Talk:Ivy League/Archive 3

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

cite style

The notes and references are all mixed up together and so not very clear - Jack (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you perceive as "not very clear." The footnotes on this article seem quite well-formatted and helpful to me. Can you explain what you think needs to be fixed and why, apart from the one out-of-place note under the "Reference" heading? -- Rbellin|Talk 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
On reviewing the article, I notice that there is a rather large number of inline links in single brackets (in the "[1]" style), which I guess ought to be converted to footnote-style references using ref tags for consistency. Is this what you were talking about? I've changed them to footnote references for consistency, though there's still work to be done to format these references properly. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

IV vs. Ivy, again

Also, regarding this edit, please see "IV vs. Ivy" further up this page; I am reverting the change for now unless a better argument and source for the change can be provided. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm, it seems there are two arguments regarding the etymology of Ivy League. I, nor You, have the right to say which one is right. False etymologys are commons throughout the world, and since wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, we should without a doubt maintain a NPOV. This is why I decided to give both arguments equal coverage. Can you explain why you reverted? Especially since "Ivy" - as in the plant - seems to be deemed "true" whereas the other "IV" (despite having 4 more sources than none) is just a theory. - Jack (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you see the discussion of this question above? In any case, NPOV clearly does not require that factually incorrect explanations be treated equivalently to substantiated and accepted ones. And the Ivy League's web site gives the actual first usage, while no one (to my knowledge) has produced any source which substantiates the existence of the alleged "Four League," so there's really no question here. It is completely appropriate for this article to report the "Four League" folk etymology as a story, but it's clearly a post-hoc back-formation, not the real origin of the phrase. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New Endowment Figures coming soon

If the yearly cycle holds, Harvard's endowment release will be followed my many others by early October. These are not official NACUBO, but reliable numbers from most of the Ivy Group schools. Dartmouth and Columbia are usually slow to report, but the other six usually report before NACUBO, often in the first week of October. Question: should we use these numbers? We should decide before they get released, as an army of loyal alumni will be editing this page with the new numbers. I think if all eight report, it might be ok to use the early releases, provided a reliable source is used. But I would like to hear what everybody thinks. Thanks for your time and input.

The official numbers should be used when they are available. The use of unofficial numbers should be strongly discouraged.

I can't see how it helps a reader to be able to compare on university's unofficial newer number with another university's year-old official number. And besides, the numbers don't change enough from year to year for this to be important other than serving the cause of academic boosterism.

If unofficial numbers are placed in the article, they absolutely positively must be identified as "unofficial" and must be properly referenced to a source, typically the university's public relations "news" office.
Personally, if I notice an unofficial number that's not referenced and not labelled as "unofficial," I'll simply remove it, and I think other editors should do likewise. If it's referenced and labelled as "unofficial" I'll leave it in, even though I think it's silly, because readers at least know exactly what they are getting. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(first poster again) To make sure we're all using the same terms, the concensus seems to be that until 2007 NACUBO numbers are posted, any non-NACUBO numbers will only confuse the reader. Is this the concensus?

I should add that if we accept this concensus, many avid alums will be trying to post numbers to this page in an effort to further academic boosterism. Many reverts over the few months (until 2007 NACUBO numbers are released) will be necessary. Please let us know if you agree. Let's flush this out.

I don't know that there's any consensus yet.
My view is that pre-NACUBO numbers are not worthwhile, but if people do insist on adding them to the article, they must provide a source citation (as with all material in Wikipedia) and they must indicate that the number is unofficial. And my view is that we should put an HTML comment in the article saying so, and simply remove uncited numbers without discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(first poster) Doesn't this invite misreading by less than attentive readers? If an unofficial number is inserted to a list to affect the school's rank, isn't this beyond just silly, and really academic boosterism? Maybe we should say that unofficial numbers can only be introduced if they are properly noted as such, have a reliable source, and they are brought in as a set so as to prevent cases where a single number is introduced to promote a particular school's position. Is this policy acceptable?

(first poster, again) Looks like three people (me included) want to wait for the new NACUBO numbers before any updates are made, and one person wants to allow insertions to be made post and pre NACUBO provided they have a citation from a reasonable source. We are already seeing Harvard, Yale, and Stanford updates. I am not reversing them because we do not have a full concensus, and the new numbers have not affected the NACUBO ranks. I ask: what constitutes a concensus?

See Also creep

It's probably not worth much of anyone's worry, but unless we restrict it to groups with a real connection to the Ivy League, there appears to be little preventing the See Also section of this article from becoming an exhaustive list of groups of universities and colleges. If we take JDoorjam's recent edit comment as our rationale for inclusion, inclusion in the list would become an irrevocably biased way of conferring "prestige" on some groups. Without some criterion for inclusion, though, there's no way to restrict the list from growing out of hand. In my opinion, the See Also section should be restricted to items with real, direct relevancy to the Ivy League, not allowed to become another proxy for "things some editors think are as prestigious as the Ivy League." -- Rbellin|Talk 16:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Concurred (obviously). DMacks 02:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur, as well. --AaronS 02:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand your argument, Rbellin, and am hard-pressed to find an argument against your reasoning except that it feels right to have them in the article. I was going to further say that this is why these other groups have been in the See Also section as long as they have (since the 25th edit!) and so I checked the history to find out, and instead was reminded by the edit summaries of the loooong hard road this article has come fighting POV problems and editorialization. (I must also applaud your long history of consistency on this issue, Rbellin: your first edit to this article was also in the vein of removing subjective opinions of prestige, though far more explicit than what we're dealing with here.)
I digress. I do wish there were a list of college and university affiliations or some such repository that the Ivy League article could link to, but that, too, has its own problems regarding what to include and what not to, and how to organize it. That issue aside for another day, yes, let's eliminate this POV foothold and limit the See Also to Ivy-related subjects. TMI, as always, JDoorjam Talk 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you looked at Category:University organizations? That seems close to the list you're asking for. In fact, it might not be a bad idea to put a link to that category explicitly in the See Also section. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"The rill runs o'er, and round fern, flowers and ivy creep." —Byron, Childe Harold's Pilgrimage
Does the Fogg creep softly on little cat feet? Are Ivy Leaguers creeps? Are there intravenous athletics in the IV League? Are these remarks ironic? Or bryonic? or Byronic? Should I sign this? I think not 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC) P. S. (These remarks have no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand).
I was thinking more of feeping creaturism, but that's hardly so poetic. Cheers. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rbellin, yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.... JDoorjam Talk

And now, for something completely different

And that brought me to another couple of discoveries: the Kudzu league and the Elite Eleven. I thought I'd ask here as the former seems to be a play on "Ivy League." Has anyone ever heard these terms before? If not, I'll punt to AfD.... JDoorjam Talk 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of either one, and I can find (via a quick Google) no real evidence for "Elite Eleven" ever being used in this context, and only a scattering of jokes rather than a real fixed usage for "Kudzu League." I'd say either one or both would be worth AfDing, or, at least, taking a hard look for supporting citations. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Elite Eleven is just a #REDIRECT to Kudzu league, so may as well AfD them together. DMacks 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ivy League Search Engine????"

This recently-added link

appears to be "Dan's" application of the just-announced Google custom search feature. It claims to perform a simultaneous search over the websites of the eight Ivy League schools.

I'm moving it here, pending discussion.

There are two problems with it.

First, it doesn't seem to work correctly. A search for "Henry Seidel Canby" in quotation marks, for example, returns a Wikipedia mirror, Wikipedia, and Bartleby.com as three of the top four hits.

If anyone thought that you could, for example, just type "endowment" into this "search engine" and quickly come up with links to eight pages giving each school's current endowment, well... try it.

Second, even if it did work correctly, I can't, offhand, think of a genuine reason why one would want to use it. How often does one want to perform a restricted search that is limited to the eight Ivy League schools... but involves more than one? I'm sure one can concoct an artificial example, but I'd think 99% of the time one would either know which particular school was involved, or would want the search to be as broad as possible.

Do people really think this is a valuable kind of search to have? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Furthermore, it's apparently linkspam, as [1] suggests that the creator of this custom "search engine" is making a share of Google's ad revenue from all searches. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Collegiana"

This is musing and thinking out loud... I'm not sure I really have a coherent point here...

I don't know much about the phenomenon, but very obviously during the 1920s there was a huge surge of interest in all things collegiate... I take it that "colleges" were for a while the originators of a lot of popular culture, much as the black urban hip-hop community is now. Songs like "Varsity Drag" and "Collegiate" were popular, as were college-themed performers like Fred Waring and his Pennsylvanians and Rudy Vallee (who actually made a hit of "The Whiffenpoof Song.")

But what, exactly, was meant by "colleges"?

