started sending Clariosophic a message.[13] Seems an attempt at a fait accompli, in light of the idea that the move was supported by other editors, not opposed by any others, and was done per WP:UNIGUIDE (created by a community of editors). I'd like further discussion here, since Clario disagrees with WP:UNIGUIDE and started this conversation before apparently abandoning it. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The guidance at WP:UNIGUIDE is incomplete. Where there is a WP:primary topic, that primary topic should use the simple (i.e. common name). Having Boston College redirect to Boston College (United States) was improper. olderwiser 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:UNIGUIDE#Naming conventions, that is simply a complement to the more general guideline of WP:Naming conventions. Reading through that page will bring you to this guideline: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For topics that could have the same article name you want the primary topic to bear that article name. You could have Boston College redirect to Boston College (United States) but that's not necessary in this case because the Boston College in the U.S. is much more notable by an order of magnitude, so it's fine just to have a hatnote at the top of the article to Boston College (England) like it currently does. Disambiguation in article titles should only be used if absolutely necessary. One pretty good way to see if an article is really the primary topic is this tool: Using that we can see that in March 2009 Boston College got 27,018 hits while Boston College (England) got 280. So far in April 2009 Boston College has gotten 13,831 while Boston College (England) has 101. It's pretty clear the college in the U.S. is the primary topic and the guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supports keeping this article at Boston College. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Bkonrad and Lonely Marble. Given that over 2000 WP articles link to this BC vs less than 60 to BCE, and that this article gets anywhere from 500 to 1000 hits a day [14] vs 10-20 to BCS [15], and that "Boston College" is the first hit on a Google search of the term with the trade school in England not showing up in the first 50 results, Clariosophic's action is correct per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ameriquedialectics 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:BCcoatofarms.jpg[edit]

The image File:BCcoatofarms.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tag[edit]

I just added a cleanup tag. While it's not for reasons of general Wikipedia standards, it needs desperately to be brought in line with WP:UNIGUIDE. Very basic things, like the TOC headings don't match up to university article standards. I added the tag so that people would refer to this talk page and check out the UNIGUIDE because, while I'm certainly willing to make improvements myself, I think there are plenty of interested parties that we can solicit various contributions to the article's improvement. Just remember to read UNIGUIDE first! --Aepoutre (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to move section to WikiSource[edit]

To move lyrics of the identified songs to WikiSource, there would need to be the evidence and source for their publishing, ie. the Source component. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

False GA Review[edit]

Seems someone may have accidentally added Template:GAReview to the top of this article,[16] because I cannot find the discussion at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations now[17] or then[18] nor can I ascertain that said user followed the nomination guidelines that required one to "Add {{GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection on this page where the article is listed}} to the top of the nominated article's talk page." I may have missed something here, so feel free to call me out on that, but I removed the GAReview tag[19] (along with doing some other cleanup per WP:UNIGUIDE) for now. --Aepoutre (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this, I failed to explain the GA process to my adoptee well enough. I'll be more careful in future, and thanks for catching this - weebiloobil (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists of degrees[edit]

I have removed the lists of degrees and degree programs because this is unencyclopedic information: Wikipedia is not a directory. Interested readers are more than welcome to seek out B.C.'s admissions office or registrar for this sort of information, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I had planned to get around to that myself, so you have my thanks, as well. --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion with Psantora[edit]

User:Psantora contacted me today re: our recent dispute ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25]):

Second, regarding the infobox at Boston College. You have repeatedly linked to WP:UNI (with and without #Templates) but nowhere on that page (or Template:Infobox University) does it explain why you are removing the majority of the changes. For example, why shouldn't the size of the campus and a link to the historic district be in the "campus" parameter? Many other university infoboxes have a picture of their athletic logo in the "athletics" parameter. What is wrong with that? I could go on, but please discuss these issues on the talk page before continuing to revert them, especially since there doesn't seem to be any "rule" that supports the revert. I would welcome a discussion on aesthetics and how the page looks as a whole. Cheers, ~ PaulT+/C 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I followed up with a quick assessment but mainly a) said that I'd address the BC stuff here per the recommendation and b) pointed out my concerns about the most recent edit summary:

