Talk:University of Florida/archive 1

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

Don't Tase me bro[edit]

There needs to be section about the kid that got tasered. It was at University of Florida and now the domain name points to this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

FLSUS infobox[edit]

Anyone have anything against my adding the FLSUS_taxobox like some of the other Florida Universities? --Kushboy 4:14 PM June 05 2005

No, I was hoping someone would add that... Magicman17 18:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


isn't a GPA of 4.0 a perfect score? If so, the only way an "average" freshman could have a GPA of 4.0 would be if *all* freshmen had perfect scores. Duracell 21:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, its WEIGHTED score, which adds points for taking harder classes such as AP/IB/honors its actually graded on a 5.0 scale. Magicman17 21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The average UF SAT score isn't 1340, it's actually around 1290-1300... Subterfugest 00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Weighted score is correct, but not necessary on a 5.0 scale either. I would assume the avg. SAT score changes each semester based on enrollment.

So what you are saying is they have "massaged" the average GPA to make it sound like a perfect score. Putarias00112 22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, what is he is saying is that UF is very up front about their average incoming class, just like every other university that puts out those statistics. They make very clear the weighted and unweighted GPAs. It's WIKIPEDIA that didn't differentiate, not UF. -FrYGuY 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Reactor[edit]

I made an article about the research & training reactor at UF as a part of an ongoing university reactor series. I see no mention of anything related to it in this UF article, so will someone please add it for me? theanphibian 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay well I'm thinking that it should go in Research and discoveries because I don't see any facility section. Oh, I guess I can edit it, so I'll just go pencil it in. theanphibian 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


No offense but touting this University as "the place where gatorade was invented" is pretty pathetic considering the beverage is nothing but water and sugar. Hey but I guess that is considered and accomplishment in UF. Huramans 11:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say that is very subjective there. Gatorade is not just sugar and water,and not only that, it has been proven to help athletes when it comes to endurance. Gatorade is also one of UF's largest sources of income, and is recognized nationwide as a popular beverage. Your comment at the end "Hey but I guess that is considered and accomplishment in UF." is exactly the opposite mindset you need to have when dealing with this encyclopedia. 9:03, 24 September 2006


It's tough to have the established date show something other than the year on the seal. It is "officially" something else...what wins? Also, stuff like this happens it seems. Less than 10 years ago FSU was something like 1858, making UF's 1853 the older school. But the story I heard is FSU realized that 1853 was the year UF was granted permission to make a school, and FSU's 1858 was the year it actually opened. So FSU changed their establishment and seal to reflect 1851, the year they got permission to have a school, making them the older school. --Kushboy 19:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, 1853 is the year East Florida Seminary was founded, and West Florida Seminary was founded in 1857, both East Florida Seminary and West Florida Seminary were granted permission to open in 1851. So FSU decided to trump Florida's founding date change from 1905 to the year that EFS opened by going to the earlier date. -FrYGuY 03:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But you're perfectly fine with keeping FSU's date as 1851? Pretty one sided, if you ask me.

  • Well, there is a difference. FSU really does have historical merit for 1851, while UF doesn't. If someone was born in 1970, but says he was born in 1975, I think Wikipedia would report 1970 as his birthdate. FSU was, basically, told to be built 1851, and opened 1858. Both have merit. To be 1853, we have to decide if there was a relationship between UF and the East Florida Seminary. Kushboy 17:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there is, to the same degree that there is for FSU and West Florida Seminary. EFS became absorbed by another university which became part of UF in 1905, and is simply the earliest started school in the aggregate which became UF. FSU's 'merit' is that it directly absorbed WFS, so either you can count absorbed universities for founding date, or you can't and UF FSU and FAMU are all founded in 1905. What bugs me is the inconsistancy... If you're going to put "official" and "actual" dates in UF's info box, the same need to be done with FSU and FAMU which have the same issue to contend with. -FrYGuY 10:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is an "opinion" article in the Tampa Tribune (note the use of the word opinion) really an authoritative enough source to establish when UF was officially established?

