Talk:Presbyterian College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Talk page intro

page entry 05-10-04 by Dan Brown, PC '99

The contents of this page have been directly copied from the PC website. Edit and add to this entry with correct information only. Thanks! --- Dan

That was done, and expanded.

Gunshippolitico (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos and other updates

I added some new photos by Morris Galloway, and also threw some information regarding PC's major offerings. - Jack

We should get a "Notable Alumni" section added to this page. Thanks. Hoseinexile07 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Athletics Section

I switched the order of the Division one and the Bronze Derby, as the switch to Division 1 is more current. - Jack

Reverting to Old?

"XBot" is reverting to the old version of the page. Please stop doing this - we're trying to make the thing better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmjenkins (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Pharmacy School

The current version of the Pharmacy school section is incredibly biased. This is a encyclopedia article - let's keep it that way. --Jackmjenkins (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Costal Rivalry?

I'm just curious - do we really have a rivalry with Coastal Carolina? I've never heard that. Is that new? --Jackmjenkins (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The current article on the rally seems incredibly biased. Perhaps it could be cleaned up?--Jack (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

=== The rivalry section is entirely too subjective and superfluous to be included in the main article for Presbyterian College. It should be removed, not "cleaned up". JD

Rankings

Given that the section on rankings clearly points out that PC no longer ascribes to rankings systems, it seems inconsistent to provide a ranking immediately following. --Jackmjenkins (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a logical argument. I've added them back.67.224.2.195 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it logical, it's consistent. The vast majority of the wiki pages of schools that ascribe to the Annapolis group leave off the U.S. News Rankings. This is because opting out of the ranking system - by definition - changes the school's rank. It's an inherently misrepresentative ranking, which is the whole point of the protest in the first place.

For examples, see Dickinson College, Drew University, Earlham College, and Southwestern University. A potential compromise would be including the explanation provided by Lafayette College.

Furthermore, your assertion that the alteration was "vandalism" is incorrect, especially considering that your response consisted solely of "That's not a logical argument" with no explanation whatsoever.

Until you put forth a convincing argument to the contrary, I will continue to remove the information. --Jackmjenkins (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because the college doesn't like the ranking system or doesn't participate in part of it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article. The college's position on things doesn't decide the content of an encyclopedia article (imagine what controversial pages would look like if this kind of thing were the case!). Furthermore, your qualification comes BEFORE the ranking, making sure everyone knows that the college doesn't participate. And of course, it seems inconsistent to leave them out after discussing them at length, while also featuring a favorable ranking from Washington Monthly (even though the college spoke out against all rankings systems!). I initially added them because I was wondering what they were because the article so prominently discusses them, then neglects to mention what they are. I suggest you add the rankings to the rest of the Annapolis group. I noted that it was vandalism before I read your talk page comment, because I foolishly thought that no one would try to rationalize deleting something like that.67.224.2.195 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A sound argument, albeit unnecessarily uncivil - there is no need for calling others "foolish", particularly given that this is an encyclopedia article. That said, a few things:

1.) The Washington Monthly reference is not inconsistent because the article specifies that the school spoke out just against the peer revision section of the U.S. News and World Report, which was the reason the Annapolis group exists in the first place. Again, the school did not discount all ranking systems, just the peer review section of the U.S. News and World Report. For a deeper understanding, please read the Annapolis Group article.

2.) Seeing as I cited the other college wikipedia pages as the reason for removing the information, I feel no obligation to apply their respective U.S. News Rankings to them, as I agree with their omission. Wikipedia, however, is a free and open system, so you are free to apply them yourself if you so desire.

3.) Again, I offer the previously-mentioned compromise of affixing the same language as used by Lafayette college, or "Predictably, Lafayette College's ranking fell from #30 in 2007 to #34 in 2008."

4.) The argument that just because the ranking system is discussed means that it should be included doesn't hold up: Wikipedia exists as a free and democratic system because the decision of whether or not to provide information falls on us, the contributors. Articles on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism for example, fail to include holistic accounts of what many deem as unnecessary controversial or biased pieces of information - the Crusades, terrorism, the struggles in the West bank, etc - because the Wikipedia community has decided that those opinions show unfair bias towards one point of view or another. It's why some articles become "locked" - one person's authoritative source is another person's vandalism. Some - myself included - see the ranking system as an unfair and biased point of view, which, in turn, invalidates it as a source of information.

5.) Finally, I would encourage you again to keep the tone civil.

I have removed the information again, but I have proposed a compromise. I await your reply.--Jackmjenkins (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I called myself foolish, not you.

-The rankings belong in the article. If you'd like to add a qualifying statement that is accurate, then that's up to you. I don't really see why the US News ranking of a college would fall if that college didn't participate in the peer-review assessment of other colleges, however.