As for BC, the template example is part of WP:UNI and WP:UNIGUIDE, with which I work quite heavily. It's not a matter of hard and fast rules, but examples (reasonable guidelines for standard usage) and the standardisation that we seek across all the university articles (especially because they're so prone to WP:BOOSTER). But I'll take that over to the BC talk page so that we can discuss it there. I'd love to discuss aesthetics as well; I tried to cut down on the overwhelming number of photos and place them well, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that matter. --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, and I had to take off for a bit but I just checked the BC article. While still assuming good faith, I do want to point out that the comment "unexplained changes" in the most recent edit summary isn't quite accurate and could be considered misleading. --King of the Arverni (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth noting I haven't actually reverted any of these times, partly (I admit it) because it looks like other reverts throw in additional edits, and the status quo is currently that last edit courtesy of Psantora. Now, there seem to be several infobox issues in question, so I hope I can address them all:

  • I removed the long caption under the seal because it's the seal, not the coat of arms, and while it might include the coat of arms, I see a distinction. I would love to see a bit of info. on the coat of arms in the history or in a traditions section, but it's currently featured in a "see also" section already. Since I wrote the bit in WP:UNIGUIDE, I can say that I intended (but did a poor job communicating) that seals are to be used for U.S. institutions and the coat of arms for U.K. institutions, since those are roughly the equivalents for each. I fail to see how adding this redundant information to the infobox is an improvement.
  • I removed the "Rev." and linked the SJ for Leahy per the WP:MOS (and the subarticles on biographies, clergy, and credentials), which aims to eschew honorific prefixes but favours the use of a linked suffix.
  • I removed the extra and IMHO unnecessary formatting for the Template:Coord usage. The article is already excessively long and in all my work with WP:UNI I've never seen this formatting used anyway. I fail to see how the extra formatting improves the article.
  • I removed the historic district and acreage links in the infobox because Template:Infobox University, which is featured at WP:UNI and WP:UNIGUIDE, does not use this information. It's meant to distinguish between urban, suburban, and rural campuses, not to feature historic districts or campus size. That information can easily be found in the "campus" section -- I made sure to check that first. I make these changes for every university article I edit, for purposes of standardisation and redundancy elimination.
  • I made a few athletics-related edits --
    • I removed the "31 varsity teams" because the infobox is meant to list the featured sports, not the number of teams. Besides, when adding that information beyond the guidelines and examples looks as though one is trying to say "look how many teams we have!" instead of just offering the sports-related info. That brings up advert/COI/NOT issues. And I don't see a source that says "31 varsity teams", making its inclusion border on WP:NOR issues.
    • I moved the athletics logo to the athletics section because there were no images there, and because the infobox examples do not feature images beyond a place for the seal at the top and a logo at the bottom. It's not quite a fair-use issue to overburden the infobox with images, but I fail to see how adding extra/uncalled-for images to the infobox and leaving article sections without any images is improvement. (And since the argument seems to come up a lot, I should point out that finding other articles that do this isn't necessarily a valid argument -- it could just mean that they haven't been cleaned up yet).
    • I put athletics affiliations under the parameter for athletics affiliations per the infobox usage. Baby with the bathwater, perhaps? This is really an indisputable infobox fix, not just my unilateral goofing-about.
    • I put non-athletics affiliations under the parameter for other affiliations per the infobox usage. Another baby with the bathwater? Same basic issue as the previous.
  • I made the logo a bit smaller because it took up less space, looked nicer to me, and seemed less excessive. Not sure that merits a revert and/or dispute.