No! An opinion article should not be the basis for when the Univeristy was established. FSU alums have a problem with interpreting the facts fairly across both universities. The rightful source should be each University, and in this case the UF site should have precedence over any opinion column in the Tampa Tribune. If the FSU fan wants to continue to edit this page, I will continue to change it back to it's correct historical form. Template: I was originally going to let this one go, but being accused of being a Seminole is really too much. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which is one of our key rules here at Wikipedia. There is no reason for you to cast (quite inaccurate) aspersions on the motives of other editors. Also, whatever dispute we may have over the content, do not insert into the article copyrighted material from the University of Florida website. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Gamaliel 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

National Merit Scholars[edit]

Question: why have National Merit Scholars suddenly become a burden to the university? It doesn't make sense, and the article doesn't say. Shouldn't that be a point to be proud of?

National Merit Scholars are not a burden to the university, and UF is proud of that statistic. However, the National Merit Scholarships are not limitless. Therefore, as more National Merit Scholars decide that UF is the best fit for them, the amount awarded per scholar must go down; the two are inversely proportional.

Where is the source for this information? The majority of the National Merit Finalists that attend UF do so for the 'full ride', so to speak. The choice of $5500 was made because that is the difference after the Bright Futures scholarship. If such a reduction were true, it would be a monumental hit for the school's prestige.

The information contained in the article was faulty and has now been corrected. Refer to for more information on UF's National Merit Scholarship amounts past and present. UF gives a straight monetary award *in addition to* any other scholarships received by Merit Scholarship Finalists. Thus, students who earn Florida Bright Futures scholarships essentially earned a 'full ride', but the new award amount will barely cover the estimated cost of textbooks ($900 a year, according to information from the Summer 2006 Outstanding High School Scholars Program). At this same program, Provost Fouke publicly disclosed the same information contained in the news story referred to above. Currently, UF's expenditures on National Merit Scholarships are not so great as to be prohibitive, if the university truly wished to make National Merit recruitment a priority. Unfortunately, Provost Fouke has decided to emphasize other programs at the expense of this particular scholarship. Under these circumstances, National Merit Scholars do become a 'burden', as they are costing more than the university currently believes they are worth.

I object to this information being removed on the basis of its "minor notability" as it is actually quite relevant to college rankings and of particular importance to prospective students and/or concerned alumni.

RfC Discussion[edit]

Basically, we need to decide which year to put as UF's establishment. As seen in the article, UF changed its year from 1905 to 1853. 1853 is the establishment of the East Florida Seminary, which may or may not have become UF. More information about the change can be found in the second paragraph of "History". Kushboy 23:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

rfc comment - I think the current approach of having both is right. Rd232 22:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. The current system of having "actual" and "official" dates, accompanied by the explanation in the body of the article makes good sense. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Look to the word. not to be a dictionary geek (all dictionaries are somewhat dated/arbitrary by nature), but it seems that the agreed meaning of established is "stable". "firm". "beyond a doubt". given that, i don't consider permission to build a school as "established", or the date of permission the establishment (one definition of which: "settled arrangement") date. if i were in charge of writing an article about the school, based on what i've heard here i would put the date the school was open for business as the E date, but with an asterisk explaining the change of the date on the seal. and then i'd go have a beer. SaltyPig 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Problem with that is then you have to do the same with the FSU and FAMU articles too. EFS did, in a round about way, end up part of UF... one of the buildings from EFS is right across University Avenue from campus (fittingly, as a church)... FSU and FAMU both derive from earlier institutions, and use the founding date of THOSE institutions as THEIR founding date... which is more correct? Well, UF DOES have roots in EFS, and the 1905 date represents a reorganization which resulted in the current UF. So is the founding the 'roots' or the 'sprout' (To continue the plant analogy)? I don't particularly care which gets used, but it needs to be consistant with the FSU and FAMU article... -FrYGuY 11:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Use the old date and thoroughly explain how it got to be that. I say, let the schools decide when they were "founded" and then explain what that means as necessary. JDoorjam 14:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

List of alumni?[edit]