I just heard a song I hadn't heard before, entitled "Collegiana" (by Fred Waring and his Pennsylvanians). In the closing minute or song, a list of colleges is named, and I thought its makeup was interesting. The names in brackets are shouted by the chorus,

"Collegiana, start at [Yale!]
Spread out to [Princeton!] Blaze a trail!
It murdered them at [Harvard!]
And at [Old Penn State!]
[Army! Navy! and Notre Dame!]
Start out to dance and spread the fame!
I'll miss Collegiana,
'Cause it was something great!
[Cornell! Dartmouth! and Pennsylvania!]
All got the mania--and how!
[Bowdoin! Lehigh! Knee-high, step to it!
There's lotsa pep to it near me."

Obviously the selection of names was influenced by the need to fit them, however loosely, into the lyrics. The mention of "Old Penn State" is obligatory, that being the original affiliation of Waring's "Pennsylvanian." "Army," "Navy," and "Notre Dame" were important in college football. I'm not quite sure how Bowdoin and Lehigh come in. But what I think is interesting is that the "Big Three" are mentioned first, though not in canonical order, and that six of the eight present-day Ivy League schools are mentioned (Brown and Columbia being left out).

I'm not quite sure what any of this means—it's not really fodder for the article—but it does show that the popular notion of "colleges" was fairly well aligned with the schools of the present-day Ivy League.

There may be popular songs of the 1920s that mention Swarthmore or Stanford or Willam and Mary, and if so I'd be interested to have them pointed out. I believe the broadcast industry (and perhaps the recording industry?) was centered in the Northeast so perhaps there was a bias... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I googled on "collegiana" in hopes of finding more about the song. I didn't find much, but I did discover that "collegiana" seems to have been a fairly real word in the 20's and 30's, with quite a lot of hits. It has apparently dropped more or less completely out of parlance. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the OED does not even have an entry for "collegiana." Perhaps they, or some other lexicographer, would be interested in the evidence of its usage you've found. I don't know much about the more general cultural question, but surely there are some histories of college culture (or "collegian" pop culture) in the early 20th century that could be found and cited on this? The continued popularity of films like the Marx Brothers' Horse Feathers or Buster Keaton's College has to have led to some cultural history being written on the topic. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"Collegiana:" A handful of hits in The New York Times, 26 in Google Books (although several are to the song, which is apparently by Dorothy Fields & Jimmy Mchugh and at least one seems to be a scanno for "collegians"). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I, of course, thought the song was largely irrelevant to the Ivy League article... until I spotted my alma mater being mentioned, and now support its inclusion in this or absolutely any other article you wish to put it in. Collegiana strikes me as being similar to another word for which we do have an article: Cornelliana. I wonder if Cornelliana is directly related to Collegiana, appearing around the same time? And also, are or were there similar terms for other schools -- Yaliana, or Penniana? Bruniana, perhaps? Or was it simply that the rhythmic cadence of "Cornell" loans itself too conveniently to "-iana" to be passed up? JDoorjam Talk 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Could there be a connection between "carnelian" and "Cornellian," hence Cornelliana? Cornelliana sounds as if, rather than ivy, there are tough, woody growths hanging from the buildings... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The story we tourguides used to tell, regardless of whether there's actually any truth to it, is that Cornell's colors are carnelian and white as an intentional, punny reference to the university's founders, Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White. As for shrubbery, I did not know until Googling it just now that a cornelian is a "large shrub or low tree bearing edible fruits"[2]; I will redouble my efforts to use both l's when spelling "Cornellian". (I imagine it would only complicate matters if the fruit borne by cornelians are carnelian....) JDoorjam Talk 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I had in mind Cornell-liana. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I see someone has proposed "Columbiana" as a breakout article at Talk:Columbia University. -iana is not an equal-opportunity suffix with respect to euphony, is it? "Columbiana" trips merrily off the tongue... Your "Bruniana" is good. "Yaliana" is pretty bad: perhaps it could be "Eliana?" "Dartmouthiana" is worse. "Vanderbiltiana," "Antiochiana," "Sweet Briariana," "Simon's Rock College of Bardiana" are awful. But, O my goodness, can anything at all be done with Massachusetts Institute of Technology? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Brown itself uses "Brunoniana". And please don't provide such a straight-line setup as "can anything at all be done with Massachusetts Institute of Technology?". DMacks 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps M.I.Tiajuana? IvyLeagueGrunt 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty good. I was thinking maybe Texarkana (Tech's arcana)... Dpbsmith (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed: Rutgers and W&M asked to join Ivy League

I am disputing the claim that Rutgers and W&M were asked to join the Ivy League but declined. William & Mary was a public university at the time, and had been for a long time. The Ivy League, in contrast, was purposefully made up of private schools. W&M also had never played Yale in football, had only played Princeton 1 time in 80 years of football, etc. It had no rivalry with any of these schools. While Rutgers did enjoy a football rivalry with Princeton, Rutgers at the time had just merged with the University of Newark and so was a very large university with branches in different geographic locations... it would be hard to see them being asked as well. I find it highly doubtful. Also, would not one writer in the Internet Age have written an article lamenting the fact that one of these schools did not accept the invitation? ExplorerCDT cited numerous rolls of microfilm as his "source", saying that if he had to list an article, it would be a list of over 500 and too lengthy. He has consistently avoided the question as to why he can't list just one or two articles with actual dates, that someone could easily verify. Until specific articles with specific dates can be listed and verified, I am disputing the accuracy of these claims. Wise 13:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The same claim is made on the Colonial colleges and Public Ivy pages. However it is resolved here, should be resolved at those articles as well. Wise 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree that it's odd a digital citation cannot be found. Here is one discussing how "in the past few decades, the Ivy presidents themselves have considered adding Northwestern, William and Mary, and others as members"; later it says that the league considered expanding "by as many as six schools to include Army, Colgate, Holy Cross, Navy, Northwestern, and William and Mary, but [the league] concluded it should stay as it was." This seems to indicate that, if ever considered, W&M was decided against by the existing members of the Ivy League after its official establishment. The book does mention that W&M withdrew from the Colonial League, but not the Ivy League.
Oh, and the book explicitly states, "Princeton played its first [football] game against Rutgers, yet Rutgers was never considered one of the group." Yes, this is only one source, but it seems to directly contradict assertions that Rutgers and W&M were considered and chose to decline. Other thoughts? Other sources? JDoorjam Talk 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the best concrete source so far, thanks for finding it. Your source directly contradicts ExplorerCDT's assertion that Rutgers was ever considered one of the "Ivy colleges" (see Public Ivy) so we should remove that. Uris 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
(The book also takes a stab at debunking the "IV League" theory that HYP+Penn were the origin of the Ivies, for those keeping track of that debate. Says the author, "The most exotic [theory regarding the origins of the name "Ivy League"] holds that it refers to an 1898 alliance among Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Penn, who were dubbed the 'IV' League, denoting the Roman numeral four. No one, however, has ever been able to city any instances of the term 'IV League' being used in this way.") JDoorjam Talk 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not happy with ExplorerCDT not citing any specific issues and I wish he'd explain why not. My guess is that there really are sources but that he's citing from memory. Microfilm is awful, and if you don't write down the issue and date when you see it (or print out a miserable blurry overpriced dark-grey-on-light-grey copy) it's very hard to find it again. Much harder than riffling through a book. Still, a source is cited and to my mind the essential reason for citing a source is satisfied: the reader can make a judgement about the reliability of the statement.
The biggest danger in this kind of vague citation is that you can't check context and therefore there is a concern that the editor might have summarized/paraphrased inaccurately and put a little unconscious spin on things. Thus, JDoorjam's source suggests that the Ivy League considered but rejected William and Mary, whereas ExplorerCDT's source suggests that William and Mary considered but rejected the Ivy League.
The fact of the matter is that even if ExplorerCDT cited the roll and frame of microfilm it might not help that much because I, for one, don't know how I would get access to it. I don't know whether libraries do interlibrary loans of microfilm.
But I say, leave it in and let readers make their judgment. A long-time Wikipedian saying, in effect, "it's somewhere in a specific pile of microfilm" is not a great citation, but there's a big difference between that and a bald, unsourced assertion inserted by an IP address. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the ExplorerCDT is a graduate of Rutgers, has been on Wikipedia for at least 2 years, graduated over 4 years ago, and just now made this claim from memory of microfilm. It's fishy enough that I do not feel we should leave it, especially since JDoorjam's source above directly conflicts with any claim about Rutgers. Uris 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Is a puzzlement. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't made from memory. Someone posited the question a few weeks ago, so I went down to Alexander and checked it out. Forgot about it. When that jackass put the cite tag on it, i sprang across the apartment, found the references, and cited it. We're talking THREE measily rolls of microfilm (I said four earlier, but didn't count). User:Wise mischaracterizes that when he says "numerous" rolls. Also, JDoorjam's source is only one source. It contradicts several hundred sports columns from the 1930s characterizing Rutgers as an "ivy college" or an "old ivy", especially one from 1938 when Rutgers beat Princeton for the first time on the gridiron since the first football matchup in 1869. But then again, it's in the culture to shoot down Rutgers whenever it tries to rise up...like the whack-a-rodent arcade game. —ExplorerCDT 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on, Explorer. I, at least, have very little reason either to boosting or to knock Rutgers. As evidence, look at this edit. You'll see that I changed the wording "New Jersey's flagship university" to "New Jersey's leading university," and it didn't even occur to me until a day later that it would be less problematical to use the wording "New Jersey's leading public university."[3]. I truly couldn't care less whether or not Rutgers was or was not invited to join the Ivy League athletic conference, except that I'd like to make sure our facts are straight.
But are you really saying that you make a special trip to scroll through a miserable reel of microfilm (I hates microfilm, I hates it, I does) pursuant to checking a fact, found it, and failed to note the date and page number? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I live in NYC, 30 minute car trip south. Not a "special trip" especially when coupled with other research projects. Yes, I got image numbers, dates, etc. but there are like 500 articles between the Targum, NYTimes, Sun, Herald, and about a dozen other NY area papers. At that rate, I might as well put up the name of the entire roll because you would run through the entire roll anyway. —ExplorerCDT 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
ExplorerCDT, could you please post information on some of the New York Times articles about Rutgers being invited to join the Ivy League? That would be a really big help as we try to resolve this issue. Wise 15:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoa... The New York Times? That's easy to check. Where did The New York Times mention Rutgers being invited to join the Ivy League? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere! If there are 500 articles from New York area newspapers, at least 50 of those should be from The New York Times. If ExplorerCDT could start by just listing all the NYT articles that talk about Rutgers' invitation to the Ivy League and them deciding to turn it down, that would be grand. As he says, he has the sources, he just needs to take the time to write out the NYT article names, pages, authors, and dates. Then we can all read them and call it a day. Nice to be getting to the bottom of this. Uris 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Also note that the book JDoorjam cites is written by a Princeton alumnus...could it be that the same bias I've been accused of could have crept into Bernstein's book? —ExplorerCDT 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
IMHO... sure. But he's got a solid citation. We know exactly where to find the statement, accurate or inaccurate. If we end up with contradictory statements, we should include and cite both of them, noting that "accounts vary" or somesuch. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
A citation, not a solid one. Bernstein doesn't cite what is appears as little more than an unsubstantiated off-the-cuff remark. —ExplorerCDT 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a "horse in the race" on this either: I just would like to figure out what the truth is. Bowdoin alumni, for instance, are fond of saying they were invited to join the Ivy League, but I haven't seen with my own eyes any good sources for that, either. I'd love a comprehensive list of who has been invited to join the Ivy League. I think it would be absolutely fascinating to list here and I'm surprised this isn't more readily available information. I'm in this for the nerdy expansion-of-knowledge benefits, not to play a rousing game of Whack-a-Rutgers. JDoorjam Talk 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Bowdoin has enough time left over to think about the Ivy League after they're done wishing they were Williams or Amherst? Well, I'll be...—ExplorerCDT 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


