Talk:Cooper Union/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Cooper Union. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Updates

The mesh panels on the new academic building are never opened or closed to vent the building as was planned so I removed that from the green features. James Abbot has left the school so he has been removed from the faculty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.24.148 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

new statue photo

Added new statue photo that wasn't horribly photoshopped.

Corpses on the faculty?

From the article: "Also working within the Chemical Engineering Department are Professors Richard Stock, the late Zikri Ahmed, and O. Charles Okorafor."

I imagine that Dr. Ahmed's lectures are rather brief. ;-)

Reputation

Alright, so then you do not mind that we keep it? As far as I can tell you have given up that discussion. Which is fine by me, I am more then happy to consider this matter closed. I assume you agree with keeping it as non-doctoral then? The attitude is simply because I find this whole conversation to be strange. The source says one thing, and you and presumably others are trying to change it. Now to change the meaning of a source would imply some motive for doing it, I am trying to figure out what the motive is. According to you the motive is that people trying to choose an undergrad engineering school should consider Cooper Union (thanks for the heads up btw). This is fine, and I am inclined to agree. US News is inclined to agree, however as I have been trying to point out, there is a difference between a doctoral and a non-doctoral school. Students should not apply based off the assumption that they are the same thing, which is why US News rates them differently. This is also the reason why this wikipedia article should say the same thing, because they are not the same. Cooper Union is a top non-doctoral school, however if a student wants a doctoral school they should consider something else. It is plain and simple, but as I previously stated it seems that you agree now with keeping it as non-doctoral.

-Someone Else

At least we're getting somewhere now. The point I was trying to make with the "apples to oranges" statement is that that is the reason that US News doesn't compare them, which does not mean they defy comparison at all (which is a silly idea, isn't it?). No of course I didn't undertake my own "subjective empirical study." Again, man, whats with the attitude? That's what doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'm trying to have a discussion here that results in an agreement, but I'm not gonna keep doing it just to have you mock me with your responses. If that's what you're here for write on my talk page. If you "can't imagine" something about it, why don't you go there and check it out yourself? I'm sure Feynman's lectures were spectacular to witness first-hand, and Feynman's intelligence and research certainly had something to do with his ability to come up with them. There's also something to be said for Professors who devote their lives more specifically to teaching, a breed of Professors to be found more commonly at 4-year colleges. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with the US News article, which is something I guess I should have made clear before. To say that as a student choosing where to get his or her 4-year undergraduate engineering degree, The Cooper Union would (should?) probably appear in the top 10 choices (when choosing based on quality of the undergraduate education), is something completely different than what is contained in the US News article. Please stop second-guessing my intentions, I am not trying to falsely raise the reputation of my undergraduate college (a fact that is evidenced by my continuing this discussion w/o editing).

-Spudcrazy 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. it's "Cooper Union" or "The Cooper Union," not "Coopers Union" or "Cooper's Union."

Well, firstly, it was changed to 'non-doctoral' a month ago I believe, it was only recently changed back, so my changing it to non-doctoral was an edit to bring it back to its former glory. However the truth comes out it seems, you are a graduate of this school and so want to defend it. You my friend, are breaking wikipedia rules by stating something that is not supported by the article. I cannot imagine how self-important you need to be to imply that Coopers Union is not only one of the better non-doctoral schools in the nation (as the source says), but in fact is one of the better regardless of distinctions. Where do you base this off of? Do you base it off your own subjective empirical study that 'employers like Coopers Union', or do you base it off the fact that you got into grad school? I am sorry but these do not count as valid sources and are therefore ignored. Only what the source says is valid. And in fact if you want, hell, to bypass all of this arguing lets just put the name of the article in US News. Then there can be no argument any more, as everything stems from the source. So lets just say, 'according to the US News article 'Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (At schools whose highest degree is a bachelor's or master's)' Coopers Union is arguably one of the top universities' Is that fair? Because if that is not fair, then it is clear you are merely trying to upgrade the world view of your university, when such a view is I hate to say it, not supported. Id love to hear your response to this however.

Can Coopers Union students really do research as they see fit? For instance, as an undergrad I worked on designing Quantum Dots for Quantum Computing research with a famous professor in his field, I won't mention names but the school is top 3 in Materials Engineering. So could a Coopers Union student do something like this, and if so where are the facilities? Do the students then get free reign to go to Columbia to help professors with research? Forgive me if I find this unlikely.

Back to the question that you wish to impose, instead of the real question which is of course if saying it is a top school in general is supported by the source, is Coopers Union a top school in general? Once again I cannot imagine that it is, look at the top 5-10 engineering schools. There is a reason why they are on that list, years and years of solid research coming from their professors, professors who write famous books that are then used in every classroom across the country. Just look at Berkeley, when Kittel wrote his Intro to Solid State Physics, that soon became the standard bible for solid state physicists. When Feynman wrote his lectures on physics for Cal Tech, this too became extremely famous. University of Illinois is an incredible school, the first LED's were invented there and from then on they have a reuptation of immense EE and ME research and teaching. MIT has many fine books that are extremely well known. Stanford also. Georgia Tech also has many books, and much research that is world renowned. These are some of the top 7 according to US News for graduate engineering, (I didnt comment on Carnegie Melon as I figured it was redundant). There is a good reason why they are included in the top 7. Just because Coopers Union might have decent professors, does not make them in the class of these schools. Kids all over the world know these schools and some even aspire to travel to the US to study in them. It is silly to me, and arrogant to try and imply that Coopers Union somehow fits into this top 5, especially when US News clearly has the caveat that Coopers Union is a top school not supplying doctorates. Do your professors ever come in and start off a lecture with a research problem they are current working on? Do they ever get feedback from the students on how they would solve this particular threshold current density problem he is having with his solid-state laser? I doubt it highly. I realize once again that you wish to raise the level of your school up, but you got into a top 10 graduate school, be pleased with that as that is no small accomplishment.

To close, you keep pointing out that it is hard if not impossible ('apples to oranges') to compare Coopers Union with doctoral schools, so then why are you trying so desperately to do just that?

-Someone else

Again, I have to disagree. I'd like to note also that in my disagreement I am not going to immediately edit the main page, as you have done. Please respect the wiki process by discussing first THEN changing.

Your statement is prefaced by "I am a grad student, I know what schools are good." Thats semi-true. I too am a grad student. I too know what schools are good. I have been a grad student at both a top 10 university and at Cooper Union, so I can compare. This is not to say your opinion is without standing. That was part of what I was trying to say - "reputation" has a value that cant be pinned down with certainty. That having been said, the source in question notes that amongst non-doctoral institutions, Cooper is awesome. It doesn't compare non-doctoral institutions to doctoral institutions. So yes, giving the impression that the source would support that statement would be misleading. That doesn't mean, however, that its not true, and its difficult to find a good source for such an intangible thing.

As to your particular argument: yes, there are infrastructure-related issues that result in cooper, like any college, not drawing Nobel Laureates to the faculty. No, it doesn't soak up tons of research money and offer major research facilities. That doesn't mean that research isn't going on or that students don't get experience. If they didn't they wouldn't be going on to major research institutions all over the US. They wouldn't have received 10 NSF fellowships in the past 3 years. Thats a huge number for such a tiny school. Any student that wants a research project at Cooper needs only say so and they'll have research dumped on their laps, not tedious meaningless research but publishable work. I think Cooper's ability to get students into grad schools speaks for itself, and I think (and many would agree) that in its ability to succeed in its mission, as a college, Cooper compares to almost any other educational institution in the country in succeeding in their own missions (as whatever - a college, research university, whatever).

So again, please respect the process by discussing before editing. I'll watch the page for your reply (and change your edit if you don't). One final note: I'm not Dean Baum, and this isn't "propaganda." Try to choose your words with a greater degree of care.