Since the list of famous Gators is so long, might it be more appropriate to move the list of alumni to a separate page? (see e.g. List of Indiana University alumni) Note also Category:University of Florida alumni; however, a category is not a replacement for a good list. -- Tetraminoe 11:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Since new entries of alumni are added frequently might somebody look into the actual value of having all these alumni on the article page. Lincher 02:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand: are you saying we should create a separate list or keep the list as part of the UF article? -- Tetraminoe 07:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There's a Category:University of Florida alumni. We don't need that long ugly list.
The last version with the old list is at if anybody wants to check for inclusion in the category. Dave 05:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that your list of alumni is largely slanted towards athletes. Not a good sign for an "elite" university. - anon

Yeah, because Scientists tend to become so much more famous (And thus notable), and at such a higher rate than athletes... wait, the exact opposite is true, and you're just trying to troll. Ignore the fact that a UF grad invented the Electronically Programable Computer. Ignore the nobel prize winners (Three, if I remember correctly). Ignore the notable breakthroughs in robotics, medicine, aeronautics. Yep, just because it's the atheletes who become famous enough for a wikipedia article, you should TOTALLY make sly innuendo that UF is somehow inferior. -FrYGuY 17:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

1. It makes sense to link to an alumni list on a different page.

2. The college of journalism and communications has an entire lobby on the second floor devoted to pictures of alumni from that college. Maybe instead of arguing, we could all visit the colleges and create truly comprehensive and balanced lists? Jerseygator

As per discussion, I am creating a List of Unversity of Florida alumni. The list on this page has become too long and would be better on a separate page. This will hopefully lighten the article, allowing us to add more substantial material. -- Bantab 04:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Considering that there's an entire article on UF athletics, I think the section in the main article is too big. I'm going to WP:BB and trim it down. Dave 05:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Members of Congress-UF trails Harvard, Yale and Georgetown[edit]

If someone will go to the Almanac of American Politics he will find that in the current Congress Harvard has 41 members, Yale 20 and Georgetown 21. UF can claim to have more members than any public institution.

Is that current, or total? JDoorjam 05:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That is current. For the 109th Congress.

East Florida Seminary and UF[edit]

Sorry, "loosely related" is just not going to cut it in an encyclopedia. The issues as I see it are:

  • Is the East Florida Seminary in Ocala the same as or related to the East Florida Seminary in Gainesville?
  • How is the East Florida Seminary in Gainesville related to UF?