A Rutgers/Ivy reference from the Daily News

(Moved from Talk: Public Ivy...)
"You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a "public Ivy," Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip (2006-11-10). "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here". New York Daily News. p. 92.  Check date values in: |date= (help);
Does that clear things up a little? Rkevins82 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nnno, it makes them way more muddled. We now have diametrically opposing sources on this. Nonetheless, this should be interesting to get to the bottom of. I wonder what the New York Daily News' source is for that.... JDoorjam Talk 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
More bizarre than anything. Public Ivy was a term that began with a book written in 1985, so no school was considered a "public Ivy" in 1954. I dare say that Filip Bondy used either word-of-mouth urban legend from Rutgers graduates or Wikipedia as his source about the Ivy League invitation, and therefore ExplorerCDT? It would be nice to contact Bondy and see what his own sources were, if we can get a comment from him. It seems to be a sports article about the football team, written by a sports journalist. I'd be surprised if he had any real insight into the history of the Ivy League.
The phrase might have entered popular educational parlance slightly before the book, but not by much. A search of The New York Times from 1/1/1954 to 1/1/1985 turns up some irrelevant and accidental hits (classified ads about apartments and such). The first relevant hit is a December 3rd, 1984 (p. A22) letter to the editor from the Provost of the University of South Florida, in which he says "The 'Public Ivies,' institutions where the merger of public support and private initiative has begun, are and should be the wave of the future." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
JDoorjam found an entire book about the subject above, and it seems to conflict. Yet any source is helpful, and it will be interesting to see if there are more out there. Uris 13:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually had the same thought about contacting Mr. Bondy, and fired him an email last night, respectfully asking for his source. Let's see if that gets us anywhere. JDoorjam Talk 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be interested to see the outcome as well. I don't have a 'horse in the race' and all I did was a quick Lexis search to find that article. Rkevins82 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I put a query in about this at the Ask Colonel Henry Q&A page. It will be interesting to see whether I get a response, and, if so what. The text box they provide for entering the query is rather small. :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Can I cite this as a source for Boston University having recently become a member of the Ivy League? Not gonna sign this, no way 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant but I found it interesting

Well, it's slightly relevant, and interesting to me that

  • the name and 7/8 of the composition were in the air in 1936
  • Kieran clearly identifies the seven schools with "exclusivity" and social elitism
  • The other names he mentions are interesting to me (in the same way as the song "Collegiana") as a gauge of which schools were in the public eye in 1936.

Kieran, John (1936), "Sports of the Times", The New York Times, December 4, 1936, p. 36:

There will now be a little test of the "the power of the press" in intercollegiate circles since the student editors at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth and Penn are coming out in a group for the formation of an Ivy League in football. The idea isn't new....
It would be well for the proponents of the Ivy League to make it clear (to themselves especially) that the proposed group would be inclusive but not "exclusive" as this term is used with a slight up-tilting of the tip of the nose.
There are plenty of institutions covered with home-grown ivy that are not included in the proposed group.... There are Army and Navy and Georgetown and Fordham and Syracuse and Brown and Pitt, just to offer a few examples that come to mind.
Nor can it be that antiquity is the final test for entrance to the Ivy League because Pitt and Georgetown and Brown and Bowdoin and Rutgers were old when Cornell was shining new, and Fordham and Holy Cross had some building draped in ivy before the plaster was dry in the walls that now tower high about Cayuga's waters.

Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My source's source

Skimming to the end notes of the book I quoted earlier revealed a note saying, "Several years later, the Rutgers student paper suggested their school for the Ivy League, too, a proposal Yale athletic officials flatly declared stood 'absolutely no chance.' " Kabaservice, 'Yale and the Creation of the Ivy League,' 78-79." This would seem to support both the contentions that the Rutgers paper was covering this as an issue, and that Rutgers was ultimately not asked to join. It'd be delightful if someone with a library card could hunt down that original text, as it seems to have direct bearing on this discussion. JDoorjam Talk 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a record of such a book in WorldCat, and this Google Books search suggests it is an unpublished manuscript. So further research on the Rutgers question seems to require a little more digging than just a library card, sadly. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmph. Well, I just got an email back from the writer of the Sun article about his source. He said he got his info about Rutgers turning down membership into the Ivy League from -- wait for it -- the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. This explains that high-pitched sound I've been hearing on this talk page. JDoorjam Talk 05:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"Hella-good journalism ya got there, Sun." DMacks 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hahahahaha. So the original source is ExplorerCDT himself, as I speculated above! Nice job, Barney. Thank you for clearing up that article! Uris 14:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution of the Dispute?