Now, most of this stuff can be found at WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:UNI, Template:Infobox University, WP:MOS, &c. though Psantora has told me that he/she can't find the information. I hope this helps, but feel free to let me know if I need to bust out quotes or get even more specific. I don't really want to spend too much time on that, though (yes, I guess I'm a bit selfish), so I really do hope I've done a decent job explaining thus far (and that I'm not being played, I guess, haha). While still in good faith, I'd nevertheless like to express that, based on the "I can't find it" concerns, the inaccurate "unexplained changes" edit summary, that some edits seem to be blanket reverts (which is generally discouraged, mostly since it throws the baby out with the bathwater tends to produce a long list of specific changes to address) with some other stuff thrown in, and the fact that Psantora is a BC student or alumnus/alumna ([26]), I'm not entirely without concerns! I know some editors can get touchy about concerns like that, so let me reiterate that I'm still assuming good faith (of course!), that I really do appreciate discussing/explaining all of this, and that it isn't an insult or attack to point out a relevant potential conflict of interest and/or entirely understandable POV -- why wouldn't an student or alumnus/alumna want to represent his/her school in the best, most attractive light possible, eh? Anyway, those are my explanations and concerns, and I'm really looking forward to that aesthetics discussion! Speaking of which, we might need to make a separate section for it. --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's no response by tomorrow (being seven days since I initially made an attempt to discuss this and seven days since that attempt has gone unanswered), then I'll go ahead with all but the athletics logo and the acreage bit (since those seem to be used by several FAs and it's not that big a deal anyway). --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


I've reverted User:WayGoneOr's recent edits for a variety of reasons, and was alerted to them because of the tags in my watchlist for the article. One is "(Tag: references removed)" and the other is "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". I determined that there were indeed problems involved with these edits.

  • One edit summary read "cleanup" despite the fact that it was not cleanup per WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:MOS, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, or any other Wikipedia guideline.
  • Despite claims to the contrary, it is clear from each edit summary that I did provide explanations for every single revert. If they were deemed inadequate, the appropriate course of action would've been to start a discussion here instead of instead of reverting back. I may have used a stock template, but I did ask the editor to do so if he/she continued to perceive a problem with my edits.
  • This edit called my edits vandalism, but per WP:VANDAL, it is not vandalism to undo disruptive edits.

As for the guideline violations:

  • This edit corrupted a citation and sandwiched text between two images, the latter of which violates MOS:IMAGES. Reverting that edit was not vandalism in any way, shape, or form.
  • This edit involved several issues --
  • It changed the hatnote to read "nearby", which is irrelevant. There is no need to introduce the proximity to disambiguation when the disambiguation refers to the naming, not the location, of the institution, especially when the disambiguation page does not concern the location with respect to the institution.
  • It removed the research university comment, which was cited, and the Jesuit comment, which is found in other reliable sources throughout the article, as well as the infobox. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article body, and removing helpful and cited content is vandalism, if anything is.
  • It changed the location from Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts to use only the state name. This is not standard or helpful, per WP:UNIGUIDE. It's certainly not helpful to simply refer to Boston as "the capital city".
  • BC is not "the first institution of higher education established in Boston" per Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. That claim has no source, of which I'm aware, to back it up, and the editor didn't meet the burden of proof anyway.
  • The "source" added used the term "The University Press", which is not a real press name as far as my research shows and therefore does not meet WP:RS.
Especially in light of concerns raised by User:ElKevbo, I want everyone to know that there's a "discussion" going on at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-19/Boston College about all of this. --King of the Arverni (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm done with "mediation" since it's clearly going nowhere at this point. WayGoneOr is welcome to discuss his/her concerns here, in the appropriate forum, if he/she likes. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Boston College is a research institution[edit]

