Talk:Saybrook University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
An editor has requested a photograph or image to be included in this article to improve its quality. Once the image is uploaded, please remove the |image-needed= parameter from this template.
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Multiple articles[edit]

This institution seems to be the same as Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. The Saybrook University article is far smaller than the Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center article, but it does seem to contain some information not mentioned in the larger article. I would like to propose that we move the content that is unique in this article to the larger article, and then delete this article - any opinions on the proposition? Best, Darigan (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I've tagged for a proposed merge. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC).
  • Going the other way would probably make more sense -- the official name of the institution is now Saybrook University. (I'm a student.) As described in this article, the University comprises three Colleges, one of which was formerly named Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. Also, the tag on this page says that it needs more references -- what would be appropriate? Are links into the school's website for each fact sufficient? (The older page doesn't have any such links, by the way.) JustinTSampson (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

NRC ratings[edit]

I have undone the edit by a user deleting the NRC rankings. NRC is a respected source and they apparently thought Saybrook gives a PhD in Psych and Saybrook themselves calls at least one of their PhDs a Psychology Degree ( Please discuss here before deleting this information. Let's avoid an edit war. Pengortm (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User: has reverted my changes again. While I disagree, I'd prefer not to get into an edit war and hope another editor can weigh in here. I disagree that every Wiki article about universities have to have the same information. Regardless, noteworthy information about the quality of a university seems like important information. For example, Stanford University's wiki page lists as the second sentence that Stanford "is one of the most prestigious universities in the world." As for bias again humanistic psychology, I'm not sure this is a factor. The NRC rated Saybrook's PhD in psychology. I don't know what humanistic psychology is as opposed to mainstream psychology and don't presume to be an authority on the matter. The NRC is an authority worth listing though.Pengortm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are the changes which are being deleted which I think should remain: "According to the United States National Research Council rankings study of 185 psychology PhD programs Saybrook received the very low score of 173.5.[1]" Pengortm (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User: Singling out Saybrook for inclusion of their NRC ranking in the introduction section regarding the university is clearly POV bias. We don't see the NRC ranking appear on 'any' other university's Wiki page at all, let alone in the introduction section. I think if we were privy to the NRC methodology with a direct link to the NRC website where the ranking appears, we would learn that any psychology program with a non-Freudian or non-Skinner and non-psychoanalytic focus would be deprecated, such as any program with a parapsychology, transpersonal psychology, or humanistic psychology emphasis. It is therefore highly biased and inappropriate to put such a ranking on the introduction to the university Wiki page for any non-mainstream psychology program, as it falsely suggests unless you are a mainstream (Freud/Skinner) psychology program, your program is not academically rigorous and engaged in significant and credible research that is making significant contributions to the field of psychology and our understanding of the human mind and behavior. Freud and Skinner made great contributions to the field of psychology, but so have Abraham Maslow, Otto Rank, Carl Rogers, Clark Moustakas, and James Bugental.
Why would you NOT put UC San Francisco's NRC psychology Ph.D ranking (165.5) on their Wiki introduction page? The reason we don't do this is that it distorts the perception of the quality of the university, which is ranked in the top 5 medical schools in the United States.[2] Similarly, there is no other place in the world where a student can get a better education in humanistic psychology than Saybrook, so why distort the quality of the program with a ranking of mainstream psychology programs that does not correspond to the university's strength?
An alternative presentation that would be more honest and less vandalizing is "As a Humanistic Psychology program, Saybrook does not emphasize Freud/Skinner in its approach to research or teaching psychology, and therefore does not compare favorably with psychology programs that do (footnote the NRC study here)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If there are sources which can back up some of your suggestions here (i.e. that there is a bias against humanistic psychology and/or that "there is no other place in the world where a student can get a better education in humanistic psychology than Saybrook") I urge you to add these in to the article. Much of your reasons seem based on personal experience/knowledge and not sources. I'd urge you to back up this knowledge with sources and improve the article with this information. Perhaps we should add in UC San Francisco's NRC rating to that article--but I have not had a role in editing that article yet. I don't think I need to edit every university's webpage for consistency to add something about Saybrook. Also, I don't appreciate being called a vandal, when this clearly is not vandalism, but an honest difference of opinion and understanding of wiki standards we are having. Pengortm (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
In the interest of trying to move this discussion further, can you provide a reference for the contention that "Saybrook does not emphasize Freud/Skinner in its approach to research or teaching psychology, and therefore does not compare favorably with psychology programs that do"? If you could find a good source to back-up this assertion, I think your general approach would make a lot of sense. Thanks. Pengortm (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm a regular volunteer at Third Opinion project. The request made there has been removed because 3O like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution requires thorough talk page discussion before asking for assistance. With only one response by the IP editor, discussion here has just begun. If you can't work it out between you after extensive discussion, then feel free to ask for a 3O or some other form of dispute resolution. (And please indent your discussion and sign your postings with four tildes so that it's easier to follow. I've started the indentation, above, on your behalf.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Got some better info on NRC methodology that would militate against including the ranking at all in the Saybrook case. Apparently, their R-rankings using regression analysis asks psychology faculty to rate certain characteristics of a psychology program that they think are important, and obviously Humanistic Psychology - Saybrook's strength - would not be considered important as it is a missing feature from nearly every psychology program in America. The S-rankings component of the ranking is survey-based and asked psychology faculty the importance of 20 characteristics in ranking the quality of a psychology program, and number of grants per faculty, graduate student funding - both which favor large, well-endowed established schools - and GRE scores of students - which don't exist in the Saybrook case - make the NRC ranking totally unsuitable to assess the quality of Saybrook's psychology programs.[3]. To make the NRC ranking not misleading, we are talking about a very large caveat like:
"Using the NRC ranking to assess the quality of Saybrook's psychology program is grossly misleading because the ranking emphasizes what most psychology faculty members think is important in a psychology program, and nearly all psychology programs in the United States do not consider Humanistic Psychology important enough to offer even a course on it, let alone an emphasis in one its psychology programs. Saybrook, on the other hand, emphasizes Humanistic Psychology in all of its psychology programs and was founded as a university on the premise that Humanistic Psychology is just as important, if not more important, than the Freud/Skinner psychoanalytic approach to psychology.[4] In addition, the NRC ranking places significant emphasis on GRE scores of graduate students and Saybrook does not consider GRE scores in its admission process, and as a small school with a small endowment does not have a lot of grants per faculty or extensive funding for graduate students and both of these characteristic are also a significant part of the NRC ranking.(link to the NRC methodology Wiki page here)".
Given the extensive nature of the caveat to make the NRC ranking not misleading in the Saybrook case, it probably should be left off entirely. Including it makes the introduction to Saybrook Wiki page look like a NRC ranking issue rather than a general overview of what Saybrook university is about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 09:41, 28 June 2014‎ (UTC)
Because an established rating system may tend to favor larger more established programs (if it in fact does), does not mean the rating system is invalid. Regardless of whether it does or not, we should not be arguing this. We should be depending upon secondary sources which make this point and not trying to do original research WP:NOR. If there are reliable sources that suggest that the NRC ratings should be questioned, let's include these sources, however all you seem to have done is cited the NRC wiki page, which was already cited and doesn't seem to contain any particular criticisms which are applicable to this case. Similarly, we need to be careful about WP:NPOV.Pengortm (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You still are not addressing the lack of neutrality issue in its entirety concerning including the NRC ranking on Saybrook's introduction page. I have presented several reasons that indicate that its inclusion is NOT neutral, and you only responded to 'one' - favors larger and more established programs. And even with your response to this one issue, you missed the main point concerning the disparity in WEALTH in the endowments and how this skews the NRC ranking in favor of universities with a wealthier and more generous donor base.
And it is peculiar that you don't respond at all to other issues raised concerning the non-neutrality of the NRC ranking such as significant weight to GRE scores when Saybrook does not require or ask for GRE scores of applicants to their school. Getting a low ranking because of an institutional decision to focus on the quality of the institution where the applicant received their MA and BA/BS degrees, GPA, faculty recommendations, personal essays, and proposed research topic, does NOT make Saybrook a less quality Ph.D program than another institution that decides to use the GRE. In fact, this is purely a methodology-bias issue that leads to absurd ranking results like mentioned before in the UC San Francisco case of a 165.5, when we all know no psychology department in the country would seriously argue that a Ph.D in psychology from Louisiana State A&M (128.5), Yeshiva University (110.5) or Uniformed Services University (39.5) would be more highly valued in any respect than a Ph.D in psychology from UCSF.
You also do not respond to the point made above concerning the R-rankings bias in the NRC methodology that favors characteristics of psychology programs that are currently offered in psychology departments, not programs that feature Humanistic Psychology which are not offered in nearly all psychology departments. This is a HUGE lapse on your part, as the R-Rankings component is about 50% of the weight of the NRC ranking.
The purpose of Wiki pages is to provide 'neutral' information concerning people, institutions, and topics of interest, and you have yet to present any evidence from an un-biased source that putting the NRC ranking on Saybrook's introduction page would be 'neutral' information regarding the quality of their Ph.D program, especially when the NRC ranking does not appear anywhere else on Wiki pages for psychology Ph.D programs of other universities. Finally, the NRC methodology has been questioned from other secondary sources such as Jonathan R. Cole and Fabio Rojas, in which one commentator noted the absurdity of the NRC ranking Miami University (7) ahead of UC Berkeley (35).— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:49, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)
You have stated a whole bunch of apparently personal critiques/your own research (not permitted under WP:NPOV) of NRC rankings and not given any sources (let alone reliable sources). I don't see where on the Jonathan R. Cole webpage NRC critiques are listed and your other two 'references' are numbers which I have no idea what they refer to. Yes, NRC rankings select for a whole bunch of things you disagree with (and term bias). A lot of other people might find this 'biased' ranking information meaningful. Regardless, if you can give a reliable source backing up your critiques than I'm happy to include this along with the NRC ranking.Pengortm (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You just aren't getting it - the NRC ranking in the Saybrook case has a much greater potential to mislead the reader about the quality of its Ph.D program than providing any meaningful 'neutral' information. I think your admission that you do not even know what Humanistic Psychology is disqualifies you as an editor of the Saybrook Wiki page. The links to both Jonathan R. Cole and Fabio Rojas criticisms (and many others) appears in the 'Reception' section of the NRC methodology Wiki page. And again, if you are really in-love with the obviously flawed NRC ranking, try putting it on the Wiki page for a university that is generally regarded as top flight like UCSF and let's see whether it sees the light of day. If you are not able to do this, no one should take you seriously as an editor on Wiki as you are obviously biased by singling out only one university (Saybrook) for NRC ranking inclusion when the NRC ranked 185 universities. For some strange undisclosed personal reason, you want use the NRC ranking to suggest that Saybrook's Ph.D program is not very good while exempting all other psychology programs with low NRC rankings from the same treatment. While this may satisfy your personal interest in defaming Saybrook, such personal POVs are not permitted on Wiki regardless of whether you hide them behind flawed methodology in one particular ranking scheme.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:37, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)
The reception section of the NRC page (which was linked to in my edit) lists very positive things and some negative things about the NRC rankings. You are only talking about the negative and saying it is particularly unfairly biased against Saybrook. The positives and negatives on the NRC webpage are not specific to Saybrook and I'm not sure it makes sense to re-hash that section here. Do you know of any actual citations which speak more directly to the situation of Saybrook? As for my expertise in humanistic psychology--you're apparently not familiar with wikipedia standards--we generally don't work by appeals to person knowledge but instead by making edits which are backed up by other sources. If you are a scholar on the topic who has published pertinent reliable sources on the topic, by all means cite them and integrate here, but your personal opinion and personal knowledge is not really that relevant to our discussion here unless you can more reliably back it up.Pengortm (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Reading both the disputant's arguments, I conclude that there is nothing wrong in adding the NRC rating to this page. No doubt the NRC page has listed some positive and negative reception, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to discard its rating entirely. It is still supposed to be a authoritative source, it is not for us to deem it entirely worthless. I don't see how merely stating the NRC rating (which is just a fact) violates the NPOV. Moreover, I see us taking the liberty to omit this, a bit biased itself.