ExplorerCDT has claimed that he has all the sources, including articles from The New York Times that discuss Rutgers' and W&M's contested invitations to the Ivy League, but he has failed to respond when asked by several observers here to list them. So, what to do? Uris 14:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been over a week, and there have been several earnest attempts by different editors to find any trace of what ExplorerCDT is referring to, without luck. In fact, all that has surfaced is evidence to the contrary. Reserving as always the possibility of putting it back should specific evidence be found, I believe we ought to remove comments about W&M and Rutgers declining invitations to the Ivy League. JDoorjam Talk 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree, reluctantly.
I don't understand why ExplorerCDT is not being more helpful. If I had driven half an hour to check a reference, I certainly would have jotted down some details and wouldn't be reluctant to share them.
Given that the Ivy League was, according to that New York Times article, strongly influenced by student newspapers, I can quite believe that there might have been a lot about this in The Daily Targum. But I can also believe that a lot of it might have been worded in ways that would require careful reading and might lend themselves to more than one interpretation. The difference between "invited and declined" and "applied but was rejected" can be pretty subtle... like the question of whether or not John Bolton "resigned" his post. So I think it's really quite important to have actual quotations and specific citations.
(Maybe another approach would be to approach the current Targum editors and suggest that this would be an interesting article topic. They surely have access to the back issues and I'd regard the current (i. e. online) Targum as a reliable source for the content of its own back issues...) Dpbsmith (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Filip Bondy, who wrote the New York Daily News article that turned out to be based on Wikipedia, said that a couple of Rutgers alumni told him they'd heard this story about Rutgers declining an invitation to the Ivy League, so it might be a bit of Rutgersiana the Targum would be interested in getting to the bottom of. JDoorjam Talk 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being more helpful because i just spent the last two days driving 1500 miles to go home for Christmas. Bad time to expect me to ask how high when you demand I jump. Sources will be there in the next few days and I will revert your removal of the material. I'll expect an apology for aspersions cast in my direction. —ExplorerCDT 01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... you were editing Wikipedia all over the place, but didn't have time to post info on those articles you keep mentioning from The New York Times because you were driving? You also need to tone it down again, lest you get banned again. =o) Uris 17:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 1st, if you notice there's a big day-and-a-half gap in my editing...2nd. can't add things when miles away from your papers. Though, rest assured, will be adding the requisite sources within a few days. —ExplorerCDT 17:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Banned once in two years...not a bad record so far)
I look forward to seeing sources that are beyond dispute. To avoid opening up another disputed tag, they will have to be numerous, easily verifiable, and uncontestable because we've already uncovered other sources that directly conflict with your claims. The New York Times articles you've mentioned will probably carry the most weight IMO. Uris 18:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One source, poorly sourced, and stricken, unfortunately by bias, which can be easily overturned. When I get my time together to lay out the list of sources...and trust me, because i've been challenged, i will respond with overkill...you'll see I'm right and I know how to do my research. —ExplorerCDT 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope that's true that I'll see you're right. That "one source" was pretty good compared to what you have presented, however if The New York Times has truly researched it in the way you claim, you're right the other source could be overturned. However, I tend to doubt it since you seem to be the only person who writes on the Internet who knows this bizarro-world history of public schools being invited into the Ivy League (and turning it down??). I note that you claimed W&M was also invited, despite being public, having no rivalry with any of the Ivy schools prior to the formation of the official league, and not being a geographic fit. Not to mention the fact that W&M had pretty low academic standards at that time compared to today. Uris 18:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to my old source

I was pawing through the Google Books volume I'd mentioned earlier, I found this passage about Ivy talks near and just after the end of World War II. They discuss a nonagonal group without Brown but with Army and Navy, and then ultimately dump the military schools and pick up Brown. There is no mention of any other schools (though apparently Penn State and Michigan wanted to form a league with Cornell?). The eight presidents of the "so-called Ivy League colleges," to quote President Hopkins of Dartmouth, met to discuss the formation of a league in 1944, and signed the "Intercollegiate Agreement" in 1945. This seems like pretty strong evidence that these eight schools were likely the only ones considering one another for the Ivy League. JDoorjam Talk 21:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, what part of this source is itself "poorly sourced" and "stricken... by bias"? What sort of bias are you referring to? JDoorjam Talk 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you really "read" the book? It's terribly unsourced for a lot of his assertions, and it's very poorly written. As to bias, Bernstein's prose is replete with anti-Yale bias typical of Princetonians, not to mention dripping with pedantry, condescension, and dismissive attitude in all his references to Rutgers and other public (or currently non-Ivy) institutions. The man is pro-Princeton (of which he is an alumnus) and everything or everyone else be damned. If you can't see that in the book, you're blind. —ExplorerCDT 15:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
A source is a source. A print book published by the University of Pennsylvania Press meets reliable source guidelines. Therefore it's perfectly appropriate to cite this source in support of a statement. If the source is biased, then according to the neutrality policy it would be appropriate to cite sources making contradictory statements and let the reader sort out which sources they trust. If there's a source such as a book review that that characterizes Bernstein or his book as controversial or slanted or whatever, it would be appropriate to qualify the mention of Bernstein's book, as in "a writer closely associated with Princeton's point of view said...", citing the review in support of Bernstein's slant.
Right or wrong, the policy is that we cite sources, not that we cite only sources that cite their sources.
Explorer, what about those New York Times articles you mentioned in regard to Rutgers being considered for membership in the Ivy League? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Bernstein's slant should be mentioned in a disclaimer footnote of sorts. As to the articles (not all are NYT and NYT isn't the end all be all of newspaper journalism), I'm still away for Christmas and will be several days into January, and probably won't be where I have my papers for another week or two.—ExplorerCDT 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Give me a few clues as to what to search for. I mention the New York Times not because it's the end-all and be-all of journalism, but because I have access, courtesy of my public library, to a complete, searchable archive of The New York Times. And I don't have convenient access to any issues of The Targum. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New York Times articles from 1950 to 1956 containing "Rutgers" and "Ivy League:"

Explorer, do you recognize any of these as the article or articles you saw? It's going to take me a while to slog through all fifty, because they are page images, not text... most of them are just sports articles that mention many games and teams and just happen to contain unrelated mentions of Rutgers and the Ivy League.

Is it possible that the article does not contain the term Ivy League? Can you remember any surnames, of Targum editors or Rutgers deans or Ivy League representatives, that might appear in the article?

Alas... No documents found for: (nonagonal) AND AT(article) AND PDN(>1/1/1950) AND PDN(<1/1/1957) ... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTES:

"20. "Second College Football League May Operate in the East by 1956; Eight or Nine-Team Circuit Will Include Syracuse, Fordham, Penn State, Rutgers, Pitt if Proposal Materializes"
Not it. The other teams mentioned are Holy Cross, Colgate, Boston College, and Boston University. There is no reference whatsoever to any of these schools have been considered for the Ivy League. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"17. PRINCETON BOOKS 7 IVY LOOP TEAMS; 1954 Football Schedule Also Lists Rutgers and Colgate -- Cornell Dates Set Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 20, 1953. p. 30 (1 page)"
Not it."Princeton University's football team next fall will play a nine-game scheudle, including all seven other members of the informal Ivy League. The 1954 card, released today by R. Kenneth Fairman, director of athletics, includes all except two of the opponents the Tigers had listed this season. Lafayette and Navy have been replaced by Colgate and Pennsylvania.... The 1954 schedule: Sept. 25, Rutggers. Oct. 2, Columbia, at New York; 9, Pennsylvania; 16, Brown, at Providence; 23, Cornell; 30, Colgate; Nov 6, Harvard; 13, Yale, at New Haven; 20, Dartmouth."
From the subhead, "Also Lists Rutgers and Colgate," it seems clear that to the uncredited writer of the article, the "informal Ivy League" included Princeton, Columbia, Pennsylvania, Brown, Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and not Rutgers or Colgate. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New York Times articles from 1950 to 1956 containing "Rutgers" and "Ivy League:"

50 documents found for: (rutgers) AND ("ivy league") AND AT(article) AND PDN(>1/1/1950) AND PDN(<1/1/1957)
1. 22 GAMES FOR COLUMBIA; Quintet Opens College Season Against Amherst on Dec. 6 New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 10, 1950. p. 48 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

2. Princeton Eleven Appears Strong Despite Loss of Ten '51 Regulars; Big Problem Is Replacing Entire Backfield and Bulk of Defensive Team -- Kazmaier Post to Jannotta -- McPhee Shifted By JOSEPH M. SHEEHAN Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Sep 20, 1952. p. 19 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

3. Brown Eleven Relies on Sophomores; BRUINS' HOPES HIGH IN SPITE OF LOSSES Only 11 Letter Men Available, but Coach Kelley Is Cheerful About Brown's Prospects TWO PROBLEMS SOLVED Weaknesses at Quarterback, Center Remedied -- Cottey Key Dual-Duty Player By JOSEPH M. SHEEHANSpecial to THE NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Sep 23, 1952. p. 28 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

4. PHILADELPHIA GAME SOLD OUT TO 74,711; Notre Dame Favored to Beat Penn -- Princeton Will Meet Columbia Eleven Here MICHIGAN EXPECTS 97,000 Will Oppose Michigan State -- N. Y. U.-Lehigh, Navy-Yale in Eastern Openers By LINCOLN A. WERDEN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Sep 27, 1952. p. 21 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

5. Princeton, Penn, Navy Performances Among Best on College Fields; TIGER IMPRESSIVE AGAINST COLUMBIA Princeton's Real Potential May Be Found When Team Faces Penn in 2 Weeks NOTRE DAME TIE SURPRISE Rivals Showed Great Defensive Strength -- Navy's Power Too Much for Yale Squad BY LINCOLN A. WERDEN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Sep 29, 1952. p. 17 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

6. Navy-Cornell Game and Many Intersectional Tests Feature Today's Football; MIDDIES TO PLAY ON ITHACANS' FIELD Navy Is Favored in a Close Game -- Princeton-Rutgers Another Top Contest FORDHAM AT HOLY CROSS Penn Faces Dartmouth, While Columbia Engages Harvard and Yale Tackles Brown By ALLISON DANZIG. New York Times (1857. Oct 4, 1952. p. 23 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

7. Article 3 -- No Title New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 7, 1952. p. 36 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

8. TIGERS PREPARED FOR KEEN BATTLE; Princeton Hopes to Stretch Winning String to 25 in Contest With Penn Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 11, 1952. p. 23 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