-Spudcrazy 19:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a grad student, I know what schools are good. One basic thing about a good school is that there is current research going on there. Undergrad students can work with professors and perform cutting edge research with them, this has always been an important aspect of a university. I'm sure Coopers Union is good at teaching students information, and probably has decent labs to teach them lab work. However it is not the same thing, and this is an important difference. Going to MIT or Stanford or another top 10 school as an undergrad is a much difference experience merely because their professors are world famous in their fields and are established experimentalists. This comes through during the teaching, and also when the undergrads get into their junior/senior years they can work with these professors, thus getting experience for grad school impossible to get at a Coopers Union. Also I am not sure why we are having this argument at all, the SOURCE says that it is in the top 5 non-doctoral engineering programs. To imply otherwise is propaganda and reading into the list,something that is not supported by the source.

-Someone else

As editors keep going back and forth on the general reputation of the engineering school in their edits, it is probably a better idea to simply have the discussion here. I will open with this: we're attempting to state definitively something very vague - the caliber of an institution's reputation. US News and World reports do not compare Cooper to major research (i.e. doctorate-granting) institutions for a very good reason: its like comparing apples and oranges. So no, there's not much published research that says Cooper's engineering school is better or worse than, say, MIT. Even if there were, who could agree on the basis for such an assessment? I'd settle for saying this: the Nerken school does an incredible job at training undergraduate engineers. A high school student deciding where to get his or her engineering degree should place it right up amongst the top engineering schools in the nation, regardless of whether or not they offer major research programs and grant doctoral degrees.

-Spudcrazy 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Anybody want to explain how this makes sense? "The Cooper Union began with adult education in night classes on the subjects of applied sciences and architectural drawing, as well as day classes for women on the subjects of photography, telegraphy, typewriting and shorthand. Discrimination based on race, religion, or sex was expressly prohibited." [Emphasis mine] elnerdo 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (By the way, am I supposed to add my edits to talk pages to the top or bottom of the page?)

Explanation: at the time, most women couldn't enroll for schooling due to discrimination. To call it a "day class for women" is not to be exclusive of men, but to point out the fact that unlike in most other classes at the time, women are indeed encouraged to enroll. Moreover, the subjects being taught were tailored to areas that women could learn and then expect to earn money. It provided a service to a group that needed help.

The academic requirements listed for the engineering school include 51.5 credits of electrical engineering. Surely these are only the requirements for E.E. majors and not for the entire school.

Yea, that was only the Electrical Engineering curriculum. Fixed it. Wow this page should really be updated with the other majors. --Syxed 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah somebody needs to step up and add ChemE and CivE. And you're totally right the architecture school deserves at least its own paragraph if not its own actual page. -Spudcrazy

I made an attempt... anyone else wants to carry the torch? I haven't studied there so I can't say much about how awesome it actually is :-) Blahm 06:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The main article lists Felix Frankfurter as a distinguished alumnus. Another article in Wikipedia shows him as an alumnus of City College. Which is it? If it's City College, better not claim credit for Cooper.

I believe he was a dropout or a transfer. To be an "alumnus" one needs only to have taken a class, not graduated. Hence many schools claim "alumni" that never received a degree from that institution.

Best information available is that Frankfurter used the library and attended open lectures at the Great Hall but never attended a class. Therefore he neither dropped out nor transferred, since he was never a matriculated student. Continuing to list him as an alumnus is specious, and not in the best interests of the institution, which continues to make the same claim on their web pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.183.15 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Endowment

In case anyone is interested, this [1] is the source. --Syxed 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Some sections not encyclopedic

I just stumbled across this article and did a minor copyediting sweep. I noted that the section about the Engineering program is very long and most of it is not encyclopedic, but rather a summary of the course catalogue. As a casual editor unfamiliar with the subject, I'm not going to delete it myself, but it probably ought to go. 121a0012 01:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a definition of "encyclopedic"? I'm a fairly novice editor (not signed)

Much of this information is copied directly from the CU webpage. I am a novice too! and am not sure when it's appropriate to just start rewriting entire sections of text. any advice? I think the engineering sections of this article can be more briefly summarized and links added to the CU webpage. especially the more flowery language that has been pasted. Karinajean 04:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Engineering Department

I edited the recently added sections on CivE and ChemE, but someone should add a section about CURF or maybe another article

maybe someone should add s/t about life in cooper

engineering degrees offered

I don't know where the information for the interdisciplinary B.E. degree section in [[Cooper_Union#Other other] comes from. it's not on the website and to the best of my knowledge the only interdisciplinary degree offered is a bachelors of science in engineering. is there a reference for this? Karinajean 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and find a reference. Like most schools, the website is not very up-to-date. Those references to an interdisciplinary BE degree or IDE degree are indeed true for the time being, although the program is being re-evaluated I believe.

Can we have something about the building?

I just added the stuff about the National Historic Landmark designation. Could someone more knowledgeable than me add something about the building itself ... its architecture, construction etc.? If it's a landmark we should explain why. Daniel Case 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

About that "the"

It is a common mistake to leave out the "the" in the college's name, "the Cooper Union." Prior to my edit, contributors freely swung back and forth, randomly, between remembering to use the "the" and not, so it wasn't like I had to go in there and insert "the" everywhere. I added a prepositional phrase about how the college was originally intended to be called "the Union," which explains the requirement.

Basically, the use of "the Cooper Union" is similar to the use of "the New York Times" and "the Times" but never "New York Times" or "Times," except when it is used as an adjective ("Times reporter," etc.). No one would have considered referring to the college as "Union," it would have to be "the Union," although "the Cooper Union" became standard from the day the college was established, due to how beloved and esteemed its founder was. "Cooper," as shorthand, is acceptable ("the Cooper" would make no sense), although it is only context which clarifies the use in the article of "Cooper" to refer to the college as opposed to Peter Cooper himself, which does also occur.

I continue to encounter copy, from the college itself, that similarly randomly wanders between use of "the Cooper Union" and "Cooper Union," to my chagrin. While I was an editor of the Cooper Pioneer (the school newspaper), I did my best to stop the improper usage. As a side matter, I always felt the rare term "Cooperite" (which is the real name of a mineral, and I have sometimes seen used to refer to Cooper alumni, students, etc.) should be replaced with the cute "Cooperunian," but that has never been adopted, and I don't recall having an opportunity to use it myself, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.81.220 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Commas?

I'm not gonna do it, but after looking through this, and reading about the engineering department and a little further, I noticed what I thought was a lot of missing commas. I had to read a lot of sentences twice to get their meaning, and I'm pretty sure commas would remove any ambiguity. Anyone agree? Clopnaz —Preceding comment was added at 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Gan Edit

So, feel free to correct me here, but although Wikipedia is based on "sources," to purposefully add information you know to be incorrect just because you have a source for it isn't right either, is it?

Spudcrazy (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. I don't know the information is incorrect, nor do the majority of editors here on Wikipedia. It was at that point hearsay that this professor was replaced. The webpage shows the six professors, and those are the ones who should of be listed. If one has been changed there should be a reference to back it up. Simple. I know it sounds like a conservative/slow approach, but it is how Wikipedia works. Thanks for providing the reference that shows there is a new mechanical engineering professor at the school. Was it so difficult afterall? :)

New Academic Building Verifiability/POV

The section on the new academic building sounds like a cut-n-paste from a publicity brochure. The "vertical campus" part in particular seems way too much like something taken without proper citation from preexisting documentation. Might I humbly suggest rephrasing with NPOV or removal of the offending section?