I further recommend to whoever is interested to improving this page to fix this page's lead section. The lead serves as an intro and only summarises what the rest of the article says. I recommend just keeping an introductory statement like "Saybrook University a San Francisco, California-based graduate institution that specialises in x subject...". A single sentence lead is probably enough since this is quite a short article. The entire content can be moved to the relevant sections below. Also, I hope by keeping everything including the disputed statement below and not in the intro/lead, make both sides content.

3O is mainly about the content dispute and not editor behaviour. But I have to say that accusing another editor of vandalising or defamation is disruptive. Moreover, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument; we judge each article by itself and not whether or not that is included on other pages. Please be civil and polite. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope Ugog Nizdast will forgive me commenting. I agree with him about inclusion of this, but the actual sentence under discussion ("According to the United States National Research Council rankings study of 185 psychology PhD programs Saybrook received the very low score of 173.5.") is unacceptable. The "very low" is blatant editorializing. The 173.5 is not a score, but a rank (equal 173rd and 174th), and a rank says nothing about quality (all 185 might be excellent). Also, this ranking is a potentially dated statement. So I suggest something more factual, such as: "The United States National Research Council ranked Saybrook equal 173 and 174 in its 2014 rankings study of 185 psychology PhD programs." --Stfg (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - will make change consistent with this Pengortm (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Stfg: Not a problem at all and thanks for noticing what I overlooked. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The intention of having the "very low" qualifier was to specify the directionality of the scoring system, but I agree that it editorializes inappropriately. However, the current revised wording leaves it ambiguous whether 185 or 1 is the top rank, so I think we should add some sort of qualifier. I suggest something like: "The United States National Research Council rankings (NRC) ranked Saybrook 173/174 out of 185 in its 2014 rankings of 185 psychology PhD programs (with lower rankings being more positive on this scale)." What do you think @Stfg:?--Pengortm (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Pengortm: As far as I know, rankings always have #1 as the highest rank, so it's unnecessary to say anything. (The ping didn't notify me, but I can't figure why not, as it looks fine to me. To avoid the @ sign mid-sentence, you can use the {{u}} template instead.) --Stfg (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. News ratings[edit]