I have no knowledge of FSU's history, so I can't say how similar the situations are, but it's one thing for a university to claim the founding date of its parent institution, and quite another for it to adopt the founding date of a long closed school forty miles away. I don't think we should adopt the party line, so to speak, until we address these questions. Gamaliel 21:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It is also not the place of an encyclopedia to take part in debate and school rivalry. The school claims a certain founding date -- so long as it is not an outright unsubstantiated lie, we list it. We can clarify the details in the article. Rlove 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If a school claims a founding date of an entirely unrelated school, is that not an outright lie? I am suggesting that we do the very thing you suggest - clarify the details in the article. Gamaliel 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "entirely unrelated" is spot-on. And there is something to be said for the stare decisis of the decision. The date has become part of the school's heritage. Defacto, in a sense. Anyhow when I said "in the article" I meant, literally, in the article. Not in the info box on the side (which should list just the official date). Rlove 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been over this before, so I'll just repeat myself. For the first point, yes, the East Florida Seminary of Ocala is related to the East Florida Seminary of Gainesville. They're the EXACT SAME THING, in fact. After they closed during the civil war, they reopened in Gainesville. Same people, same funding, new location. As for the second point, the State Agricultural College, ironically originally scheduled to open in Gainesville, opens in Lake City. In 1905, funding gets reorganized, merging East Florida and the State Agricultural College, sticking with EFS's campus (And at least one building is still in use). The same transition happened for FSU and FAMU. I am going to remove the "actual" from the infobox, because the article explains the issue with the founding date. Rlove's point that it doesn't belong in the infobox stands. -FrYGuY 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here's a timeline [1]... it's a little sparse on detail, but it lays out the process fairly well. -FrYGuY 05:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I found this article. Kushboy 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that editorial article already in the entry? -FrYGuY 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find this exasperating, but if you think they are in fact the same institution, then please provide a solid source to substantiate this. The sources I've consulted so far are all pretty vague and contradictory regarding the matter. Whatever our opinions on this issue, this is clearly is a point that needs to be clarified in the article, and I don't see why we can't all collaborate on nailing this one down. Gamaliel 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay... "In 1853, the state-funded East Florida Seminary took over the Kingsbury Academy in Ocala. The seminary moved to Gainesville in the 1860s and later was consolidated with the state's land-grant Florida Agricultural College, then in Lake City. In 1905, by legislative action, the college became a university and was moved to Gainesville." [2], and "The University of Florida traces its beginnings to 1853, when the state-funded East Florida Seminary acquired the private Kingsbury Academy in Ocala. After the Civil War, the seminary was moved to Gainesville and consolidated with the state's land grant Florida Agricultural College -- then in Lake City -- to become the University of Florida. But the actual university as it is known today did not open until 1906." [3]. I'd love to provide more detail, but it doesn't seem to exist online, as the only people seemingly interested is the University itself and local papers which copies the Universities account almost verbatim (The Orlando Sentinel's account is at least edited, and seems to also have done independant research by doing more than parroting the date on the seal). Like I said earlier, I don't particularly care what date gets used, but the articles for other schools in similar situtation apparently feel the current setup of "whats on the seal" for the infobox and any historical information which could lead to somebody declaring it something else in the article is what's appropriate, and I don't feel otherwise. But I've not read any sources (At least none with any semblance of reliability... this and the opinion rant in the Tampa Tribune (which doesn't provide any evidence of the differences) are the only ones... to be sure though, the Kingsbury Academy was... shady to say the least) which claim the institutions (Pre-Civil War EFS and Post-Civil War EFS) to be unrelated, and EFS did merge with the Agricultural College, and the Agricultural college became UF. Wow, that ended up longer than I meant for it to be, so I'll stop typing now... -FrYGuY 08:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The history of EFS is detailed fairly well in "History of Education in Florida" by George Bush in 1888 as part of a government report. Regarding the East Florida Seminary, in 1848, the then Govenor of Florida requested counties East of the Suwannee to submit how much in land, buildings, and funds they would give towards establishment of a seminary. On January 24th, 1851, an act of the Legislature said that "Two seminaries of learning shall be established". Then we have, "Accordingly, by act of 1852, Ocala was selected, and the seminary opened in the following year. Here it remained until 1866, when by act of Legislature it was removed to Gainesville." In fact, Ocala was "reimbursed" by the state as a result of EFS moving to Gainesville. It seems to me from this book that there were not two unrelated EFS institutions from 1853 to 1866. Interesting stuff, I've got some more to go through as well... Psyx
There was an unrelated East Florida Seminary in Micanopy [4]. It does expclitly state that it was unrelated to the one that later became part of the University of Florida. Here's some further links to non-Micanopy EFS photos: [5] [6]. Psyx 05:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to do any serious research yet, but I have done some minor reading. According to an account I found, apparently there never was a Kingsbury academy, or at least it never opened before Kingsbury decided state money was a better way to get started. Kingsbury had a fling with the school's piano teacher and in the insuing scandal, Kingsbury fled the state and all the teachers resigned. So I'm wondering, with no founder and no teachers, what exactly the state of EFS was when it was supposedly moved to G-ville. In any case, I'll see what else I can dig up, since this has become even more fascinating since there's a sex scandal involved. Gamaliel 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, the fact that Kinsbury Academy was shady is not in dispute, but the Kingsbury Academy doesn't enter into the founding date of UF in the slightest. The date UF marks is the opening of EFS in Ocala, a date which isn't in dispute, and not the (potentially) earlier opening of the Kingsbury Academy. EFS did close in the civil war, and moved into Gainesville when it reopened, a fact I've only seen disputed by the Tribune's opinion article. Still, you're right that the history of the Kingsbury Academy is quite interesting, and it should be added to a section and/or made into its own article. -FrYGuY 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually I've come across some references to others besides Washington disputing the official series of events, so it's not just one guy and his "opinion" article, which people here keep chanting over and over again. I'm not sure yet how widespread this dispute is, so I'm going to keep digging until I find a substantial discussion on the issue. Gamaliel 21:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I recently interviewed the UF historian Carl Van Ness for a documentary I'm filming. The paragraph beginning "1905 was considered the univer..." does seem valid from his account of what happened. He mentioned all of those things except for the 1866 part at the end. Kushboy 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been a member of the UF administration for 40 years and that info is just not accurate. Seems that people associated with FSU are the only ones that want to dispute this.