74.66.230.83 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

from somebody else: Like the bit on the New Academic Building, the entirety of this article reads like a self-published propaganda piece or something from Cooper's student viewbook. One would think the Cooper Union is a flawless, idyllic Mecca of vocational education mixed in with the best, most beautiful parts of a modern, American liberal arts curriculum. As an ex-student of the Cooper Union, I have to say that this portrayal is patently false and very misleading, despite the extremely exciting and arousing bullet points like "full-tuition scholarship" and "less than 10% admission rate." Unfortunately for Cooper and its students, impressive admission rates (resulting from Cooper's romantic selling points, not least of which are a central Manhattan location and minuscule admission percentage derived from the school's freeness and not a merited prestige, and not, I think, from pedagogical and instructive competence) do not a healthy school make. Articles shouldn't serve as biased recruitment tools for organizations or causes, which this piece relentlessly demonstrates. Some major housekeeping is required for this piece to maintain any sense of integrity and veracity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.240.67 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take pains to focus your comments on the article and not on the subject. This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cooper Union's faults or virtues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Major Edits by Ci-Daemon (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've performed some very major revisions, additions, and cleanups of this page. Details are in the revision comments. I intend to continue over the next few days.

Issues this editing addresses:

Spelling/grammar mistakes EVERYWHERE. C'mon, people. (in progress, probably forever)
Old info in "Modern Changes" section. Ironic. (DONE)
'Unencyclopedic' and 'POV' issues in Modern Changes section (DONE, please review)
Poorly formatted and short Great Hall section. (DONE)
Numerous Engineering section problems, including direct copying from school website and poor organization. (DONE)
Out-of-date Engineering info (DONE)
Lack of images. (working on it, have added 7 so far)
Out-of-date "Facilities" section (working on it right now)
Lack of info on Art and Arch schools compared to Engineering (Art done as of today , Architecture next.)

Ci-Daemon (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry, Mathematics, Physics Departments

Three of the Cooper Union's oldest departments are not mentioned; chemistry, mathematics and physics. Can someone add sections describing these departments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.158.79 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is something you can do yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try. There used to be descriptions on this page but someone has deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.98.16.84 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - new section added. Hope this will serve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qflib (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

I have revised and expanded the citations on Richard Sarles for inclusion in Cooper_Union#Notable_alumni section. As the reason for previous removal was "not notable", I have satisfied criteria for WP:SIGCOV, WP:NRVE, WP:NTEMP and WP:Source list with information back to 2000 from the Washington Post, New York Times, Scientific American, etc. Additionally, there is a nice article from Star-News, 15 Aug 1999 pages E1-E2 if we want to go further back :-) Lent (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

These articles are about him only in regard to his position as the head of the Washington Metro, but that is not enough to show that he is notable, since anyone who was head of the Washington Metro would get the exact same mentions. There are X number of urban rapid transit systems in the U.S. and the head of every single one of them would get coverage in the local press that's exactly equivalent to the coverage you've presented for Sarles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the citations do mention more than his current position, with notable accomplishments, [2] like getting the fastest train in the Western Hemisphere, the Acela Express, running from New Haven to Boston, only a dream since Turbotrain. Getting the ARC_Tunnel project off the ground might be another. Particularly, at a college whose founder built the first US locomotive, Tom_Thumb_(locomotive). Additionally, we see that other transit system heads, particularly those of large metropolitan areas and capitals of nations, are notable for their positions, such as NYC's Jay Walder , San Fransisco's Richard_A._White, Hong Kong's Chow Chung-Kong , Baltimore's Otis_Rolley, Delhi's E._Sreedharan, as are heads of other public and private rail corporations like Amtrak's Joseph_H._Boardman, Union Pacific's James_R._Young_(UP). Admittedly, Toronto's Robert Prichard background is a bit more varied, and was probably needed with Toronto transit's merger and subsequent acquisitions :-)

Lent (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice that all those other names you cite have something that Sarles doesn't, which is an article on Wikipedia -- however, the point you make about his past accomplishments is valid. I'm going to restore the listing with the WaPo ref as a supporting citation. You might think about putting together an article about Sarles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please LOCK THIS PAGE

Someone has vandalized this page. The curriculum section has been rewritten to purposefully tarnish the reputation of this institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.7.38 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the edits in question, but you should know that you can revert vandalism yourself in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated historical references

Someone has edited the beginning paragraph, adding the following phrase without any substantiation: "Since 1902, initially with support from a gift from Andrew Carnegie, and later with gifts from Cooper's descendants as well as income from real estate holdings, the College has admitted students based on merit alone and provided each with a full-tuition scholarship. In the school's early years (1859-1902), more affluent students paid tuition to help support scholarships for those who needed them." As far as I can tell this statement is not correct. The statement should be eliminated unless a specific reference is invoked to substantiate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qflib (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Three schools, not four

The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, while essential to Cooper Union, is sadly not a school. :-( Also, there is no citation for the change. 38.122.225.42 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Mr. Drogin has scanned a reference, a history of the college compiled by Cooper Union assistant librarian Virgina Weimer-Vogl, written for At Cooper Union in celebration of the 125th Anniversary of the institution in 1984, and posted it to his website. Ms. Weimer-Vogl relates that, from the archives, when Edwin Burdell, former Dean of Humanities at MIT, became president of Cooper Union in 1938, he added Humanities courses, and in 1939 established a Humanities Department with William S. Lynch as head. There is a later entry that in 1984 the Department became a Faculty. The reference claims to be edited, most likely there was identified a date when the Humanities Department became the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, the editor of the publication probably edited that out to save on space, as it says. The scan of this historical document by Mr. Drogin and posting to his unfortunately named website, Not Nice Music (an eye-catching music business name for the very nice man) is a significant contribution to the Internet. ACU84.pdf

As per http://cooper.edu/academics,

The Cooper Union is comprised of Schools of Architecture, Art, Engineering and a Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

The difference is that no degrees are offered in Humanities and Social Sciences. All three schools mandate students take a core Humanities and Social Science curriculum, along with recommended electives.

The question is how to integrate the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences into this early part of the article.

The existing sentence

The college, which is divided into four schools – the Irwin S. Chanin School of Architecture, the School of Art, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the Albert Nerken School of Engineering – offers internationally-accredited undergraduate and Master's degree programs exclusively in the fields of architecture, fine arts, and engineering as a member of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD).

is difficult at best. Too much information is being presented in one sentence!

The ideas of Schools, Degrees Programs, Accreditation, and Organizations are all trying to fit into one sentence.

The Architecture [3] and Engineering Schools [4] do offer Master's degrees, but the Art School does not. The sentence is incomplete as it lacks the accreditations from Middle States and National Association of Schools of Art and Design.

Some history...The sentence evolved from: 22 July 2003

Currently, Cooper Union offers programs in architecture, fine arts, and engineering to a total of nearly 900 students.

and

Cooper Union evolved over time into the current form of four-year college with three schools (architecture, art, and engineering).

Which evolved into the three schools, followed by association membership details 3 April 2008

The school offers degree programs in architecture, fine arts, and engineering. The Cooper Union is a member of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD), a consortium of thirty-six leading art schools in the United States.

This was mashed into one sentence 4 April 2008

The school offers accredited degree programs in architecture, fine arts, and engineering and is a member of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD), a consortium of thirty-six leading art schools in the United States.

A later form gets ABET tagged on :-) 13 November 2008

The school offers accredited degree programs in architecture, fine arts, and engineering and is a member of ABET and the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD), a consortium of thirty-six leading art schools in the United States.

Lent (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So, fix it! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Free or not?