Section in question is: "The most widely cited private ranking organization, US News & World Report, chose not to publish the rank of Saybrook's Ph.D psychology program because Saybrook's unique emphasis on Humanistic Psychology is a 'special characteristic' that does not lend itself well to a 'general' ranking of psychology programs.[1][2] Concerning schools with specific specialties, U.S. News & World Report indicated that when there are "too few in each category" it does not allow for fair comparison because the specialized focus of the particular school would require a different ranking system.[3]"

I believed this to be a misreading of the citations and changed it to: "Saybrook scored below the top three-fourths of schools in its ranking category in US News & World Report (U.S. News does not report specific scores below this cutoff).[4][5]"

Nowhere in any citation you provided does it say that RNP means you scored below the top three-fourths, and the specific citation that I provided that defines what RNP is indicates that specialty schools like Saybrook may receive a RNP rating because there are too few schools within the particular specialty to make a general ranking meaningful. Section 18 of the US News FAQ states "U.S. News believes that because these schools are unable to report key educational characteristics OR because they have certain other characteristics, it would be unfair to try to compare them statistically with the other schools that are part of the rankings." The question is if US News recognizes this unfairness why would we want to include the NRC ranking without the published criticism that also supports the unfairness issue?— Preceding unsigned comment added by
Please read this again, there are two reasons why scores might not be given, EITHER they are "Rank Not Published" or "Unranked". If Saybrook was "Unranked" you might be correct, but since they are "Rank Not Published" than this is the section we need to pay attention to. Am I miss-reading here? Pengortm (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It is disappointing to see that User: continues to edit the article page on this topic despite the clear disagreements and ongoing discussion on the talk page on this very specific topic. I'm restraining myself from editing the article page since this seems to devolve into edit wars rather than productive dialogue.--Pengortm (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I note that my suggested replacement text is slightly incorrect and should specify that the ranking is only for the psychology program at Saybrook. I'm also suggesting removing the explanation about how US news doesn't publish specific rankings for some schools (for brevity's sake--and since this is easily found at the sources). I also note that the the page might be useful for other editors looking into this. I'll give a few more days for other editors to weigh in before changing this to:
"Saybrook's psychology program scored below the top three-fourths of schools in its ranking category in US News & World Report.[6][7]"--Pengortm (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User: reverted this change and accused me of "completely fabricating" this. First, as pointed out by me previously and by Ugog Nizdast, accusing another editor of vandalising or defamation is disruptive. I acknowledge that I am imperfect and could be misreading the citations. Let's try to go through this together and improve the article to be accurate. Turning back to the meat of this argument: "Concerning schools with specific specialties, U.S. News & World Report indicated that when there are "too few in each category" it does not allow for fair comparison because the specialized focus of the particular school would require a different ranking system.[8]"

number 16 in this reference link which User: cites talks about "undergraduate specialty schools in fine arts, engineering or business". Saybrook is a psychology grad school--so doesn't fit this specification. says Saybrook received a RNP (Ranked Not Published) score. #18 clearly states what this means.

This section is talking about specialty school ranking methodology in general using the three undergraduate categories as 'examples'. Your reading would suggest that only undergraduate schools in these three areas have specialties where there are too few in number to have a meaningful ranking, and this is clearly not the case, especially in the Saybrook case of Humanistic Psychology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by
Nowhere in #16 do I see that it say that these are only examples. Where do you see this?Pengortm (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I have very clear reasons that I have gone over multiple times, I am going to revert this now and ask that you move the discussion to the talk page. Thank you for introducing the new information from U.S. News and I look forward to working with you in a collaborative wiki fashion.Pengortm (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since there is no rush, and I don't want to spur an edit war, I'm going to give us some time to discuss before reverting. I do hope Ugog Nizdast and Stfg might also chime in here.Pengortm (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
175.157.***, you're signing your posts wrong, you do it by typing ~~~~...this will automatically produce your username and time. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed this whole question today, and it's as Pengortm states. Saybrook was in the bottom quartile and for this reason the exact ranking is not published there. The relevant section of the FAC is #18, not #16 (and its URL has #21 as its anchor). I've copy edited and changed the refs to link to that and to the actual page on which Saybrook's "Rank Not Published" ranking is listed. The "methodology" link was of no relevance to Saybrook, and I've removed it.