What's not accurate about it? 1905 was considered UF's founding date initially. 1853 is when EFS was created... what in there isn't accurate? -FrYGuY 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, when Tigert went to Landis to dispute the founding date, Landis decided to change UF's to 1853 and FSU's to 1857. There should be a comment about that on FSU's page. Kushboy 05:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Does this sound funny to anyone or is it just me? Noted as the place where Gatorade was created, UF ranks first among public institutions and second among all institutions in the number of National Merit Scholar students enrolled. ArchonMeld 06:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Athlete alumni[edit]

Many of the athletes listed as famous alumni are not actual graduates of the university (Jason Williams and Rex Grossman come to mind). Is there any way we can verify who is and is not an actual alum? -- ¦ Reisio 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the conventional American usage is that an alumnus/alumna is someone who has graduated from a particular institution--certainly, the university would not refer to you as an alumnus until you have graduated, and you must be a graduate to join the alumni asssociation. --

That's nice. ¦ Reisio 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Read alumnus. They are former students. I don't know where to look up the dictionary of 'conventional American usage', but I think Merriam-Webster is a pretty good reference, and it says that an alumnus is a person who has attended or graduated from a school, etc. So, it seems that they should stay. Regardless, this discussion should now move to List of University of Florida alumni. -- Bantab 05:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Educational Excellence?[edit]

This entry is starting to resemble an advertisement for the University of Florida. Seriously, a section on "Educational Excellence"? I really don't think that's unbiased. There also seems to be at least one user deleting anything that might make the university look less than spectacular.


Why there is no mention of the recent racially motivated tasering incident? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Somebody tasered somebody else and their sole motive was race? Really? Is there a source? Is this story really significant enough to include in the article? Will it really be relevant, say 3 months from now? If the answer to all these questions is yes, maybe it could be added to the article. Otherwise, please don't. Ufwuct 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


We do have quite a few traditions, especially outlined in the recent comeback of our "F books". Anyone have time to create a section on them? 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One of 2 flagships?[edit]

An anonymous editor changed the statement in the lead paragraph naming UF as one of two flagship universities. I assert that this statement must remain. It's explicitly supported by one of the references cited specifically to support the statement, a USA Today "survey of tuition and fees at 75 public flagship universities in 50 states" (not only does it specifically list both UF and FSU but it also implicitly supports the notion that states can indeed have multiple flagship institutions). An older version of the same survey was also cited in a Florida Board of Governor's document which seems to lend it some validity. Additionally, a quick search found a 2006 speech by the president of FSU in which he says that "both of the major candidates for governor have endorsed the concept of the University of Florida and Florida State University as flagship institutions." I'm sure other supporting evidence could be located but this seems sufficient to require that we include the claim. Documented disputes of the flagship status of either institution would be welcome; if extensive, perhaps a new article could be written. --ElKevbo 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Florida State always wants to be UF, but they can never quite reach UF's standards. Anyway, UF has been regarded as the state's flagship university since 1906.

You can read through:,0,3742642.story?coll=orl-news-education-headlines

Therefore, I am confused at why FSU is not considering itself a flagship? There is only one University System in Florida unlike other states with multiple flagships. UF is the flagship of the state by far, with FSU and USF contending for second. By these grounds, I would assert that this "two flagship" business should be put to rest and the facts should stop being spun by FSU.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchauncey (talkcontribs) 03:28, April 6, 2007