Resolved: see my last comment for an explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Claiming to not be taking sides in The Cooper Union conflict, Beyond My Ken is deleting factual material with proper citations and replacing it with a falsified history, claiming that full-tuition scholarships were only available since 1902 and that Peter Cooper only wanted the institution to be "accessible." I made some formatting errors with my citations, leaving out a few spaces and | marks, but before I could edit them he had restored the falsified history to its original state. There is no way that Beyond My Ken had enough time to check any of the numerous citations, this is abuse and his account should be suspended. 67.250.40.45 (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Barry Drogin, Cooper Union Tau Beta Pi Laureate for Diverse Achievements in Music and Journalism

Not to put too fine point on it, you're full of shit, Barry Drogin. I deleted unsourced POV information generated by the student "occupation" of Cooper Union, including one vandalisic edit which claimed that the President of that institution was no longer the President. If that came from you, and you want to be taken seriously, don't fucking vandalize the encyclopedia - and once you've vandalized it, don't expect to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Further info is available on my talk page, where the anon editor - under a different IP, of course – claims that the changes to the article were "corrections" to a disinformation campaign carried out by Cooper Union. That is a typical propagandistic statement, indicating that Drogin really doesn't understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a press release.

The bottom line here is that this is not the place to carry out your disagreements with Cooper Union, and if you continue to try to use Wikipedia as a battlegound, I can guarantee that you will not succeed. Go print a pamphlet, Wikipedia is not a "free press", it's an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do visit his talk page. "Beyond My Ken" claims to be neutral and requires citations for changes. Fair enough. Barry Drogin is not a student, he is an illustrious alumnus with a strong personal archive of Cooper Union memorabilia, as his father also attended the college. You did not check any of the citations, from the Cooper Union's own archives, from their professors, from Harvard archives, from century-old publications. Not one citation was from anyone that is a student at The Cooper Union. If you are truly interested in the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, you should respect the many scholars who are working to preserve and disseminate this historical material. Mr. Drogin was removing the vandalization, you have restored it. I am sure you have been plagued by vandalization this year. Your language ("you're full of shit") violates Wikipedia policies of polite discussion of scholarly matters, Mr. Drogin is correct to question your change, please redeem yourself by restoring the material and removing your edit. Thank you. P.S. I am not a student, either, although I do care about preserving Peter Cooper's legacy and reputation and have been following the financial crisis story.

I don't care if you and "Drogin" are the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury if you attempt to use Wikipedia to push a point of view your edits will be reverted, and if you continue you will be blocked from editing. That goes for any non-neutral POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Founded in 1859 and inspired back in 1830 by the government-supported Polytechnic Institute (Ecole Polytechnique) of Paris

 "Peter Cooper," 1891, Columbia University Libraries, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_5655304_000/pages/ldpd_5655304_000_00000042.html
 "Henry Whitney Bellows Lecture," 1999, Cooper Union Engineering Faculty, http://engfac.cooper.edu/pages/topper/uploads/peter_cooper_lect_wbib&ed_Final.pdf

the school established a radical new model of American higher education: its mission reflects founder Peter Cooper's fundamental belief that an education "equal to the best" should be "open and free to all"

  "Letter to the Trustees," 1859, Cooper Union Library, http://library.cooper.edu/archive/letters/pc_letter_2.html
  "Autobiography of Peter Cooper," Vol. VI, No. 147, p. 465, Old South Leaflets (Harvard College Library), url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tysPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA488&lpg=PA488&dq=%22Old+South+Leaflets%22+%22open+and+free+to+all%22 +1864&source=bl&ots=dNCHxMWvPY&sig=LoPIvznYewAceM3N00ZymCRLFS0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yP3HULiJHcfV0gGumIDYBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Old%20South%20Leaflets%22%20%22open%20and%20free%20to%20all%22%201864&f=false
  "Heroes of Peace," 1877, Internet Archive, http://www.archive.org/stream/heroesofpeace00bost/heroesofpeace00bost_djvu.txt
  "Newport Daily News," 1900, http://newspaperarchive.com/newport-daily-news/1900-03-16/page-3

who qualify, independent of their race, religion, sex, wealth or social status. Initially a combination of the day-time School of Design for Women, a free reading room open day and night, and a new 4-year night-time engineering college for men and a few women,

  "At Cooper Union 125th Anniversary Special Issue," 1984, Cooper Union, http://www.notnicemusic.com/ACU84.pdf
  "On Amateurs and Access," 2012, WordPress, http://sangamithra.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/on-amateurs-and-access/

its first trustee chair, Abram Hewitt, Peter Cooper's son-in-law and a major figure in the early organization of the engineering curriculum due to his being the only member of the Cooper family to be college-educated (at Columbia)

 "Henry Whitney Bellows Lecture," 1999, Cooper Union Engineering Faculty, http://engfac.cooper.edu/pages/topper/uploads/peter_cooper_lect_wbib&ed_Final.pdf

lived long enough to see the addition of a day-time engineering college in 1902 thanks to funds contributed by Andrew Carnegie.

  "At Cooper Union 125th Anniversary Special Issue," 1984, Cooper Union, http://www.notnicemusic.com/ACU84.pdf

Except for amateur open-enrollment art classes in the morning in its first decade

  "On Amateurs and Access," 2012, WordPress, http://sangamithra.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/on-amateurs-and-access/

and, later, amateur open-enrollment continuing education programs offered at night

  "At Cooper Union," 2010, Cooper Union, http://www.scribd.com/doc/30247316/Cooper-Union-s-Continuing-Education-program

Cooper Union has offered merit-based full-tuition scholarships to all of its students, an education "as free as air and water," according to Abram Hewitt.

  "Commencement Speech," 1902, Cooper Union Library, http://cooper.libguides.com/content.php?pid=388387&sid=3183137

Summary

Onlookers may be confused about what is going on here. Cooper Union is a tuition-free school (actually, there's a $35K tuition, but all students receive a full scholarship) which is in financial trouble and has been talking about charging graduate students. There's been speculation that this may lead to charging tuition for undergrads, which has raised the usual ruckus: protest meetings, students occupying classrooms, etc. As part of the conflict there's this "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" dispute. The university says that since 1902, all students have been admitted at no charge, but prior to that, from 1859 to 1902, some students who could afford it paid tuition. The other side, represented by the IP commenters above, dispute this, and says that the college has always been entirely tuition free to full time students, thus the torrent of words and citations above. There's no doubt that Peter Cooper and Abram Hewitt wanted the college to be "as free as the air", that was their intention, but there's also no doubt that the NY Times reported in 1863 that "Those only are supposed to pay anything who are abundantly able, or prefer to do so," i.e. that some students may have paid.

In truth, the entire mishegas isn't terribly significant at all. The IP commenters want the article to say that it was always free because that's part of their campaign against the university's plan to start charging. They claim that the university has deliberately skewed the article, and they are simply "correcting" historical fact. Despite the claims made above, I have no dog in this hunt, and no connection whatever with Cooper Union, but I've been watching this article for quite a long time, and I've seen no campaign to skew the article in that way. What I am seeing now is a campaign in the other direction, to push a specific POV for political purposes, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, which is why I removed much material, winnowed it out, and restored what was relevant and well-sourced.

In truth, this is a terribly minor issue, since everyone involved agrees that Cooper's intention was for the school to be free. Adding a huge block of material to an already long article just to underscore one faction's philosophy in an internecine dispute is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Beyond My Ken, for your clear explanation.

On November 3, 2010, the webpage read:

"Founded in 1859, the school established a radical new model of American higher education: its mission reflects founder Peter Cooper's fundamental belief that education of the highest quality should be "free as air and water" and therefore available to all who qualify–independent of race, religion, sex, or social status. For 150 years, the College has admitted students based on merit alone and provided each with a full-tuition scholarship."

The problem with "For 150 years" is it has to be updated and comes off of the 150 year celebration in 2009. Wikipedia now reads:

"Founded in 1859, and inspired in 1830 when he learned about the government-supported École Polytechnique of Paris,[4][5] the school established a radical new model of American higher education: its mission reflects founder Peter Cooper's fundamental belief that an education "equal to the best"[6] should be accessible to those who qualify, independent of their race, religion, sex, wealth or social status. Since 1902, The Cooper Union has granted each admitted student a full-tuition scholarship, according to the belief of Abraham Hewitt, Peter Cooper's son-in-law and a major figure in the early organization of the curriculum, that education should be "free as air and water.""