-The inclusion of the rankings certainly holds up. Your refutation is nothing but a straw man, and your justification seems to not to be representative of how sources in Wikipedia are regarded. The article on Christianity might, for example, include mentioning the Crusades but won't describe it all because the Crusades are noteworthy in their own right. That's why you'd include go to the Crusades article. Since there is not going to be a "Presbyterian College's U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges 2009 ranking" article, the ranking belongs in this article.

-Because you see the rankings as biased doesn't really matter. What matters is if other reliable sources think they are biased. That's why you can mention PC's aversion to that ranking and its membership in the Annapolis Group. Many people think that US News rankings are noteworthy and important, even though they are flawed. That's why they need to be included. I suspect many deletions of rankings are because student/alumni of certain colleges find them unflattering.

-Please do not delete the rankings again. If you are really that opposed to them, get a consensus from the community.

67.224.2.195 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1.) I will delete the rankings for as long as I feel necessary. It's Wikipedia, and it's not an issue of vandalism.

2.) Consensus from what community? Wikipedia? Academia? You? As of late, that seems to consist of the two of us. Feel free to bring others.

3.) Moreover, I DO have the consensus of the community - the Annapolis Group, which is mentioned in the article.

4.) You say that you "suspect" that my deletions of rankings are because peoples find them unflattering, but that is a baseless assumption. This is an encyclopedia - baseless assumptions are not fact.

5.) While there may not be "Presbyterian College's U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges 2009 ranking" article, there IS an article on the Annapolis Group and the U.S. News and World Report ranking system. Also, the rankings themselves are linked in the article. The information is just as accessible.

6.) The implication of the foolish comment was clear and, again, uncalled for.--Jackmjenkins (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition/removal of US News ranking

Should we include the US News rankings for this article? I think that they are warranted due to their tremendous effect on college enrollment ([[1]]). Just because some colleges don't fully participate in the rankings doesn't mean the ranking isn't relevant to readers of this article. I'd like to hear the opinions of some established editors on whether this should be included.Gunshippolitico (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would agree this is significant material and a WP:RS source and should be included. (Notified at my talk page about this thread.) Cirt (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding this significant information to the article page.Gunshippolitico (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to include the word "consequently" and show causation. Other wikipedia pages do, and to delete it is a meritless, opinionated, biased action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imakjak (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying is that because Presbyterian College doesn't participate in the peer-reviewed part of the rankings that its ranking suffers. While this may be the case (if you think U.S. News is vindictive), it doesn't directly affect its ranking because the part that it refuses to participate in is in regards to other colleges, not PC itself. Thus, you cannot show causation here, and can't use "consequently". Why is this such a big deal?Gunshippolitico (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can causation. But perhaps it requires background, which is a fair point. Thus, a little background:

1) No, U.S. News is not vindictive, but refusing to participate in the reputation survey most certainly sets schools at a disadvantage. This is because schools often rank THEMSELVES highly on those portions of the survey (see this article: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings), which, of course, plays a factor.

2) Moreover, while it is admittedly difficult to prove, the findings in the above-mentioned article imply another problem: if an institution publicly refuses to participate in the survey, other schools are potentially less apt to rank them with a higher ranking, as there will be no return. While the idea that institutions would retain their integrity regardless is understandable, even schools who have released their portion of the survey cast doubt on the idea of institutional integrity.

3) This is a big deal because school rankings - while arguably unjust and biased - have a marked effect on a school. A low ranking can cost schools students, funding, and - by extension - resources necessary to provide education to its students. This is the essence of why many schools fight against biased ranking systems: it's not about the ranking itself per se, but rather the resources that are gained/lost because of a ranking system put out by a magazine. Indeed, the system itself has admitted to having a strong bias towards Ivy League institutions (and Harvard and Yale in particular):

"it's easy to guess who's going to end up on top: Harvard, Yale and Princeton round out the first three essentially every year. In fact, when asked how he knew his system was sound, Mel Elfin, the rankings' founder, often answered that he knew it because those three schools always landed on top. When a new lead statistician, Amy Graham, changed the formula in 1999 to what she considered more statistically valid, the California Institute of Technology jumped to first place. Ms. Graham soon left, and a slightly modified system pushed Princeton back to No. 1 the next year."[29] A San Francisco Chronicle article argues that almost all of US News factors are redundant and can be boiled down to one characteristic: the size of the college or university's endowment." (this comes from the Wikipedia entry on the ranking system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings#U.S._News_.26_World_Report_College_and_University_rankings)