By the way folks, please don't use ref tags on talk pages unless you're including a reflist; it only means we have to view the source in order to copy-paste the URL. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DRN and page protection request[edit]

DRN notice — All parties should note that a request for dispute resolution has been made at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard in regard to this dispute. I'm posting this notice here because the notice given to the IP editor, who edits from a dynamic IP address, may not be seen at the user talk page where it was given. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC) (and, yeah, I work at DRN, too...)

With the cooperation of Pengortm, I've closed the DRN and made a request for temporary semi-page protection here.-- KeithbobTalk 17:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The request at RFPP accused the IP of having ignored the "consensus". Apart from the fact that WP:3O is non-binding, in fact the IP seems not to have ignored it, as the agreed-upon text is still in place. The 3O opinions did not preclude critique of the NRC ratings. I'm not convinced that it is only the IP to be POV-pushing here, but I think both sides mean to be fair, and I'm willing to help once some RL commitments are done (probably starting at the weekend). The article is generally in a pretty dismal state, and I think there are good things we could do here. I've made a comment to this effect at RFPP. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Stfg that the very specific adding of the NRC ratings have been maintained. However, please look forward to the quality of the edits and discussion about them in addition to this. The sources cited by the IP user are consistently mis-cited or unclear (as in the case of the critiques of the NRC ratings which cites the references of the NRC wiki page (ALL of those references without distinguishing which ones). When I point this out this is denied. Other edits I make which are well sourced are deleted, and when I try to explain myself or bring discussion to the talk page, the IP editor does not engage with discussion and things quickly devolve towards edit warring without proper use of the talk page. I really think the semi-protection will be helpful in bringing the IP editor into the fold as an editor who we can better tell about Wiki standards and notify of persistent violations. Regardless, thanks for weighing in on this article. --Pengortm (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Claimed criticism of NRC fails verification[edit]

The last sentence of the Ratings section currently reads:

The methodology of NRC ranking has been criticised because if [sic] favors universities with large financial endowments, favors universities that use the GRE in admissions (Saybrook does not),[18] and disfavors universities with specialties such as Humanistic Psychology that are not popular at other universities.[19]

Reference 19 is not a proper citation to a source, but states: "See Sources Cited in Reception Section of NRC Methodology Wiki Page", linking to that page. I have been through all the sources in that section, and none of them support the claim that the NRC ranking has been criticised because it "favors universities with large financial endowments, favors universities that use the GRE in admissions and disfavors universities with specialties such as Humanistic Psychology that are not popular at other universities". I've therefore tagged the statement with tags {{fv}} and {{cn}}

@ please identify a source that is independent of Saybrook and criticizes the NRC ratings for those reasons. Otherwise the quoted statement will have be removed. --Stfg (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its appropriate copy even if there is a valid source because its not about the subject of this article.-- KeithbobTalk 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue is whether the rating is well arrived at and fair, and if this is independently questioned, it may be best to say so. That said, the current commentary is so far distant from the claimed sources that I wasn't going to leave it for long, and have now taken it out. Subject to consensus on this point, something can be put back if adequate sources are found. --Stfg (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If NRC's ranking of Saybrook has been criticized that is valid. But I'm not sure a general criticism of NRC is relevant here. For example suppose we the NY Times rated it as the #1 school in the region. We wouldn't go on to say that the NY Times is an award winning newspaper. That, to me, would be undue weight. But I'm open to discussion on this. Face-wink.svg -- KeithbobTalk 23:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just general criticism definitely doesn't belong here, I agree. The argument being presented is that NRC was adopting criteria that disadvantage Saybrook. Well, maybe we don't need to think too hard about it unless some sources are offered to back up the claim. I ain't seen none yet. Face-smile.svg --Stfg (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested addition on financial situation and change of control[edit]

I previously added the following sentence to the lead after the mention of accreditation:

"The accreditors have evaluated Saybrook's financial situation as "fragile" for several years which has lead to a proposal to transfer control of the institution to the TCS Education System (TCSES)[1] " removed this saying:

"(30p said keep the intro short and simple, but you keep trying to use the intro to include cherry-picked negative information about Saybrook without including the positive. Start a new section on Financial Health if you think this is relevant.)"