Of course, you are correct that Abram Hewitt, who had to work his way through Columbia, and Peter Cooper, who could not have afforded to attend college, both wanted and intended that the college be as free as the air. Your citation of the "abundantly able" phrase is certainly historical, repeated by Hewitt in the Cooper annual reports of the time to refer to those who exerted "great pressure for admission" when the institution gave precedence to those most in need. To ensure that those most in need would still be admitted and get a free education (the college even provided additional financial support to those without employment or sufficient family support), the college provided an additional "amateur" class, at cost and requiring a donation,

Hewitt repeated phrases that were eloquent, claiming, for example that Peter Cooper told the first engineering graduating class in 1894 (all five of them) that education should be "open and free to all," using a phrase from Peter Cooper's "Letter to the Trustees." He uses "as free as air and water" twice, appended to two separate contradictory origin stories, one being documented, the other impossible to verify.

Is there a source for the "1859 to 1902" phrase you use? For the exactness of the "Since 1902" phrase? Based on a newspaper report, you say that some "may" have paid. In 1879, Hewitt is adamant that the college is "absolutely free" and grapples with the problem of the preference policy and policy towards the "abundantly wealthy". The part-time students were only part of the college until 1887.

"On Amateurs and Access," 2012, WordPress, http://sangamithra.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/on-amateurs-and-access/

38.122.225.42 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hewitt's statement was clearly one of intent and philosophy and is not a report on what actually occurred. The Times article from 1863 speaks for itself.

BTW, your last reference is a blog and therefore not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And BTW again, I'm not entering into your angels-on-a-pin discussion. You want to debate, go get someone from Cooper Union and rent a hall. This talk page is exclusively for discussions on how to improve the article, and meta-discussions about the subject matter are not on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent corrections are much improved and concise. 38.122.225.42 (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

It may not have been your intention, but your last edit deleted 13K of material from this page, which I have restored. There are only a limited number of circumstances under which deletion of talk page comments is allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean there is no mechanism for considering some parts of a Talk discussion resolved? I thought the major issue was one of reliable vs. unreliable sources, and you clearly realize that both the college, its staff, students, faculty, and alumni, at least anything they create during this past year, are unreliable sources. But the introduction of new reliable sources, and the edits to the site as a result, is a great improvement, what an encyclopedia is for. If you feel your summary, which is most instructive, should stay, or if deleting it is against Wikipedia policy, I understand. I'm learning all of these Wikipedia rules, and respect them when followed. You would think this wouldn't have to be a permanent record 100 years from now, Talk itself has a history, of course. Please clarify if necessary. 38.122.225.42 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments thread are maintained as a record. After some time, non-active threads can be archived, if the page is too full or too messy, but they're never deleted entirely. They can be collapsed however, which I'll do to this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the phrase "more pointed solicitation of alumni donations and research grants" is "pointed" the right word? It struck me as rather odd. Billlion (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Architect

This source says Fred A. Petersen designed Cooper Union. Should this be noted in the article? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's confirmed by the Guide to New York City Landmarks and the AIA Guide to New York City, so it's a wonder that Petersen hasn't been added to the body of the article before this. I se you've already added it, although I've moved it down a but into the article into a separate section for the Foundation Building. (Which is the buildng you're referring to, the one on Astor Place at Cooper Square.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As this article is mostly about the school I wonder if there shouldn't be a separate article about the building? Candleabracadabra (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Feel free, though, to expand the new "Foundation Building" section if you have new sources and new information. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Edit dispute

An editor is trying to add this information to the financial/tuition crisis section of the article:

In 2015, Cooper Union was ranked #31 in New York State by average professor salaries.^[1]

References

^ http://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2015/04/13/new-york-professor-pay/25683261/

I do not understand what this has to do with the specific subject of the school's tuition/fiscal crisis, since the referenced article isn't an analysis of CU's money problems and whether their professorial pay scale impacts it in some way, but a list of instituions in the state and what they pay to their professors, so I removed it from the article. The editor has edit-warred to keep it in, and has refused to open a discussion here, despite WP:BURDEN, which requires editors who wish to add disputed material to overcome the burden of doing so, and WP:BRD, which requires a Bold edit that is Reverted to be Discussed, and the article left in the status quo ante while the discussion is ongoing.

Despite the negative implications of their question in one of their edit summaries, I am not an alumnus of Cooper Union, and, in fact, have no connection with it whatsoever. I started editing the article because I took some pictures of Cooper Union's buildings. I have been an editor of this article since 13 December 2012,[5] and am, in fact, the editor with the most edits to it by number. I have contributed 4.1% of the article by amount of text,[6] so I believe I have a good understanding of the structure of the article. BMK (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My sense is that the editor proposing this change is attempting to insert this factoid as an ironic comment concerning the salaries paid to faculty of a school which experienced a financial crisis only a few years before. However, this is a classic trojan horse scenario and does not maintain neutral point of view. Perhaps this information belongs in the article, but not in this section. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say it belongs in the article where it was only if supported by a citation that explicitly ties the professorial pay scale to the fiscal/tuition crisis. It might be able to go in in another section, but, again, it's just a stray fact with no context provided, and would need to be related in some way to other institutions of its type in New York City. BMK (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This factoid should not be used merely to make a point that (thus far) none of the article's sources have made, as that in effect makes it an editorial. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I asked you whether or not you are an alumnus in good faith because I saw that you have made plenty of edits to this article. However, I would like to note that this article doesn't seem neutral to me. Unsourced non-neutral sentences such as "Cooper is considered to be one of the most prestigious colleges in the United States, with all three of its member schools consistently ranked among the highest in the country," and "Alumni of the Cooper Union win a vastly disproportionate share of the nation's most prestigious awards," should be removed. This article is full of puffery, and unlike most other colleges, doesn't read like a neutral encyclopedia article. Cooper Union maybe very selective (due to the fact that it doesn't charge undergraduate tuition), like City College of New York. But its professors are not that good. Given the fact that external research funding is very low etc. This article has to be written in a neutral way.--Cryptjohson (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Beyond My Ken Dwpaul

You believe that you're in a position to judge the neutrality of the article; "But its professors are not that good. Given the fact that external research funding is very low etc." I don't think so. BMK (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

~~See List of research universities in the United States and Association of American Universities. The professors get paid very low salaries for a reason.--Cryptjohson (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)~~

You seem to have once again missed the point. We can neither say nor infer that Cooper Union is an inferior institution (nor that it should pay its professors less than it does) based on the fact that it does not appear in a list here of research universities or is not (apparently, though a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for other articles, especially in terms of omissions) a member of the AAU. We can only say these things, even if one or both are true, because a reliable source says so. Attempting to combine facts to imply something which none of the facts' sources say is called synthesis, and is not permitted here. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

BMK, you already violated the three-revert rule, but since no one warned you, you will probably not get blocked. If any admin does block you, I will request the admin to unblock you.--Cryptjohson (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that nice of you? But you really should take a closer look at the article's history. BMK (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, no need to be sarcastic. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines before editing this article. Thank you.--Cryptjohson (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And I recommend that you don't tag bomb the article again, since you clearly have a POV problem in regard to the institution. BMK (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

~~Your accusation has no veracity. On the contrary, you seem to have the POV problem!--Cryptjohson (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)~~

