Talk:Cornell Notes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cornell Notes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornell Notes

Why do Cornell Notes work and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.193.44 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 August 2007

The "how" is explained in the article.

The "why":

- You get a fast overview in the cue collumn reviewing your papers.

- You don't need to write down whole sentences while listening. Jotting down notes is a lot faster and leaves you distracted less time.

- You instantly memorize when you write out your notes in full at the bottom at home.

MichaelXXLF 07:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality being disputed

The following section was added to the article, and I removed it. (I'm using the unsigned2 template for convenience' sake.)

Student's Opinion

While this is effective for some who learn a certain way, it is not very helpful to students who learn in other ways. Teachers should take caution in requiring their students to use these for all notes. Most students say that 'they are a waste of time' and 'I can't remember that way'. I is not recommended (by a student) to force them to write notes in conell form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.177.131 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 May 2009

The same individual put up a tag to dispute the neutrality of the entry.

If no further discussion occurs, I will remove the tag within a couple of weeks.

—Notyourbroom (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with this being removed. Not particularly encyclopedic. Sounds very much as if the editor doesn't like it personally.

The "How" is wrong: the supposed "key word" column is actually for questions you're supposed to ask yourself to help you study later on. The idea is, you can fold the paper over and ask the questions, and the answers will be the notes. It's an effective and easy way to study. Our school district is beating it into our brains that key words should be avoided at all costs, and that questions are the only appropriate thing for that column.

I'm the editor of my school newspaper writing an article on Cornell Notes. It's a little disconcerting that I'm getting information from a page that misinforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyrella (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The non-neutral part has been removed. No one seems to disagree with the removal of the offending text, so I'll remove the nomination for neutrality review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.132.252 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not done. No projudice for moving to lower-case-n form. DMacks (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Notes → Cornell method — Common name. Pnm (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A longer alternative would be the full name, Cornell note-taking system. Pnm (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gently opposed I think of Cornell method as being a baker's term for adding protein to breads and other bakery products, so I'd rather it remained Cornell Notes, which is how I've always heard this system described. htom (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier with Cornell notes, but agree that it shouldn't be Cornell method if there's another Cornell method. --Pnm (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed per Pnm Urgenine (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name? Vandalism?

Any particular reason this article starts with the phrase "The Cornell hotdog note-taking system..."

Hotdog? iPhil (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

The external links are badly out of date - more than half lead to "Page not found" or pages that no longer function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.87.32 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an external link to Microsoft One Note template that is going to a "Page not found"

Opinion with no citation?

This sounds almost like marketing-speak. I know no one’s profiting from this, but - it feels out of line with wikipedia’s general standard If this is a conclusion from one of the studies, it definitely needs a citation, and probably a qualified intro – especially given the 2013 study referenced that pointed to vague / minimal results 74.65.196.33 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]