I'm not sure if this merits its own separate section and welcome the opinion of other editors on whether and how to integrate this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengortm (talkcontribs) 17:05, 4 July 2014‎ (UTC)

@Pengortm: Thanks for the source. I'll take a look at it on Sunday or Monday and see whether there's anything in it that should be covered. One thought is that financial situation can change rapidly, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But we'll see. May I say that I do have a bit of sympathy for the IP's comment. I've sensed an element of negative publicity in the tone of some of your edits, and in things like removal of the Mission section, which was easy to source from the Saybrook website (and appropriate, because it's theirs to define). Some of what the IP has done can be seen as an understandable, if unskilful, reaction to this. It's a point to watch, if conflict is to be avoided. --Stfg (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
With some further thought, I don't think the sentence I'm suggesting is best put in a "Financial Health" section, because it speaks not just to the financial health, but also to the management/control of the university. I also note that the financial situation goes back before 2012 in the accreditors reports ( - written in 2012 notes that "financial sustainability remains a challenge for Saybrook") --I'm not sure if this makes this "not news" or not. Seems like valuable information from a good source to me. I agree with you on the mission section. Thanks for restoring and sourcing it and for the frank feedback.--Pengortm (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, I've had a look, and the source you found (the visit report) proves very useful for another reason, as it contains good information for the new history section I've just added. That's great, because the history page on the Saybrook web site is just promotional blurb, with very little history at all.
That said, the fact that Saybrook is now affiliated to TCSES obsoletes anything said about its financial situation prior to the affiliation. So, no, we shouldn't include that. I would have advised against it anyway, because 2012 is old news and the January 2014 comment has to be taken in the context of the proposal to affiliate. And also, why pick out this comment and not the many others, both positive and negative, made in the report? Anyhow, the fact of the affiliation makes it clear, I think. --Stfg (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Both of these sources are primary sources and should be used with care, if at all. The first one gives factual information that may be useful. The second one is a personal opinion and my general feeling would be not to use it at all except for uncontroversial facts like the location of the school, when it applied for accreditation etc. -- KeithbobTalk 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. --Stfg (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed sentence[edit]

I've removed this sentence and source:

  • In 2011, Saybrook and the Existential-Humanistic Institute of San Francisco jointly announced the launch of "the first nationally recognized certificate program in existential-humanistic practice".

Because it overstates what the source says:

  • "This fall, Schneider [faculty member at Saybrook] says, a partnership between Saybrook and EHI will launch the first nationally recognized certificate program in existential-humanistic practice."

Firstly the claim is being made by a Saybrook faculty member and secondly its a claim about a future action, an intention, a plan. We need a source that verfies such a program was actually launched and that its significant enough to be reported on by a secondary source and hence included in the article. Comments? -- KeithbobTalk 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points. Good call. --Stfg (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Wrong! Not a good point at all, and based on POV bias that seeks to eliminate ANY positive information from Saybrook's Wiki page. Go here: to discover that the certificate program is up and running and NOT some planned future action as suggested by Keithbob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The lead[edit]

There is a lot of ambiguity about the name(s) of this school. I'm going to redo the lead and only leave behind names that we have sources for (I'll create citations). If sources are found for other names, we can add them back in. For example, so far, I have not seen any source that says Saybrook's original name was Institute of Humanistic Psychology.-- KeithbobTalk 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines say if there are more than three names they should be listed/discussed in the body of the article, not in the lead. [4]-- KeithbobTalk 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources for names[edit]