There are mechanisms to address it if you think another editor is failing to abide by WP:NPOV. In the mean time, consensus so far is clearly against you on the inclusion of the information on professorial salaries in that section, so please do not reinsert it unless and until a different consensus is achieved. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And would you please stop accusing other editors of edit warring, when you clearly have not yet taken the time to understand what it is (and what it is not). (Please do.) Reverting edits you have made or favor does not constitute edit warring merely because you made or favor them. There are also mechanisms in place to deal with that if you think it has occurred, but beware the boomerang. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dwpaul, please read what I wrote above, and see what actually happened before jumping to support your friend.I've not incluced the information on professorial salaries in that section, and the tags you removed unjustly, were totally justified to be there. I made these two edits: [7] and [8] just to put finger on some of the many reasons why those tags were justified.--Cryptjohson (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I've (already had) read everything you've written and was here from the start of the discussion (so I know exactly what happened), and I'm still not convinced. And you have asserted that I am somehow biased in favor of BMK's edits (I am not, and thoroughly capable of independent thought and judgment), once again violating Assume good faith. We can agree to disagree about edits (as long as you do not edit against consensus), but you need to stop your accusations. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dwpaul, At the beginning there was a separate discussion, of which you were part of, about whether or not to include information on professorial salaries in a certain section. Then BMK reverted my adding of tags, and accused me of being a POV editor[9]. I added the tags long after justifying it on the talk page here. After you removed the tags unjustly, I made these two edits: [10] and [11] just to put finger on some of the many reasons why those tags were justified.--Cryptjohson (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know; and I then removed those tags, as I was in agreement with BMK that they were inappropriate and unnecessary. The mere fact that certain improvements can be made to an article does not always justify tagging the entire article, especially if other editors disagree and/or if an editor is already working on those improvements, and any editor may remove tags they consider inappropriate. Thus far, I have not challenged your subsequent edits to the article, but I reserve the right to do so in the future. If I do it will be because I disagree with them, not because BMK does (though if BMK and I and/or other editors agree, we may renew a discussion about consensus). Dwpaul ^Talk 22:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the edits I've reviewed so far, except that I updated the alumni awards section with current information from a current link. So far, the edits made have (for the most part) improved the article -- although they hardly justify the previous tag bombing. I'll continue to monitor the changes made by Cryptjohson and discuss here any issues I feel need to be reviewed. BMK (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I don't've, and never had any personal issue with you or your edits. I just want the article to be in line with Wikipedia standards. Since you are the editor who had most edits on this article prior to me starting to fix it, as a friendly advice, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines as well as Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Cheers!--Cryptjohson (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I see that you once again added Wikipedia:Weasel word [12], I also fixed your stray edits and capitalization errors[13]. Please read the guidelines I suggested you to read. Some of your edits to this article are unintentionally disruptive. Cheers--Cryptjohson (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't have a clue what you're talking about. In your edit following mine you mentioned above, in which I assume you fixed the terrible "weasal word" I added, all you did was remove an extraneous square bracket. Thanks for that, but... huh? BMK (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor seems to be objecting to the word "Recent", which I've never thought of as a weasel word. While I agree that the source did not say "recent" (some of the award recipients were Class of 195x), I'm not sure why the editor thinks they have to come back here and point out every disagreement they have with your edits, unless they're just trying to be provocative. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be provocative at all. I removed the word "recent", but BMK sneaked it in again while updating the link to which I added a "dead link" tag. I'm trying to take the article to "featured article" status. It can't be done overnight, and makes it all the more harder if someone keeps undoing my fixing. BMK has made most edits to this article prior to me trying to fix it, and he remains a frequent editor. That is the only reason why I'm cautioning him. I'm doing it in good faith. Cheers--Cryptjohson (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"I'm trying to take the article to 'featured article' status". Sorry, I don't believe you, and if you keep lying like that, we're going to have a really serious discussion about the way you burst forth two days ago like Athena from the head of Zeus, fully formed and well-versed in the ways of Wikipedia -- and we both know full well what that means. (And no, it's not "I've been editing as an IP for such a long time that I learned it all" - that dog don't hunt.) So, if you want to keep bullshitting like this, I'm happy to oblige you and open up the discourse to all sorts of other interesting things, the majority of which will see you indefinitely blocked from editing for the forseeable future. BMK (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I'm not lying at all. I removed the word "recent" with this edit, while you readded it with this edit, possibly by mistake. We can both learn from each other. Teachers at times do learn from students. My intention was never to demean you or piss you off. In fact I believe you had a huge hand in building this article in the first place, and your and Dwpaul's help is crucial in taking this article to featured status. I'm a perfectionist, but I guess I shouldn't've disregarded your seniority after all.--Cryptjohson (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, still don't believe you.

Who are you? What was your ID before you started editing with this name a couple of days ago? Are you banned or blocked? If not, why aren't you using your previous ID?

What have you got against Cooper Union, or are you a Cooper Union student who's dissatisfied with the school? If not that, what's your connection with the school?

Did you edit the article under your previous ID or IDs? Were you frustrated that you weren't allowed to edit the tuition/fiscal crisis section freely, and thought that this "featured article" ploy might be the best way to get what you want?

As you may be able to tell, I don't believe anything you say. I don't believe that you are a new editor, I don't believe that you do not have an agenda regarding Cooper Union, I don't believe you feigned innocence. I gave you a large measure of WP:AGF, even though I've known of your editing history from the beginning, but it's completely run out now. You are a fraud, pure and simple. BMK (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Cryptjohson was indef blocked as a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked long-term abuser Mangoeater1000. Such editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, so I have struck through their remarks here. BMK (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The current IP editor, 96.242.156.213, is a return of Mangoeater1000/Crypthohson. BMK (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate list of notable alumni

The exact same sentence below has been added to the "The School of Art" and "Notable Alumni" sections.

"Notable alumni of the School of Art include Seymour Chwast, Ching Ho Cheng, Milton Glaser, Herb Lubalin, J. Abbott Miller, Lou Dorfsman, Ellen Lupton, Joel Peter Witkin, Alexander Isley, Eva Hesse, Alex Katz and Hans Haacke."

It was removed from the "The School of Art" section by User:Cryptjohson and subsequently by me since sentences should not be duplicated in Wikipedia articles as a matter of good article editing. Yet User:Beyond My Ken continues to revert our edits, not respond to the reasons given in our edits on why the duplicate sentence should be removed, and repeatedly adds this duplicate statement back in without any reasonable justification.

There is even a question of whether that duplicate statement should even be shown in this article since it was pointed out to User:Beyond My Ken that there is a separate article, Notable alumni of Cooper Union that would be a better place to have this list of alumni.

Rather than simply accept that this statement was graciously allowed to remain in the "Notable alumni" section, User:Beyond My Ken continues to ignore the reasons given on why it should not be duplicated and repeatedly adds this duplicate sentence back into the "The School of Art" section.96.242.156.213 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Most likely a sock. Waiting on confirmation BMK (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is absolutely likely wrong. How sad that Beyond My Ken feels the need to waste the time of himself and others on false accusations about me rather than deal with the simple objective issue of avoiding duplicate sentences in a Wikipedia article. Shame on Beyond My Ken. If Wikipedia allows this type of harassing behavior from an article editor, like Beyond My Ken, then shame on Wikipedia. Let's focus on the article and not create false accusations about me. A duplicate sentence with the same information as another sentence does not add any value to this article and should be removed. Please focus on content issues and not on me, who is a legitimate editor.96.242.156.213 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll attest that BMK is absurdly WP:OWNERy if anyone ends up bringing him before a disciplinary hearing. He certainly made my experience with this page ridiculously combative.