9. RUTGERS, LEHIGH RETURN; Replace Penn, Brown on 9-Game Columbia Schedule in 1953 New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Dec 4, 1952. p. 51 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

10. Columbia Nine Tops Rutgers Team, 6-3; COLUMBIA DEFEATS RUTGERS NINE, 6-3 By MICHAEL STRAUSS. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Apr 12, 1953. p. S1 (2 pages) —unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

11. Navy-at-Notre Dame Among Week's Big Football Games; PENN AND MICHIGAN PLAY AT ANN ARBOR Army to Visit New Orleans for Game With Tulane Eleven -- Fordham Host to Miami By ALLISON DANZIG. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 27, 1953. p. 35 (1 page) —unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

12. College Conference Football Races Hit Show-Down Stage This Week; ILLINOIS WILL FACE WISCONSIN ELEVEN Game Bears on Big Ten Title -- Princeton-Yale Will Affect Big Three, Ivy Races By ALLISON DANZIG. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 10, 1953. p. 41 (1 page)—unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

13. Illinois, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma to Bid for Conference Football Titles Today; PRINCETON, YALE IN BIG THREE FRAY Cornell Plays Dartmouth at Hanover -- Navy-Columbia, Army-Penn Also on Tap By ALLISON DANZIG. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 14, 1953. p. 22 (1 page)

14. PRINCETON HAS 24 TESTS; Quintet to Launch Campaign on Dec. 9 Against Lafayette Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 14, 1953. p. 22 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

15. COLUMBIA OPENS DEC. 12; Test With Army Here to Start 24-Game Basketball Card New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 19, 1953. p. 42 (1 page) -- unrelated mentions of Rutgers and Ivy League

16. Carr Eyes 9th 60-Minute Game For Columbia Against Rutgers By LINCOLN A. WERDEN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 20, 1953. p. 31 (1 page)

17. PRINCETON BOOKS 7 IVY LOOP TEAMS; 1954 Football Schedule Also Lists Rutgers and Colgate -- Cornall Dates Set Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 20, 1953. p. 30 (1 page) -- Rutgers is not in the 'informal Ivy League,' see note above

18. CORNELL TRIUMPHS OVER YALE, 85 TO 69; Big Red Registers Second Ivy League Victory -- Princeton Bows to Rutgers, 74-72 Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Dec 19, 1953. p. 21 (1 page)

19. ARMY FIVE VISITS FORDHAM TODAY; Rams Will Seek Ninth Victory of Season -- Dayton-Iona on Garden Card Tonight New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jan 9, 1954. p. 8 (1 page)

20. Second College Football League May Operate in the East by 1956; Eight or Nine-Team Circuit Will Include Syracuse, Fordham, Penn State, Rutgers, Pitt if Proposal Materializes New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 6, 1954. p. 13 (1 page)

21. 17 CONTESTS CARDED FOR COLUMBIA NINE New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 14, 1954. p. S3 (1 page)

22. Notre Dame-Texas, Michigan State-Iowa Games Top College Football Today; ARMY ELEVEN SET FOR SO. CAROLINA Penn-Duke, Cornell-Colgate Scheduled in East -- Heavy Action on All Fronts By JOSEPH M. SHEEHAN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Sep 25, 1954. p. 19 (1 page)

23. Sports of The Times; Strictly Guesswork By ARTHUR DALEY. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 8, 1954. p. 33 (1 page)

24. QUAKERS TO VISIT PALMER STADIUM; Hynoski to Lead Penn Attack With Flippin Pacing Tigers in Ivy League Contest Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 9, 1954. p. 12 (1 page)

25. Sports of The Times; Strictly Guesswork By ARTHUR DALEY. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 15, 1954. p. 27 (1 page)

26. COLUMBIA TO MEET SAME FOES IN 1955 New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 18, 1954. p. 48 (1 page)

27. PRINCETON LISTS 9 FOES; Will Engage Same Elevens in 1955 -- Cornell Card Set Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 19, 1954. p. 28 (1 page)

28. LION AND SCARLET AWAIT 27TH CLASH; If Benham Starts in Rutgers Encounter, Columbia Will Shift Carr to Halfback New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 20, 1954. p. 12 (1 page)

29. Cadets' Zeigler Ready for Duty At Left or Right Halfback Post; Amen, Army Aide, Tells Football Writers West Point Team Is in Top Shape for Meeting With Navy on Saturday By LINCOLN A. WERDEN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 23, 1954. p. 30 (1 page)

30. Bruins Host to Colgate New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 25, 1954. p. 46 (1 page)

31. Columbia Routs Brown, 79 to 51, For Fourth Ivy League Victory; Forte Registers 34 Points for Light Blue in Basketball Game at Providence-- Princeton Beats Rutgers, 75-37 New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 3, 1955. p. 30 (1 page)

32. IVY PLAY-OFF TONIGHT; Columbia Will Meet Princeton Quintet for Championship New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 9, 1955. p. 31 (1 page)

33. College Football Notes; Fakes of Wesleyan Backs Prove Costly Because They Fool Officials, Too By JOSEPH M. SHEEHAN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 12, 1955. p. 42 (1 page)

34. College Football Notes; Brennan Won't Hide in Vale of Tears By JOSEPH M. SHEEHAN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 28, 1955. p. 30 (1 page)

35. College Football Program Lists Choice Games in Every Section; Notre Dame-Navy Heads Slate Today, but Michigan-Iowa, Tulane-Auburn and Army-Colgate Also Attract Interest By JOSEPH M. SHEEHAN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 29, 1955. p. 14 (1 page)

36. Army-Yale and Notre Dame-Penn Games Draw Eastern Football Spotlight; PRINCETON CHOICE AGAINST HARVARD Columbia's Test With Dartmouth, Navy-Duke Game at Baltimore Slated By ALLISON DANZIG. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 1, 1955. p. 35 (1 page)

37. COLUMBIA OPENS DEC. 8; 24-Game Basketball Schedule Starts With C. C. N. Y. Game New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 4, 1955. p. 39 (1 page)

38. Columbia to Seek 2d Triumph In Season Finale With Rutgers; Benham of Lions Oat to Set 3 Marks at Baker Field --Series Is 2d Oldest New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 19, 1955. p. 14 (1 page)

39. COLUMBIA LOSES; COLUMBIA LOSES TO RUTGERS, 12-6 Rutgers Pins 8th Setback On Lions in Finale, 12 to 6 By MICHAEL STRAUSS. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 20, 1955. p. S1 (2 pages)

40. BROWN SCHEDULES PENN; Rutgers Eleven Replaced to Conform With Ivy Plan New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 24, 1955. p. 45 (1 page)

41. Notes on College Sports; Hobart Fan, 75, Will Be Honored Here Today -- Harvard Rows in Soap Suds By JOSEPH M. SHEEHAN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Dec 28, 1955. p. 28 (1 page)

42. PRINCETON ROUTS RUTGERS, 74 TO 40; Tiger Quintet Captures Lead Early in First Session-- Yale Trips Brown, 81-53 Elis Take Ivy Contest IVY LEAGUE STANDING Syracuse Beats Cornell, 96--94 Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 2, 1956. p. 32 (1 page)

43. YALE WINS, 71-65, FROM BROWN FIVE; Elis Quell Late Sortie Of Foe in Ivy League Game-- Harvard Routed, 86-65 Syracuse in Late Romp Uconns Trounce Rutgers New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 8, 1956. p. 40 (1 page)

44. YALE TEAM DOWNS HARVARD BY 82-69; Free Throws Decide in Ivy Game--Lafayette's Five Routs Rutgers, 111-69 Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 4, 1956. p. S3 (1 page)

45. PENN CREWS GAIN SWEEP IN JERSEY; Varsity Beats Rutgers by 1 Lengths on Raritan-- Scarlet Nine Divides PENN CREWS GAIN SWEEP IN JERSEY By MICHAEL STRAUSS Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Apr 15, 1956. p. 209 (2 pages)

46. Columbia's Hipper Dipper Depends on Its Line; Forward Wall Faces Task of Protecting Talented Backs All-Around Player Replacements Are Thin Opener Against Brown New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Sep 15, 1956. p. 25 (1 page)

47. Game in Michigan Heads Slate Today; CROWD OF 101,000 LIKELY TO ATTEND Michigan to Face Michigan State in Big Ten Football --Yale Host to Brown Indiana Shy Key Men Penn Seeking High Road By LINCOLN A. WERDEN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 6, 1956. p. 28 (1 page)

48. UNBEATEN TIGERS TOP CORNELL, 32-21; Agnew's 4 Touchdowns Help Princeton Remain at Head of Ivy League Lead PRINCETON BEATS CORNELL, 32 TO 21 Tigers Lead at Half, 18--7 Roberson Tallies Early By LINCOLN A. WERDEN Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 28, 1956. p. 193 (2 pages)