  • Ageyev is now an adjunct professor at the Saybrook Institute for Humanistic Psychology in San Francisco and at the University at Buffalo--The Buffalo News, Jan 31, 1987
  • More than forty years ago a group of leading psychologists gathered to form the first graduate school centered on the belief that every person is a work in progress and that each of us has the capacity and the responsibility for our own development. These scholars were the founders of the humanistic psychology movement, a school of thought that continues to change global society. They created Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, --Saybrook U, About page
  • says Kirk Schneider, PhD, a psychologist and faculty member at Saybrook University and the Existential-Humanistic Institute in San Francisco, -- APA, Nov 2011
  • Saybrook University was founded in 1971, within California State University, Sonoma, as the Humanistic Psychology Institute. The Institute became a private higher education institution and changed its name to Saybrook Institute and then the Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. The Graduate School and Research Center became Saybrook University in September 2009. --WASC report Jan 2014
-- KeithbobTalk 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that the current history section won't do: it says that Saybrook University was founded in 1971 but it became Saybrook University in 2009. That's illogical. As to the sources above: (a) the Buffalo News only shows that it had become the Saybrook Institute for Humanistic Psychology on or before 1987. (b) is from the Saybrook's own history page, which is short on information and long on promotion and buzzwords; I don't think we can rely on them having checked what the name was "more than forty years ago". (c) The APA says only tells us that it was Saybrook university by 2011, which is not very helpful. (d) The WASC source, which I used in first drafting this section, tells it clearly, and is part of a carefully written document. Yes, it's primary, but the kind on information given in that quote is not controversial. I don't really understand why you've abandoned that in favour of what seem to me to be much weaker sources. --Stfg (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I've sorted it out. Take a look at the History section and see what you think. -- KeithbobTalk 22:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
👍 Like --Stfg (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, wrong! Keitbob is simply trying to highlight the WASC source for OTHER reasons associated with Saybrook finances, and uses the name pretext to include the source. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Michael Mayer source (,+saybrook&source=bl&ots=J3LLGeey6-&sig=d1JtajrUTqgU488exUMKIilIwUs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sOvBU8m8EMu68gXRjoCQBg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Path%20of%20a%20Reluctant%20Metaphysician%2C%20saybrook&f=false) provided, as on page 99 he is simply recalling his first-hand account of how Saybrook was founded to describe how he got interested in humanistic psychology. The REAL objection to the source appears to be an effort to misrepresent Saybrook's esteemed history and founding by disconnecting it with world famous psychologists who gave birth to the school. The Mayer source is also one of the few sources for where the 'Saybrook' name comes from which should be part of the Wiki history, not just that the name 'changed many times' which is an attempt once again to slight the school. We really have to be mindful that there are perhaps disgruntled employees of Saybrook - like you have with other employers - who hide behind their Wiki anonymity in an attempt to present the institution in the most negative light that they can. The point of Wiki, however, is to provide NEUTRAL information, not just negative information favored by certain editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The dial-up from Sri Lanka is back[edit]

I have requested semi-protection.

@175.157 ... I saw your edit summary saying "There is no misrepresentation at all, and sources are reliable - please SUPPORT your misrepresentation claim in Talk before reverting", but this page is full of discussion about the sources and what they say. You have reverted to your account of two weeks ago, which has been extensively discussed here. Your edits are against the consensus, and it is you who need to support your case before altering the article. --Stfg (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Content moved here for discussion[edit]

  • TEXT-- In 1964, founding members of the Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology movement met in Saybrook, Connecticut to create the Saybrook Institute - from which it derived the "Saybrook" name. The goal expressed at the Saybrook meeting was to start an educational institution that "embodied the values of the Human Growth and Potential movement and to educate practitioners and scholars in the methods and philosophies of human-centered psychotherapy... as a counterweight to the standard psychoanalytic and mechanistic psychological practices of those times." Notables at the Saybrook, Connecticut meeting were Abraham Maslow, Carl Rodgers, Clark Moustakas, and Rollo May. These leaders in humanistic psychology sought to create the "educational arm of the Humanistic Psychology movement" by starting the Saybrook Institute.
  • SOURCE -- ref name=Mayer>cite book|last1=Mayer|first1=Michael|title=The Path of a Reluctant Metaphysician|date=June 12, 2012|publisher=The Body Mind Healing Center|isbn=978-0983966500|page=99

I have issues with the source that has been cited for the text above:

So in essence it's a self published opinion piece and I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. What do others think? -- KeithbobTalk 22:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a first-hand account of how Saybrook was founded, and the author has no further association with Saybrook. He is just saying he was there and this is what happened to explain how he first got interested in humanistic psychology. The name 'Saybrook" certainly did not come from San Francisco, and we have no sources that would cast doubt on Mayer's historical account. Again, it appears that some of the Wiki editors here do not want to acknowledge that Saybrook has an esteemed founding and history as an integral part of the humanistic psychology movement, and all of us need to know why this POV bias without any supporting citations is being allowed on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob: We actually had an edit conflict on this one: I was copy editing it while you removed it. Face-grin.svg I think its inclusion is actually OK, since it isn't controversial. Perhaps we could preface it with some attribution, like "Michael Mayer recalls that ...". I'm too busy to do anything substantial today, but tomorrow I'll check the source to ensure that it's accurately paraphrased and to remove a little bit of minor editorializing ("Notables at the Saybrook, Connecticut meeting were ..." to become "Those present at the Saybrook, Connecticut, meeting included ..."). With that, I think it's all right. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@175.157...: Please sign all your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end of each post. I will start a new section tomorrow to explain why what you wrote about the US News ranking misrepresents what they actually said, but I'm too busy to do it today. It can be found higher up this talk page, actually, but I'll restate it again tomorrow. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
We appreciate your time and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stfg, sorry about the edit conflict. Yes, it definitely needs an inline attribution at the least. If it contradicts other sources then we have a problem IMO. But I'll wait till your done with your revised version and then discuss here before changing anything. I might like to take the source to RSN for some outside input. But I'll wait and see how things develop here in the next few days. Thanks for all your help with the article. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 14:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested draft[edit]

No worries about the ec. Accidents happen :) Here goes:

First, the Mayer book (p.99) does not say that people in 1964 "met in Saybrook, Connecticut to create the Saybrook Institute". What it does say is that several people were at a conference at which the "desire" for such a school was "birthed". The sentence "These leaders in humanistic psychology sought to create the "educational arm of the Humanistic Psychology movement" by starting the Saybrook Institute." in the removed text is not borne out by the source at all.