First, this is not a contest between UF and FSU. So please cease making derogatory remarks about FSU.
Second, it seems pretty clear to me that this is not clear-cut and there is evidence to support both claims. Therefore to unambiguously state that one claim is correct and ignore the other is not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --ElKevbo 10:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The correct answer is that UF and FSU are the co-equal flagship universities in Florida as both were created by the same statute in 1851. This is cited on the FSU page and referenced to the Florida Archives, the most authoritative source in Florida. As fans of both schools have tried over the years to trump one another with "the oldest" title, the best resolution is the 1851 date consistent with the Archives references. Since UF has many Journalism graduates, and has one of the few Journalism programs in Florida, any newspaper article should be viewed as biased towards UF and disregarded, in view of many such journalistic attempts to re-write or diminish the actual history. Note that this is a gift to UF as actually the primary predecessor to the current UF is the Florida Agricultural College, established in the 1880s, not the East Florida Seminary - which was at best a bit-player in the university named UF and created in 1906. Wikipedia states that a flagship is the first created university in a system, so I suggest we leave it at that - 1851 for both and the "one of two statement", which comports best with the State of Florida Archives.Sirberus 12:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there was no true University system until 1905 in the state of Florida so when it comes to flagship, there could not have been one until the system was created. For all intensive purposes, the Buckman Act changed everything in the state. If you honestly want to put FSU as a "flagship" then you must put Florida A&M in there as well. UF is by far the most prestigious and well-respected school in this state and regarded as the flagship university by most within and outside the state. The New York Times said it best:

"For much of its history, the institution that is now Florida State University here has struggled against an academic inferiority complex. The State Legislature dictated in 1905 that it serve only as a college for women, while men went to the full-fledged University of Florida in Gainesville. After going coed and achieving university status in 1947, Florida State became most famous for its football program. And even the team’s recent championships have been marred by players’ off-the-field crimes."

The most respected newspaper in the state, St. Petersburg Times:

Three years ago, the UF trustees decided to up the ante by hiring as president an acclaimed academic, Bernie Machen. His experience included administrative positions at the esteemed flagships in Utah, Michigan and North Carolina, and he started drawing a blueprint to propel UF into the Top 10 public universities.

This year, having been denied more state money and higher tuition, Machen wants an "academic enhancement" fee. But Gov. Charlie Crist and key lawmakers already are shaking their heads no again. Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville Republican who graduated from Florida State University, acts as though excellence is a dirty word.

"I'm not so sure that in a state that has 11 universities," King told a reporter, "I want to say, 'Gosh you're the flagship, so you deserve to charge more because you're better.' I don't buy into that."

Maybe King and Crist and other lawmakers think UF should be satisfied with offering what amounts to the Blue-and-Orange Light Special. It charges the lowest tuition of 75 flagship universities. Its student-faculty ratio is half-again as big as that of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and it ranks 123rd on measures of "faculty resource."

How about Kiplingers:

Three hours north at the state's flagship university, in Gainesville, Fla., the atmosphere could hardly be more different. Think big: Big campus. Big buildings. Big-name football team in a stadium that holds 90,000 screaming fans.

The University of Florida also includes many of Florida's highest-achieving students, the nation's fourth-largest student body and some of the world's top research facilities. President Bernie Machen hopes to secure UF's spot in the uppermost tier of public institutions by lowering class size and improving graduation rates.

UF describes itself on its site as:

The University of Florida is the Flagship university of the State of Florida. It continually achieves national and international recognition and prominence for multiple academic disciplines and groundbreaking research.

Either UF and everyone else do not know what they are talking about, or wikipedia has gone off base again. As I search, the only mention of FSU as one of two flagships is on wikipedia. You will never see "one of two flagships" anywhere else. FSU will not make that claim on their website, but only that they believe they are "one of the flagship universities" in the state. This is an ambiguous claim that they only make a few times in passing.

Its slightly hilarious, because the huge debate going on in Tallahassee right now is whether UF, as the flagship university of the state, should be able to charge an extra fee that USF, FSU, and UCF don't charge. Like I said, if you want to make FSU a flagship, be my guest, but then please give Florida A&M its due as a flagship also.

Finally, USF, UCF, and all other academia in the state consider UF the flagship.

This makes it pretty clear:

It has never been a debate of who is the flagship university in the state except by a a few FSU alumni and wikipedia now.

The idea of "two flagship universities" in one system is ridiculous. The definition of a "flagship" according to the dictionary is "the best or most important one of a group or system." How can their be two bests? That is contradictory. Similarly, UF is definitely the most prestigious and academically respected school in the state. How there is any debate about this is beyond me.