49. Yale-Princeton Ivy Rivalry Leads Attractions on College Gridirons Today; 68,000 TO WATCH CONTEST IN BOWL Yale Choice Over Princeton --Pitt-Army and ColgateSyracuse in Spotlight Absorbing Contest Expected Buckeyes, Spartans Favored By JOSEPH M. SHEEHAN. New York Times (1857-Current. Nov 17, 1956. p. 27 (1 page)

50. Yale Takes Ivy Opener, 88 to 72, Holding Off Penn's Late Surge; Loucks and Lee Spark Elis to Victory-- Navy Turns Back Rutgers, 88-71-- Amherst Upsets Holy Cross, 90-74 Navy Wins Fourth in Row Crusaders Set Back Bucknell Beats Colgate, 63-51 St. Michael's Tops N.Y.A.C. Special to The New York Times.. New York Times (1857. Dec 15, 1956. p. 36 (1 page)

Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections to archiving some old stuff from this page? Up through #Ivy League business schools is up for deletion is pretty stale-looking. DMacks 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Social elitism

I see that somewhere along the line, every hint that the Ivy League had a connection with social elitism has been expunged. While this requires careful handling, it is absurd for an article on the Ivy League not to mention this at all, or to pretend that their preeminence is an indication solely of academic merit. The Kieran quotation from 1936 associates 7/8 of the Ivy schools with a "slight up-tilting of the tip of the nose." And as recently as 2001 a business writer used, specifically, Ivy Leaguers' preference for hiring Ivy Leaguers as one example of the kind of elitist hiring practice that puts corporations at legal risk today.

All this needs to be handled carefully. I've tried to be neutral, factual, and well-supported with source citations but I certainly expect revision and tweaking. The WASP establishment has declined in influence since the Vietnam war, and certainly Ivy League social elitism is much less important and less conspicuous than it once was. However, the fact that a business writer chose it as an example in 2001 leads me to doubt that it is entirely gone. I don't really object to putting most of this in the past tense, e.g. "in the twentieth century." (If it is really completely gone I'd like to see source citations attesting to this. I certainly have the impression that Yale alumni have an edge over Stanford alumni when it comes to getting into the White House). I can't accept leaving it out of the article entirely. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring a host of perfectly logical explanations for this pheonomenon. Regarding the fact that there are more Yale alumni in high political offices than Stanford alumni, let me point out:

1. Yale has a liberal arts bent, whereas Stanford (although a liberal arts school) has far more engineering and science majors. 2. Yale is considered to have one of the best pre-law programs. 3. Yale also has the #1 law school in the nation 4. Harvard/Yale/Princeton have a history of creating political leaders, they are known for it. 5. Because of 1-4, people who are interested in politics often choose to go to Yale or another Ivy League school rather than going to Stanford. Similarly, engineering majors probably tend to choose Stanford or MIT over Yale. Common sense. 6. Yale/Harvard are somewhat more selective than Stanford (based on SAT 25-75% ranges, also admission %s). Granted they are both very selective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.243.36 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Enrollment

I suggest we switch from full-time enrollment to total enrollment. My argument is that it's too hard to find f/t numbers. I was only able to get f/t numbers from Columbia, and even they brought in the concept of fte. I say we either use total enrollment, a number all schools provide; or, we make a drastic change and cite degrees conferred, which would reflect the number of productive students enrolled. Of course, a school with lots of mbas and ma/ms would have inflated numbers. I would appreciate other opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.82.32 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Since the Ivy league is an athletic conference, shouldn't the enrollment numbers reflect only undergraduate students (those who are eligible to compete intercollegiatly)? Including the large numbers of graduate students in the counts distorts things a bit. Perhaps both could be listed as a compromise if there is a good argument for showing total enrollment.18.50.1.88 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ivy Council of Presidents

I've removed the ref from the following text:

The governing body of the Ivy League is the Ivy Council of Presidents. During their meetings, the presidents often discuss common procedures and initiatives."Campus Sweatshop Protests Spread," USA Today, 17 February 1999.

As that ref contains no mention of the Ivy Council nor even of a meeting specifically of Ivy presidents. DMacks 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Phrase history and league history

I've cut some weasel-wording from the "Origin of the name" section. Based on prior discussions on this Talk page, I think it's clear that "IV"=four is a folk etymology, and the Ivy League's own homepage, like every other source besides the Morris Dictionary, endorses the obvious connection with ivy plants. However, the meaning of the following sentence (second in the section) is still unclear to me:

Several sports-writers and other journalists of the era would refer to the older colleges, particularly those along the northeastern seaboard of the United States–chiefly the nine institutions with origins dating from the colonial era, the United States Military Academy (West Point) and the United States Naval Academy, and a few others.

Has something gotten lost in editing here? What is this trying to say, and why is it here? -- Rbellin|Talk 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked this history, but at this point I'm beginning to wonder whether this could be an attempt to associate Rutgers with the Ivy League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpbsmith (talkcontribs)

Further, now that I look at it, "Before there was an Ivy League" duplicates some of the content of the "Origin of the Name" section. Can we separate the material about the phrase from the history of the actual, formal league, or should these two sections be integrated? -- Rbellin|Talk 02:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can the "Endowments" section?

I'm getting very tired of the constant inappropriate changes made to this section, typically by users without accounts. Typically they consist of substituting a larger number for the number that is already there.

The section is headed "listed by endowment market value as of end of fiscal year 2005)," gives a reference, and contains an HTML comment requesting editors "Please use only official published figures from NACUBO (National Association of College and University Business Officers.)" Since the edits are typically attempts to jump the gun by inserting 2006 figures, they are IMHO vandalism since the table is stated to contain 2005 figures.

Anyone who wants to find out Yale's endowment can go to the Yale article, and if the Yale editors want to update their number and identify it as "provisional 2006" or "2006 press release" or whatever, there's no deception.

Why would anyone want to have the endowment numbers together? Well, obviously to compare them... and the obvious motives for wanting to compare them, and for updating individual numbers as fast as possible, is to show the world that "mine's bigger."

The additional numbers of "endowment per student," which I've removed, heighten this impression. Universities do not, as far as I know, publish "endowment per student." If I'm right, this is original research and cannot be traced to a published source. And why would one want to calculate "endowment per student?" Obviously, because total endowment comes out in the order "Harvard-Yale-Princeton" and this is a way to make them come out in a different order. One could get still another result by dividing the endowment by the number of letters in the university's name. To those who say "total endowment doesn't give an accurate impression of the quality of the university," I agree. Neither does "endowment per student." Neither does "portion of the endowment income allocated to undergraduate education divided by the number of undergraduates." Neither does "portion of the endowment income allocated to undergraduate education, weighted by the portion allocated to the courses the average student takes, multiplied by 1.00 for courses taught by full professors, 0.85 for courses taught by associate professors, 0.75 for courses taught by assistant professors, and 0.5 for sections taught by teaching assistants."

I say this section is just thinly disguised boosterism and I say the hell with it.

Thoughts? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your criticisms makes sense, and I agree with the sentiment. However, I think endowments correlate loosely with quality of faculty, size of student debt on graduation, and other factors that could affect what most people relate to the quality of an institution. I am not sure if this is cause-effect or effect-cause or both, but it's probably worth mentioning. I agree it's bait for boosterism :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.98.128 (talkcontribs)
I agree with Dpbsmith; let's take them out completely. As I recall, the per-student numbers have always been calculated by Wiki editors and entered. If included at all, any mention of endowment could simply be rolled into some other part of the article, perhaps the very last sentence of the lead, stating "Ivy-League universities have endowments ranging from $2.3 billion (Brown) to $29.2 billion (Harvard)." That the Ivies all are on the high end of endowment numbers (all in top 26; top 23 excluding state university systems) does seem somewhat notable as something they have in common, but perhaps not beyond one sentence. JDoorjam JDiscourse 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with deleting the unsourced per-student numbers, and more weakly support the wholesale cutting of all the endowment stuff. There is, I'd say, some case for retaining the endowments as somewhat interesting and informative (and purely factual) information about the universities. Even though I am personally of the same opinion as Dpbsmith and JDoorjam about them, I want to recognize that the ceaseless attention editors give these numbers means that there is some demand for the information. I'd say we should delete or seriously cut them, and then see how long it takes before they return, and in what form. This may be a case like a deleted article that keeps getting re-created, where there are a lot of readers who expect to find this information no matter what we think about its (lack of) contribution to the article's quality or utility. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That endowments correlate closely with rankings strongly implies that they represent something, and should be included. All ivies have comparatively large endowments, but there is a financial and probably a quality difference between an ivy supported by income from a 15-30 billion dollar endowment and an ivy supported by income from a 3-6 billion dollar endowment. To leave out the number might curtail some forms of boosterism, but the omission might be de facto boosterism for the ivies with lesser endowments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.98.128 (talkcontribs)
First, it's not "de facto" boosterism. Leaving out an impressive but meaningless claim for one college is not boosterism for every other college in the world. If I were to insert into this article the true statement that Yale's Harkness Tower is higher than any building at Harvard, removing it would not constitute Harvard boosterism. Boosterism is an effort to phony up a meaningless number to create an illusion of superiority of one college to another to which it cannot be meaningfully compared.
You say "all ivies have comparatively large endowments." Indeed. That's the relevant fact.
Second, the problem is that this section is constantly attracting drive-by edits that make the section inaccurate. The table, before I deleted it, was a table of endowments as of 2005 as reported by NACUBO. People were constantly changing the numbers so that they were not 2005 endowments as reported by NACUBO, without editing references or the table title. Too many editors have made changes without waiting for a complete set of comparable numbers to be available, or sourcing them properly. This cannot be motivated by a desire for encyclopedic accuracy and it is an unproductive waste of effort to try to keep it under control. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This "quality" claim is pure circular reasoning. Most of the well-known college and university rankings make endowment size, alumni giving, and per-student endowments heavily weighted factors in calculating the rankings themselves. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a swing at putting brief endowment language in the end of the lead section based on discussion here. JDoorjam JDiscourse 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think endowment data should be placed in the opening paragraph. I think it's worth including, but not in the first paragraph. Otherwise, by the overwhelming margin of three-to-one I have been out-voted here. How many people have viewed this page in the past year? Do you folks know? Well, off to party. Happy New Year!
"How many people have viewed this page in the past year? Do you folks know?" No, I don't. Is there a way to find out? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please review the following, and comment. I feel something like this is massively educational to the 17 year old reading this article and considering an ivy school. Thanks.