As to the merits of this case, I agree that laundry lists of alumni should only be mentioned once on the main page and—for relative unnotables such as these—not even that, if there's an alumni page already. —

Llywelyn II

23:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

On a separate but also a related note, it's a little strange that there's a list of notable alumni from the School of Art on this page, but not the other schools of Cooper Union. I do see a number of notable architects and engineers and scientists and whatnot on the separate List of alumni of Cooper Union so I'm not sure why this section only lists artists. In my opinion it makes no sense to maintain two separate lists, especially since one (this one, presumably) is incomplete and two lists are much harder to maintain than one list. So I think that we should either remove the second paragraph under "Notable Alumni" completely, or (if you all hate that idea), add sections for the alumni for the other schools and just accept that the maintenance is going to be very difficult. I really don't like the second solution since it's the whole reason why there is a separate page. Any thoughts, anyone? KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that there was an anonymous change to this same list that was reverted (and rightly so). To me this is just yet another reason why this list should not be on this page at all. Any discussion? If no one objects (and I'll wait awhile longer to see if there are objections raised), I will remove it. KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Alt name

Cooper Institute needs mentioning in the page given its ubiquity in 19th century sources, but my opinion is that there's no real need to get into less common alt names like "the People's Institute", "Cooper's Institute", and "Mr. Cooper's Institute". That said, they could go in a footnote. Thoughts? — $Llywelyn II$ 23:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

While CU was indeed commonly referred to at the time of Lincoln's Cooper Union speech as "the Cooper Institute", it was in the context of "Cooper's institute", "institute" being a very common noun used at that time to refer to any place of higher learning or research. It was never officially known as Cooper Institute, having been founded as The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. All of this can be mentioned in the article, but it should not appear in the lead as if it was ever an official name for CU. It was not. General Ization ^Talk 23:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, I was confused by what I found (see my talk page), but that makes perfect sense. BMK (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but do not remove content—especially now that it's sourced—without reincluding it somewhere else on the page. It absolutely should appear in the lead and was appropriately phrased as "known as", not as "officially". —

Llywelyn II

23:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Welp, thanks to the resident page owner, I'm now up against 3RR and it's up to you to figure out how to include the needful information in some suitable fashion, assuming he reverts again in the near future. Seems likely, despite it being massively counterproductive, inappropriate, and against policy. But you're right: we don't want to be misleading, so if you think the phrasing wasn't strong enough before, kindly find some better way to get the same point across. There's a source for its inclusion in the page's edit history. (What about "...commonly known as ~ during the 19th century..." or "...informally known as ~ in the 19th century"? It's definitely an informal name but we include those—this one was notable enough to be the popular name of Lincoln's address for a good span & see the first bio on this page for someone using Cooper Institute as a proper noun without any further caveats in the year 2000—and it was a capitalized name, not a common noun.) —

Llywelyn II

23:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. I placed "the Cooper Institute" in quotes and did not make it bold since it is not a redirect to this article (the preferred application of bold text in the lead). General Ization ^Talk 00:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. This "twit" appreciates your work. BMK (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy, BMK. BMK happens to be a friend of mine--please don't insult him needlessly. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cooper Union. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110106133651/http://www.cooper.edu/cubuilds/donors.html to http://www.cooper.edu/cubuilds/donors.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation for anonymous change

Recently an anonymous user changed the description of scholarship awards made to students but no citation was provided. Can someone provide a citation to support the change? KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cooper Union. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://cooper.edu/about-us/history
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2010/4/2010_4_10.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040821025535/http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/biography8text.html to http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/biography8text.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201164937/http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2004/2/2004_2_19.shtml to http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2004/2/2004_2_19.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108202025/http://www.hofstra.edu/home/News/PressReleases/ENGINEERING%20DEAN.html to http://www.hofstra.edu/Home/News/PressReleases/ENGINEERING%20DEAN.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wholescale changes

Today I noted that a great deal of content was removed by a single user, without discussion, on the basis that sections of the page "were way too long and detailed." Are these changes called for? Do they improve the page? Some discussion and explanation seems appropriate, especially given the large number of edits this page has received over the years. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with making bold edits to an article. This article was way too detailed in some places, particularly the descriptions of specific degree programs and the lede that spent way too much space on historical details. It may be helpful to review our recommendations for articles about colleges and universities.

Do you have any specific objections to my edits? ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mostly I was wondering whether others agreed with your edits. I was surprised by them since they weren't prefaced with any discussion. KeeYou Flib (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Qflib, I'm a CU graduate (BSE'81), so maybe a little biased. But, yeah, a lot of what was deleted seemed like excessive levels of detail and/or overly promotional. Stuff like The School of Engineering's B.E. degrees are designed to prepare students for either direct industry employment or continued, graduate-level engineering education in their particular field doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Likewise, All students in the program are required to choose a track, and each has unique graduation requirements, and the deep drill-down into individual degree requirements. Crossing the street, the Cooper Union School of Art draws on the creative energy of the East Village to produce some of the most distinguished artists in the world today is equally fluffy.

I'm sure there's room for discussion about what should be included and what shouldn't be, but overall I don't see any major problems with these large deletions. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Good. I also personally agree with the specific edits that you mentioned. In my opinion just a few other details should have been left in. For example, I added back in the very short list of engineering majors offered since that's an unusual attribute of the engineering school. KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How is that list unusual? Why should this be exempt from our usual practices in these kinds of articles ("Because Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section.)? ElKevbo (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right and it shouldn't. It's only unusual because it's such a short list! KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "Chairperson"

An editor is attemtpting to remove the name of the chairperson from the infobox, on the grounds that this information is of no use to the reader. I disagree, especially since the name of the President is left in, and one can make that same argument about the President.

In point of fact, the Chairperson is the head of the college's Board of Directors, and the Board was intimately involved in the events which lead to Cooper Union financial crisis and tuition protests. Those decisions were not made by the President, they were made by the Board. Therefore the name of the Chairperson is quite relevant to any future events of that sort. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The president typically makes decisions that regularly impacts the institution; the chairperson does not. In fact, trustees are explicitly guided to not interfere with the day-to-day activities of an institution. This is simply not information that is essential for readers to know to understand this institution at a glance. There may be some situations when this person has played a prominent role at the institution but of course that can be said of any number of people in many different positions - prominent professors, deans of colleges or schools, chairs of departments, various vice presidents or deputy provosts, etc. - but that does not mean that they should be included in the infobox.

Wikipedia is not built on the opinions of Wikipedia editors, however, but on published reliable sources. Can you please provide some examples of other publications that include that summarize U.S. colleges and universities - IPEDS, the various ranking publications, other encyclopedias, etc. - that include the chair of the trustees as essential information?

(I'd be happy to move this discussion to Template talk:Infobox university; I've been thinking about asking these same questions there for quite some time with the intention of opening an RfC or similar process to remove this parameter.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Your request is irrelevant. We don't require reliable sources as to what information is included in our article -- or our infoboxes -- we require reliable sources for the information that we decide to include. The method we use to decide what to include, when there is a dispute, is consensus, and that's what this is, a consensus discussion. The opinions of Wikipedia editors on whether the information should be included will decide whether it's in the article or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't include everything that is published in reliable sources if some Wikipedia editors want to include it. We have an entire policy about it for the entire project and specific advice for articles about colleges and universities.

I encourage you to review WP:CIVIL before deciding to tell another editor that their "request is irrelevant." We have numerous policies and practices that encourage editors to ask questions of one another; it's highly inappropriate for you to respond to another editor's questions and suggestions with a polite "shut up."

So let's get back to the original questions: Why is this particular piece of information so critical for readers to understand this subject that it must be included in the infobox? Do other reliable sources include this information in similar summaries?

I have no objection to this person's name being included in the body of the article particularly if he or she has played an important historical role in the life of the institution. My only question is whether this information is so essential that it belongs in the infobox. ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Because the Cooper Union was not founded to simply be a college or university, it may be that all of the specific advice does not apply to this wikipedia page about it. This is highlighted by the fact that the name of the institution does not have "college" or "university" in it, and never will, and this was done completely on purpose when it was established. Cooper Union was founded with two purposes; to provide free educational resources to everyone, and to provide a public gathering place and platform for discussion and debate of the great issues of the day. Those are its stated purposes today as well. We should not require this page to wholly fit into a category it may not completely belong to, even though it does have a great deal in common with traditional colleges.