Secondly, the book states on the same page that Criswell called "the first meeting of the first program in Humanistic psychology" in 1972. This is inconsistent with sources that state that Rollo May established the Humanistic Psychology Institute in 1971. Since Mayer is presenting himself as "With my wide-eyes, and thirst for learning", I think we must doubt whether this young man knew the full history and remembered it accurately. What I think we can retrieve from the Mayer source is that Saybrook is named after the 1964 Saybrook, Connecticut, conference where delegates discussed their desire for such a school, and that Rollo May was one of those delegates.

Thirdly, the sources do not say that Criswell created the Institute jointly with May. Mayer mentions that she was a professor at Sonoma and called meetings in 1972, but see above. The Criswell bio is a spam link (advertising commercial products) and should be discounted.

I propose we do not restore the removed text, but amend the present paragraph as follows:

  • In 1971, the American psychologist Rollo May helped to establish Saybrook Institute (originally called the Humanistic Psychology Institute) at California State University, Sonoma.[4=WASC][5=APA][6=Mayer][7=Criswell bio] Later on it was renamed the Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center[4]. Michael Mayer recalls that the Saybrook name derives from Saybrook, Connecticut, where several psychologists, including May, expressed a desire to "to create a school that embodied the values of the 'human growth and potential movement' and to educate practitioner-scholars in the methods and philosophies of human-centered psychotherapy".[ref Mayer} , and finally, In 2009, the school was renamed Saybrook University.[4] The university began its affiliation with the shared services organization TCS Education System in October 2013 2014 to provide administrative and financial services so the school could focus on teaching and research.[8][9]

(Note: it requested affiliation in October 2013), but only became affiliated in 2014.) Comments? --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with Wiki standards as Stfg or Keithbob, but Stfg seems to have gone through this very carefully and neutrally, and the proposed statement seems fair to me. I'm glad Stfg was able to get access to this book and suggest that in future cases we need such independent verification of interpretations of book sources--especially from unregistered users. --Pengortm (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
For anyone who doesn't know how to look for on-line access, here's the procedure. The reference has an ISBN, and if you click on that number it takes you to this page. (You can also just go to Special:BookSources and enter the ISBN in the search box.) Scroll down to the Online text section and click the Find this book link in the Find this book at Google Book Search online database bullet (2nd bullet). You may get lucky or you may be unlucky, but in this case Google Books gives us a link to preview. Click this and you get to a preview of the book, in this case showing the front cover. User the drop-down (currently showing "Front cover") to get you as near to the target page as you can, then scroll. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Stfg, your draft (above) looks good to me. -- KeithbobTalk 16:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. I've incorporated it, adding the words "during a conference in 1964" which I intended but forgot to include in the above draft. Hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

US News Ranking[edit]

As requested by 175.157..., here is the low-down on the US News ranking. Three pages are relevant to the argument:

Ref A, the ranking itself, lists Saybrook as Rank Not Published. (Scroll down a bit; the RNP schools are in alphabetical order). Ref B, FAQ item 18, states:

"Rank Not Published means that U.S. News did calculate a numerical rank and score for that school, but decided for editorial reasons that since the school ranked below the U.S. News cutoff – the top three-fourths of each ranking category are numerically ranked – that U.S. News would not publish the rank and score for that school on"

This is how the "bottom quartile" in the article is arrived at.

Note that ref C, which is the one that 175.157... put into the article, is only page 2 of the methodolgy. Page 1 contains statements very similar to the above statements from the FAQ. Page 2 lists a small number of colleges for which no ranking was calculated, and Saybrook is not one of them. It goes on to say that the unranked ones on the list were included in the rankings as Rank Not Published. For example, the first in the psychology list on the methodology page is Marywood University, and it is listed as Rank Not Published.

The situation may be confusing, and I have written to US News about it, but what is clear is that unranked universities are listed as Rank Not Published, but universities listed as Rank Not Published are only unranked if they are in the list in ref C. Saybrook isn't. --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)