Ivy-League university total financial endowments range from Brown's $2.3 billion, the 26th-largest endowment of any U.S. college or university, to Harvard's $29.2 billion, the largest financial endowment of any academic institution. These endowments are affected by percentage of the total that is for restricted use (athletics, etc.), and the size of the institution the endowment helps support. Nevertheless, at one extreme Brown can fund five percent of their operating budget with endowment income [4], where Princeton can fund 37 percent of their operating budget[5] from endowment income. This endowment-based supplemental income translates into significant differences in quality of a student's experience. For example, Princeton students graduate with $4270 in average debt, where Cornell graduates incur $23,450 on average [6].

Unless I hear otherwise, I will consider this a concensus and append this to the first paragraph.71.225.82.32 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

... "Otherwise." I like the first sentence (but then, I wrote it), but find the second sentence gets too in depth about the nature of endowments and belongs more at the financial endowment article, find the third sentence misleading (that Brown, for instance, uses endowment income to fund 5.2% of their operating budget does not mean they can't spend more; they simply chose to spend or invest other parts of the endowment income in different ways), find the fourth sentence to be rather strongly POV, and find the fifth entirely unrelated to endowments whatsoever (or to the sentence preceding it). JDoorjam JDiscourse 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I love snide comments from wikipedia administrators. They make me feel warm and fuzzy about wikipedia and my desire to support it financially. That said, the first sentence is meaningles without an explanation from the following sentences. To me, this is the real point: that while all ivies have comparatively large endowments, there are major differences between the schools, and these financial differences manifest themselves in the quality of experience, most notably the debt the student must incur to attend. I assume nobody here attended the school with the highest debt (Cornell) so I make the asumption we're all impartial. Given this assumption, if we are going to mention endowments, we owe the reader some background on the way endowments affect the life of a student -- just ask any alum burdened with debt, or not.71.225.68.78 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually think JDoorjam was trying to be snide, and the point is a good one. This claim about endowment spending being related to graduating students' debt (or to "quality of the experience, whatever that might be) is original research, not Wikipedia material, unless some real studies have been done that find a connection between these two (or three) things. It's fine to hold a personal opinion on the subject, of course, but not to insist that Wikipedia reflect your opinion in the absence of any evidence. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not trying to be snide. I did go to Cornell, but don't see that that affects the arguments I've made. Rbellin summed it up very well. There would need to be a source specifically focusing on Ivy-League endowments which states that the magnitude of the endowments of the universities directly affects the debt of their respective students to include the first part; assertions about the quality of Ivy-League students' experiences as related to their individual after-college debt (as related to the endowments of the schools) are even more difficult to support. You'd need reliable sources that each brought all of these points together in order for this not to be original research. JDoorjam JDiscourse 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Note that this recent edit by User:Rjensen changed a lot more of the article's text than its edit summary indicates, including reverting several apparently reasonable changes. I have no strong opinion on whether these changes should be re-reverted, but it's definitely not an honest edit summary. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He tends to do that; when he says "tweak", it's even worse. I've reverted, but, justifiably, kept Puritan out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Land ownership

The Ivy League does not own any land and has no policies about land. Individual schools own the land so the whole section is inappropriate. Rjensen 23:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Section Ivy League relationship with slavery

User ChanHo is abusing Wikipedia editing authority by deleting accurate, factual content without reading the submission either in whole or in part. All of the new submission in dispute is factually accurate, not duplicative, directly relevant to the history of the Ivy League and current developments in the Ivy League on the issue of Ivy League involvement with the Triangular Trade and of enormous public interest, as discussed at length in the report appended to the new submission.

Anyone reading the new submission in its entirety will readily appreciate that it does not concern Brown University exclusively. However, a matter of this degree of historical importance which concerned only one (1) member of the Ivy League would nonetheless be relevant to any accurate and complete description of the history of the Ivy League.

It is clear that ChanHo's multiple attempts to delete accurate content without reading the material submitted is in clear violation of Wikipedia editing authority as discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

The discussion below with ChanHo presents the reasons for maintaining the submission and reversing ChanHo's repeated attempts at wholesale, unreasoning censorship of the historical record as it concerns the Ivy League.


  • * * * *

Your criticism is inappropriate. The addition submitted concerns important historical features of the emergence of the universities which comprise the Ivy League and contribute to public understanding and Wikipedia readership understanding of the Ivy League and its historical origins.

As a reader, I have no better understanding of what important historical features are being discussed nor how this contributes to understanding of the Ivy League's origin (which was established well after the Civl War). What is clear to me is that almost 100% of your writing is discussing Brown's recent activities on some issue related to slavery and Brown's origins. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a reader, it is readily apparent that you could not possibly have read the important historical documents embedded in PDF format within this new submission and which have garnered the attention of scholars throughout the Ivy League as well as at Oxford and Cambridge universities, all of whom are interested in fresh scholarship into the deep historical links between several members of the Ivy League and the Triangular Trade. Perhaps your lack of familiarity with these links stems from Cornell's foundation following the abolition of slavery, the slave trade and an entirely different phase in the history of the Ivy League institutions. Feel free to place a notation in the submission indicating that it is historically impossible for Cornell to have participated in the Triangle Trade. That would be a useful contribution to knowledge of the Ivy League. (Moreover, your calculation of percentages is deeply flawed if you believe the new submission is 100% related to exclusively one of the Ivy League universities. The number of Ivy League institutions which this new area of scholarship concerns remains to be determined.)

What are the "several members of the Ivy League" you mention? It is not mentioned anywhere in your edits. You say I am incorrect about my supposition about your edits mostly describing Brown; however, that is in effect what most of your edit is about. I can see sentences here and there where you try to imply that this is somehow representative of the Ivy League. For example, you state that the President of Brown gave a speech as a "representative of the Ivy League", something which is undoubtedly incorrect and reveals something of your bias. Yet you also say now that the number of Ivy institutions you are referring to "remains to be determined". So it seems clear that you are trying some sort of extrapolation of the Brown data, but you don't really have anything you can say about other Ivy schools. As such, it is inappropriate to add it to this Ivy League article. When scholars have a better determination as to what institutions this "new area of scholarship" applies to, then feel free to expand the appropriate articles as needed. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)By the way, you are being silly in your assumption that I am somehow motivated to revert you because I am trying to defend my alma mater. I reverted you because your edits are biased and speculative and give undue weight to a matter which so far only Brown has been involved in. Note that you haven't even named any other Ivy schools besides Brown (and now Cornell, to emphasize that Cornell is not involved!). In fact, as you recent edit make clear ("may be revealed by inquiry into the historical foundations of other institutional members of the Ivy League"), this is at current time a Brown matter, which explains why your additions are mainly about Brown. Once you delete all the paragraphs about Brown, what's left? Some speculative sentences that there "may" be similarities with the origins of some other schools. By the way, you do realize that there may be such issues with other old American non-Ivy schools (especially ones in the South)? It would be just as inappropriate to start editing articles about associations those schools are a part of. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Again, it is apparent that your knowledge of the Triangular Trade and its connections to the foundation of possibly 7 out of the 8 Ivy League universities is limited. The point of this report was to document those connections for one (1) member of the Ivy League. Much of the data in the report concerns personnages connected with the history of some of the other Ivy League institutions. The fact that Brown has recently published an important report on this subject does not mean that the historical evidence did not exist prior to the publication of the document. I suggest you do some research to satisfy your apparent skepticism of historical fact, starting with the report provided in the latest improvement to this article on the Ivy League. There is already research available on the connections between Harvard and Yale and the Triangular Trade. Neither of us is a professor of history. The submission offered here is factually accurate. If you want to embellish the submission with factually correct additions concerning the connections or lack of connections between each of the other seven members of the Ivy League and thr Triangular Trade, feel free. That is the point of Wikipedia - to provide accurate contributions to the dissemination of knowledge through multiple contributors. Those who wish to do the research necessary to supply pertinent data concerning Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, and Dartmouth are free to do so. I am not being paid to improve the completeness of Wikipedia.