Regardless, you have a point: perhaps the causation should be expounded upon rather than just adding the "consequently." Thoughts? --Jack (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your assessment. I don't like the fact that U.S. News rankings are important, but the fact is they are and schools like PC are probably penalizing themselves. However, this article isn't really the place to expound on that though, and you definitely can't say consequently with a straight face. If the Ivies/Stanford/MIT/Caltech all stopped participating in that part of the survey they probably wouldn't fall from their positions, for example. Something better would probably be "In spite of PC's refusal to submit the often favorable[source] peer-assessment, U.S. News ranks them as blah blah". I think that's much better. Gunshippolitico (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Deal. Edit added.--128.103.197.57 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why there is any opposition to "subjective," as "favorable" doesn't convey what the articles suggest (one specific quote from the New York Times article is "Instead of rankings, the guide relies on subjective analysis..."). The articles explicitly use the word "subjective," whereas "favorable" requires an object to be favorable TO for it to make sense in the sentence. In fact, I'm not sure of your intended use of the word "favorable" in this instance. If the intent is to say that the section favors one school (Ivy Leagues, etc) over another (schools like PC), then that is not a proper use of the word "favorable" - UNLESS one supplies "to [insert school/entity here]. --Jack (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's in order to convey that PC's ranking would probably be higher if it did the peer assessment survey. I don't think the sentence makes as much sense with subjective.Gunshippolitico (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Division 1 Section

I made several house-keeping edits to the Division 1 section to include new articles and to reference the old articles. --Jack (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry Section

I've moved this entire section to the talk page. Right now, it's in no shape to be included in the article.

"These two schools first met on the football field in 2007. Both sides agreed when asked after the first game was played that this game was a rivalry.

The first match up between these two ended in a Presbyterian victory by a score of 41-34. Coastal was leading 24-0 when a fight broke out. Not between each other, but with their own teammates. This obviously pumped up Presbyterian up as they scored on their next four possessions. The game would later go into overtime with Presbyterian scoring on its first play. Then after a pass from Coastal fell to the turf on fourth down. The celebration was on. Then another fight broke out. This time between a Presbyterian player and a Coastal player. PC won this game by a score of 41-34.

In 2008, there was not a more anticipated match up on the schedule and by the end of the first quarter of the game it was clear why. These two teams hated each other. Neither team scored in the first quarter. Then in the second quarter PC got on the board first with a 16 yard run by Chetyuane Reeder. Then on the next Coastal drive Zack MacDowall scored on a 38 yard run. Then later in the second quarter Coastal scored again making it a 14-7 lead for Coastal. Then again on Coastal's next drive Racheed Gause scored on a 12 yard run. There was no more scoring after this until the very end of the third quarter when Chetyuane Reeder scored on a 67 yard pass from Brandon Miley. This proved to be the last score as PC fell to rival Coastal 21-13.

The last match up between these two schools was in 2009 which produced another nail biter. This time Coastal scored on its first two possessions. Then PC showed its muscle scoring on their next two. Late in the game Coastal had a comfortable lead of 41-24, but then as PC usually seems to do against Coastal they came storming back again getting two onside kicks and having a chance to score to take the lead but on fourth down the Coastal defense won. Coastal would then go on to run the clock out and win 41-37.

Presbyterian currently trails in the series 1-2.

2007 PC 41-34 Inaugural Meeting

2008 CCU 21-13

2009 CCU 41-37"

Gunshippolitico (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be cleaned up. --Jack (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

=== The rivalry section is entirely to subjective and superfluous to be included in the main article for Presbyterian College. It should be removed, not "cleaned up".

The comment about Davidson becoming an emerging rival is utterly devoid of fact. We've played them in football once since the transition. One game does not constitute a rivalry. What the article SHOULD say is that the transition is enabling us to renewing athletic contests with traditional rival schools like Furman, Wofford, and the Citadel. -Hoseinexile07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoseinexile07 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

Overall, I am dissatisfied with this page. It contains inconsistencies in information (like the size of the endowment), an illogical structure, and an over-emphasis on athletics. I propose a complete overhaul of this page to do better justice to alma mater, and will submit a sample draft in the next few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.219.194 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In the fall of 2013 I started a complete overhaul of the existing page. I did research, checked and cited sources, and worked very hard to do PC's page some justice. I know this is Wikipedia and things get changed; that's the point. But the edits as of Oct 29 simply cut out a lot of what I had written without much regard for flow. The result was a really choppy product that wasn't fun to read. Although I was guilty of not leaving records and notes of the edits I made, it was because I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures. I welcome criticism but let's all try to be more forthcoming before we go cutting up each other's work. Westonnunn (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

"congenial atmosphere" and such make it seem like a PR piece for the college instead of an encyclopedia. KTNXbi152.130.14.5 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article! ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)