I went past the Mediation request for this page, and saw people have been agruing, among others, on whether BC is a research university. Well, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classified BC as "RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity)"-- I think this can help--or, IMHO, settle-- with this particular dispute.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur that BC is a research university and should be plainly labeled as such in the lead. If it's good enough for the US Department of Education, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Carnegie Foundation's "Institution lookup" is the reference being used in the lead. It's the source that User:WayGoneOr removed once under the guise of "cleanup" and then again with the assertion that my re-add of the reference was "vandalism". --King of the Arverni (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue is his thinking that without saying who classified BC as a research institution, it may sound like an advertisement.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 11:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
A reference to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is perfectly sufficient. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, of course, that calling a research university a research university is an advertisement. Being a research university isn't a status symbol; it's a type of institution. To say that it's advert-like either assumes some bad faith about the addition of the content or assumes that that research universities are inherently better institutions than, say, liberal arts colleges. I'm not saying that advert concerns aren't valid -- boosterism is a huge issue -- but it's a neutral, verifiable claim, with multiple reliable sources to back it up, and was added per WP:UNIGUIDE. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where did WayGoneOr come from, but people seldom know research university is a legal term in the US.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not a legal term. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Kevbo's right, it's not a legal term at all. The Carnegie Foundation has no legal authority. As for real authority, Massachusetts is one of the few states that places any restrictions on use of the word "university" in an institution's name -- a word that BC doesn't even use. --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for using the wrong term-- but it's certain that in the US the term "research university" has a strict definition established by an authoritative organization that has some kind of official recognization. In elsewhere that term is not as well-defined and its usage without further quantification would surely cause POV problems.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's okay. Technically, all "real" universities are research institutions (as opposed to teaching institutions) and grant research degrees (such as the PhD) -- that's the historical definition, but the modern definition is far more broad and, like I said, most places in the US don't regulate it.
  • The Carnegie Foundation is not "authoritative" as far as I know (I'm not sure why there's such insistence that the source be "legal" and "authoritative" rather than "definitive"), but is one of the most reliable sources in the US in this matter (as other UNI participants have previously attested, and used a government source to corroborate).
  • And BC is located in the US, making definitions outside the US less relevant. I don't go to UK and Canadian colleges and start changing their leads to use anything other than the appropriate UK and Canadian terminology. I'm pretty sure WP:UNIGUIDE prefers each country use its respective terminology (such as the fact that UK schools are more apt to use a coat of arms than a university seal).
  • Regardless of all the historical definitions, US-centric terms, etc. BC is a research university and the Carnegie Foundation is the most reliable source available. That said, it's not the only source to use the term: [27]. I'm confused by the phrase "in elsewhere that term is not as well-defined and its usage without further quantification would surely cause POV problems" mostly because it is well-defined in the US, which is what matters most for a US institution, its nature seems implied by use of the words "research" and "university" and should therefore be clear to everyone, and it is linked to an article on the topic for those who don't think it's quite clear. Anyway, use of the term is backed up by two verifiable sources and various editors here. --King of the Arverni (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm coming a bit late to this whole discussion through links elsewhere, but I have to agree with all of the above: the idea of what a "research university" is is fairly well defined, at least in the U.S. It's not a type of boosterism, but an acknowledgment of institutional focus that separates it from, say, liberal arts colleges. Esrever (klaT) 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Scholars Program[edit]

Earlier an anonymous user added a section about the Presidential Scholars Program (PSP). The information was largely accurate, to my knowledge as a BC student, but some was not cited and as a whole the section was not neutral. I am fairly certain a member of the PSP program authored the section (in fact I'm pretty sure I know who wrote it). I cleaned up the section a little to be more concise and neutral. However, I'm not sure if this section belongs in the article at all. As mentioned, it is a somewhat small (but high-stakes) scholarship, with only 15 "winners" every year; on the other hand many students I know are annoyed that the program is not well publicized (reasoning they might have applied early action if they had known they had a chance to get into this program). Any other thoughts? Tbonepower07 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's really as prestigious, selective, and generally super-duper as the previous version would have you believe, then there should be rampant sources from major independent reliable sources like the NY Times, Boston Globe, Chronicle of Higher Education, etc. In the absence of any such coverage, the section was clearly non-neutral in addition to providing undue weight. Summarize it down to a sentence or two within the larger Academics section. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a college on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote Change[edit]

I am changing the hatnote so it will be more inclusive. (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While I prefer your less wordy proposal, it is not appropriate to make two reverts in the face of of good faith opposition (the first revert completely without comment). I suggest you read this essay: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the first one was because I used {{pther}}, instead of {{other}}. (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesuit Ivy[edit]

There have been some attempts lately to note that BC is a "Jesuit Ivy" in the lead of this article. This is attributed to one speech given by a politician a few decades ago so I don't think it rises to the level of being included in the lead. It's an interesting historical footnote but not essential information that should be among the very first things we tell people about this college. ElKevbo (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

'New Ivy'[edit]

Consistency is needed in the use of 'New Ivy' across the pages for those universities included in the list. If it is not good enough to go in BC's lead, then presumably it should not appear elsewhere either? Tufts, Emory, Rochester all include this 'title' in their leads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with CLXF - Boston College[edit]

Non-notable college dorm; there may be some information here suitable for a merge, but I doubt it. TKK bark ! 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Condom distribution[edit]

I found:

This may be a good source. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boston College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boston College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Boston College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boston College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)