President Ruth Simmons is a president of the Ivy League. She was invited to participate in the Bicentary colloquium at Cambridge in her capacity of president of Brown and as a president of an Ivy League institution, all of which have long standing historical ties with Cambridge. Therefore, it is accurate to state that Dr. Simmons spoke as a "representative" of the Ivy League, particularly since there exists no official "representative" of the Ivy League. I will happily change the characterization to "unofficial" representative.

Without providing any subtantiation for the purported absence of scholarship on the subject, you state:

When scholars have a better determination as to what institutions this "new area of scholarship" applies to, then feel free to expand the appropriate articles as needed.


Again, the submission I made is well documented and factually accurate. Feel free to make your own contributions to the article on this subject concerning Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, and Dartmouth if you wish to do so.

It is documented, factually accurate, but not about The Ivy League, which is what the Ivy League article is. If it were about slavery across all Ivy League institutions and had some relevance to them as a group, then it would be notable and relevant to the topic of the article, not just notable and relevant to "some topic somewhere". DMacks 17:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The submission does concern The Ivy League, just as an article submission concerning Oxford and not Cambridge concerns Oxbridge or an article about one of the constituent members and not about other members still concerns the Ivy League. See the campus newspaper columns in any of the Ivy League colleges for examples of the relevant logic. The sections devoted to coverage of the Ivy League do not require coverage of all 8 constituent members to claim, appropriately, that the article in question covers events in the Ivy League.
That I think is the key to the concern of many editors (okay, I'll explicitly say "my"): I don't think that everything related to one specific member is relevant to the group as a whole. Worthiness of inclusion doesn't propagate up to more and more general articles: Ivy League is not a thin intro followed by a concatentation of all the schools' pages. Note that part of the dispute resolution process is gaining consensus and recognizing when one has a minority opinion. Yelling censorship, a term that is completely irrelevant to a private and community-edited project such as Wikipedia is probably not a good way to get people to side with you. DMacks 05:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sammy Houston has insisted on adding a large section about Brown University in this article. I've tried to explain that this is not appropriate for an article that is about an organization that Brown is only a part of (and it is a part of other associations also....). In any case, I suggest that Sammy Houston explain his/her reasoning to support this addition, as I expect other editors will be more than happy to revert this. --C S (Talk) 05:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Concurred that it's not appropriate here. I left a note on User talk:Sammy Houston, where the user in question seems engaged in discussion about this issue. DMacks 17:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just in case another opinion will help, I also agree that the "Ivy League and Slavery" section as written is not appropriate for this article, largely because it's entirely about Brown, not about the entire Ivy League, but secondarily because it is a bit too long and detailed, unbalancing the article. It might be appropriate to add a condensed version of the section to the Brown University article (on looking, I find it's already there in all its detail), and/or to create a separate subarticle on Brown University and slavery. The material itself seems reasonably objective and well-sourced for a starter article, so it'd be a shame to delete it entirely. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Sammy Houston is now persistently reverting the removal of this section, and has responded to a request to stop reverting and discuss the move only by continuing to revert while posting a massive cut-and-paste from User talk:Sammy Houston here without expansion. I won't revert this further, but someone else might want to. It seems clear that this material is Brown-specific and doesn't belong in the Ivy League article in its present form, and the allegations of "censorship" and ad-hominems pasted above are not convincing. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Having read through the section again, I find that it now contains some (rather thin) references to other Ivy institutions. But it uses these sources in a way that seems very close to original research by synthesis, advancing a set of historical claims in Wikipedia's voice. I would not be averse to retaining a trimmed-down paragraph on the subject, but we need to be careful to stick to existing historical accounts rather than putting together one of our own here. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Crests and mottos

I have removed the Crests and mottos section. It was added last month by an anon: in the absence of a detailed fair use rationale for each image's use on this page, the gallery did not comply with the image use policy. — mholland (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the Easten Collegiate Athletic Conference?

I thought that schools in the northeast and east were in a sports conference called the Easten Collegiate Athletic Conference or ECAC in late 1960s and early 1970s. Since this sports union had almost sixty schools, they generally grouped together with common academic standards, school enrollment, scholarships, or other crteria. I remember reading the sports in the New York Times and it listed the ECAC standings with five or six divisions as I League, II League, etc. A certain eight schools happened to be in the division labeled IV League. Raul17 16:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a reference to substantiate this, go ahead. This "IV League" etymology has seemed very dubious in the past. I just did a Lexis-Nexis search for the phrase "IV League" in the New York Times and found nothing that would confirm your account (though their coverage before about 1980 is a little spotty). -- Rbellin|Talk 16:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've done a bunch more searching through the Times archives in the Proquest Historical Newspapers database, including looking directly at some selected ECAC league standings, and can find nothing at all to confirm this claim. The ECAC appears to have used the ordinary "Division I/II/III" terminology during the time period you mentioned. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Ivy's Move to I-AA (FBS)

Is it possible to put some discussion about the conference's move to the lower tier of Div-I College Football on this page? It is only adressed briefly in other places saying that it was against the wishes of the conference, but I haven't been able to find out any more information about it than that. Since the Ivy Leauge is, before any other connotation, a NCAA athletic conference, this might be good information to have. Intrepidsfsu 06:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I've read an article about it somewhere, I'll try to find it on JSTOR and other sources online as to get enough references to add it to this article. cOrneLlrOckEy 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

members

The names of the colleges aren't in the summary/abstract. i think it's a serious flaw of the article and they should be mentioned as they are the whole basis of the article and the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.74.200 (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Binghamton Troll

The user at 128.226.xxx.xx who is inserting information about Public Ivies is a Binghamton troll, from a Binghamton Computer: All their edits regard how good Binghamton University is. They should probably be reverted on site, especially if it doesn't belong in the article.163.151.2.10 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Add a "Criticism" section?

Many Wikipedia articles have "Criticism" sections. What does everyone think about adding one to this article? Some possible topics to include would be:

  • Admissions processes are too subjective
  • The schools sell themselves as treatment-effect institutions, but are in fact selection-effect institutions
  • Professors are often hired based on their research, their intelligence, or other factors, with little or no regard to teaching skills

For the first two points, see this article: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlarge I don't have a citation for the third point, but maybe someone can find one. Maybe these three things happen at many American universities, not just the Ivy League. In that case, this criticism might belong in a different article. I haven't researched this much. I just thought I'd throw these ideas out there, and maybe someone else can turn these ideas into something to add to the article.

Against. Too subjective? Selection-effect? Teaching skills? According to whom? These claims are difficult to prove and quite generalized. If you are willing to start a new article, assuming one does not already exist, criticizing this type of branding and selection procedures – it’s fine with me. But it is unfair to address it specifically to the Ivy League institutions. Logain2006 (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Against. For good reasons given by Logain.
To amplify: it just doesn't belong in this article. You'd have to begin by citing sources that describe these practices as specifically characteristic of the members of the Ivy League, whereas in fact the Ivy League schools are probably no different from other selective, competive, highly-ranked schools.
I think that emphasis on research over teaching is more characteristic of the best state universities than it is of the Ivy League. In terms of professors being selected and rewarded for teaching, I'd hazard a guess that you see the least of this at the "public Ivies," more in the Ivy League itself, and still more in the "little Ivies."
With regard to subjectivity in admissions, I'd be very skeptical that Brown or Cornell is terribly different from Stanford or Duke or Georgetown. Actually I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Cornell is more meritocratic than Stanford. I don't know that for sure, just a vague impression.
And I'd add that preferential admissions treatment for children of alumni may be reprehensible--I happen to think it is--but there is nothing "subjective" about it; the observation that A is B's child is a simple matter of fact, more objective than an SAT score. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, Logain and Dpbsmith. As I said in my first post, I suspected that these practices happen at other universities, not just in the Ivy League. Since you have confirmed that, I agree that these things belong in another article. Logain, you're right that those claims are difficult to prove. However, I wasn't suggesting that we prove these claims. I was suggesting that we quote and cite people who have made these claims, just like what is done in other criticism articles. For example, in the article Criticism of Microsoft, it says, "Microsoft has been accused of locking vendors and consumers into their products." It doesn't say, "Microsoft locks vendors and consumers into their products." Also, to answer your question, "According to whom", one of the people who says these things is the writer of the article that I linked to in my first post.
Do you have any suggestions for what article these types of things should go in? If I created an article, I suppose the title would have to be something like "Criticism of selective universities". But I'm not sure if that topic would meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. That's why I was thinking it might be more appropriate as a section of an article instead of its own article. Navigatr85 18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)