Despite my opinion (above), I do believe that you are right this is best addressed at Template talk:Infobox university. Please let us know how that goes. KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Founders of the CONNECT program

Beyond My Ken, is there anything special about the founders of the program? Including them only on the basis that they created the curriculum seems excessive. Caius G. (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Qflib as they happened to do a similar edit a couple of days back and (unsuccessfully) tried to engage in discussion on your talk page. Caius G. (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Canvass much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, no, but relevant to them because they did the same but got reverted by you. Please assume good faith. Caius G. (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You have notified someone who made the same edit as you, without notifying anyone else. That is a direct violation of WP:CANVASSING#Inappropriate notification. Your "faith" good or bad, has nothing to do with it. This is a consensus discussion, and if and when Qflib shows up and comments, they will be suspect because of your votestacking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I notified anyone else who recently edited this particular part of the article, which only happened to be them. Caius G. (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, that's transparently a dodge. You notified someone who thinks as you do, in order to get them to back you up, or even restore your change, leaving me in a position to have to edit war to revert to the status quo ante. Not nice, Caius G., not nice at all.

You could, for instance, have notified everyone who has commented on this talk page, or posted neutral pointers to this discussion on the talk pages of this article's WikiProjects, but instead you chose to notify one editor, and one alone, the one who happened to have already shown that they agree with you. That's blatantly obvious canvassing, and I really should report you for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, given my lack of experience in content disputes, I didn't know either would have been an alternative, but feel free to report me over this. As I am not particularly invested in my edit and you seem to be more involved with this article, I'll trust your judgement with the content in question. Caius G. (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

They did nothing wrong and threatening to "report them" is a bizarre overreaction to a transparent and collegial ping made to get the attention of the only other editor who has expressed a specific interest in this material. ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A "collegial ping"? - Hardly. Straight-forward bringing of a probable ally to a consensus discussion. It's precisely what WP:CANVASSING is meant to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing special, except they are the creators, and there's no particular reason to expunge them from history. After all we're not the Ministry of Truth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What a bizarre comparison to make! We are not obligated to include all information even if it is included in reliable sources so asking why we should include any particular piece of information is perfectly reasonable. Accusing other editors of "expung[ing] them from history" is an unhelpful, over-the-top reaction that does nothing to answer a very legitimate question: How does knowing the identities of these people help readers understand this subject (which is the Cooper Institute, not the CONNECT program)? ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The information has been in the article for quite a long time (since 2009, in fact)r [14] Why this sudden desire on the part of two editors to write out the creators of the program? It seems odd to me. In any case Caius G. has the onus to justify changing the status quo, which they have not done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no special interest in the change and when Beyond My Ken reverted it with a "disagree," my first response was, okay, no big deal. I still feel that way. My original thought simply was that it improved the prose by taking it out, and that most readers would not care about the names of the faculty who devised the program since they are not mentioned elsewhere on wikipedia, which I thought also spoke to significance. Also, at least one of the faculty named is no longer at Cooper Union, according to their web site (https://cooper.edu/engineering/people). Finally, although the page says that all students are required to participate in the program, that seems factually incorrect if you look here (http://cooper.edu/engineering/courses/engineering-sciences-undergraduate/esc-0001-0004). "Failure to participate in ESC 000, or failure to successfully complete one or more semesters of the program will not be noted on any external transcript (such as is provided to employers or graduate schools)". So even if the names stay, I think this should be corrected; however, I await consensus. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there were crickets after posting this, I went ahead and corrected the reference. Also, I have reflected on what led me to support the name deletions in the first place. My original thinking was "Does anyone care about knowing who set up an extracurricular program?" At this point, as I peruse the page, I still have the same question. Is this information that wikipedia readers really want to know about? Is this program central to Cooper Union's engineering education and philosophy? If so, we should keep it as it is, perhaps flesh it out with more details. If not, then why keep it just because it's been there a long time? Also, a final thought. These are the only non-notable names on the page, unless I missed something. Maybe that's no big deal, but I can't help but wonder why the names were put on there back in 2009 in the first place. KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Some time has passed and in the mantime, I've looked at a lot of college and university pages. I've yet to find a single one that includes this kind of information, i.e., a description of an auxiliary education program within one of the college's schools that isn't even a graduation requirement and including the names of the faculty who started it. I strongly believe that one of the individuals, or their surrogate, named put their own names on this page years ago in an attempt at self-promotion and that the whole description of the CONNECT program should be removed - not just their names. I'll wait a bit longer to do that, but I really feel that it should be done. Thoughts? KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

In the end, three editors have expressed the opinion that the founders should be removed, and one editor opposes this. I'm going to boldly edit and remove the description of the program entirely, because I do not think that the program itself is notable, let alone the names of its founders. If others disagree, please do not revert - come here and explain your POV. KeeYou Flib (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The the

An anonymous user has removed the word "The" from the institution's name twice, so I had a look at Wikipedia:THE as they suggested. It says that "The" should be only used when specific conditions are met. Under Universities it specifically says "A definite article should be applied only if The is used in running text throughout university materials and if that usage has caught on elsewhere. Otherwise, do not use the definite article for universities. This guideline is a weak version of the most-common-name rule." That makes sense. But The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art has had the word "The" as part of its institutional name since its founding in he mid 1800s, it's always used it in their materials (See their web site and all of the materials thereon), and it's often referred to in the press as "The Cooper Union." For example, see here. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/cooper-union-tuition-free-2029-1956184 . Again, I agree with not putting "The" in front of every university's name but this seems different. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, though. KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Cooper Union School of Design for Women

I came across the name the "Cooper Union School of Design for Women" when reading the William Rimmer article. I am wondering if it is the same school (or a precursor) to Cooper Union? Joojay (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The School of Design for Women was established as a part of Cooper Union when it was founded: see https://cdm16045.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16045coll1 . Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Ranking(s) of engineering school

An unregistered editor is insisting that the section about the institution's engineering school include this sentence:

The Albert Nerken School of Engineering consistently ranks among the nation's top undergraduate engineering programs. ^[1]^[2]

This statement is so vague that it's unhelpful. Who ranked the school? Where in the rankings did the school fall? When? And how do we know that the school has been "consistently" highly ranked?

That the statement is only sourced to the subject of this article raises further questions about WP:DUE. If this is information that truly needs to be included in an encyclopedia article, we'd be able to cite high quality sources that were not written by the subject of this article. It's particularly problematic that the statement only cites materials written by the subject explicitly for the purposes of self-promotion. ElKevbo (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence in question isn’t supported by the citations. The first citation is not independent at all, as you pointed out. The second is the US News ranking, which I think is okay wrt independence, but does not support the statement that the engineering program “consistently” is ranked highly. That would require citing a series of rankings over time. Anecdotally, as I look through the years it does indeed look to me like it gets ranked highly over at least the past twenty years or so, but these citations don’t support that.

The sentence should probably be removed. It would be okay to replace it with a different statement that is better sourced, perhaps. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this citation is more to the point? At least it contains the statement "Cooper Union consistently has been ranked as one of the best schools in the country." https://www.history.com/news/after-155-years-its-the-end-of-an-era-at-cooper-union Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hit enter too soon. I know it doesn't refer specifically to the engineering school, but I think that the engineering school accounts for more than half of its students. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

^ "Facts About Cooper Union". The Cooper Union. Retrieved 2023-07-05.
^ "U.S. News & World Report - 2021 Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs". The Cooper Union. Retrieved 2023-07-05.

[1] ttp://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2015/04/13/new-york-professor-pay/25683261/

[2] "Facts About Cooper Union". The Cooper Union. Retrieved 2023-07-05.

[3] "U.S. News & World Report - 2021 Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs". The Cooper Union. Retrieved 2023-07-05.

[1]

[1]

[2]