UF is only recently the best rated university in Florida - and please note in it's areas of specialty only. There is no law declaring them as a "flagship" and if being the oldest counts then FSU actually is older if we consider predecessor schools like UF fans like to do with the East Florida Seminary. Further, FSU was awarded the Alpha Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa in the 1930s, long before UF, so FSU obviously was the better academic school at the time, consequently FSU should by all rights be declared the sole "flagship", since they were first in Florida with regard to the oldest and best known historic measure of academic quality. FSU had a football team and was issuing graduate degrees before the doors of the current UF opened in Gainesville in 1906. Additionally, FSU has a much more involved history with the origins of Florida than UF in early days, for example, the soldiers fighting as an identifiable unit of the institution in 1865; the fact that they are located in the capital city and so forth. At that same period there was no institution recognizable as the present UF in operation. Obviously FSU was the "flagship" school back then, correct? Since a flagship technically is where the flag officer is located; so then with FSU's being a short walk from the Governor of Florida puts them closer to the "flag" officer, and thus again a better claim to the title.
The bottom line here is that UF's claim to this annoying and pretentious title is newly found. There is no history declaring them so, other than suspiciously sympathetic reports from the Florida media that started only recently. FSU's lack of zeal for a suspect title obviously speaks well of the gentlemanly conduct of their Administration. Only when UF fans have begun to push this claim has a reaction, and consequent recitation of factual history, occurred. Even the name "University of Florida" is still assigned to Florida State University in an 1880s law that is still in effect; so any claims to that title as well are very suspect indeed anytime before 1906.
The point is that FSU has as good or better claims to this dubious title as UF. The co-equal status is an equitable way to stop bickering about a meaningless, yet obviously sensitive imaginary status. Texas has two "flagships" UT and TA&M. Wikipedia's definition of the first created universities fits and is appropriate in Texas and in Florida.
Wikipedia has a responsibility to get the facts fairly presented; not play to the urges of a fervent fan base.Sirberus 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way...almost forgot. FAMU was created in the 1880s, and has no known claim to a predecessor school traceable to the original 1851 law creating FSU and UF.Sirberus 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as two flagship institutions. There's only in the State of Florida, and it's UF. I'm going to need FSU and other institutions to stop trying to "up" their schools and grey the facts that their schools are better. They're not, get over it. UF is the flagship university.

Again, you fail to even comprehend the argument I was making concerning FAMU. There was no state university system in Florida governed by any body until 1905 and the Buckman Bill. Education before this point in Florida was incredibly disorganized. In 1906, UF in its current state was opened up along with Florida State College for Women and the State Normal College for Colored Students. Florida Agricultural College was the first Florida land grant school in the 1880's. But there was no defined university system until 1906. Using common sense, the female college was not the flagship school of the state. Social norms dictate that fact whether fair or not. Likewise, the African-American school was most definitely not the flagship of the state during a very racially prejudiced time. Again, common sense tells us the University of Florida was the flagship institution of the state and has been regarded as such since that time.

You are incredibly mistaken to say it is a recent phenomenon for UF to claim the flagship. Actually, it is a recent phenomenon for Florida State to attempt to consider itself a co-flagship. Texas and Texas A&M are separate university systems. The University of Texas System is different from the Texas A&M system. They govern themselves. That is why they are both flagships, just like the UNC and NC State systems, or the Cal State and UCal systems. That is not the case in Florida where we are governed under one system. So again, your argument makes little sense.

Feel free to post a link to any Florida law declaring UF the flagship university. Also, the SUS argument does not work. If UF believed it was created from clean whole cloth in 1906 why does their seal reflect 1853 and not 1906? You cannot separate state history from a modern marketing campaign by UF and UF fans to brand themselves as "flagship". Wikipedia's definition is correct as to flagship designation - the first created universities. Florida started this process around 1823 and enacted the first specific law in 1851. Despite the best efforts of UF fans, they are stuck with Florida state history...and FSU as a co-equal "flagship" or perhaps even THE flagship, if you read the histories.Sirberus 12:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is an excellent discussion of what a flagship university is from the Chancellor of UC Berkeley: Clearly, FSU was founded as the flagship classic liberal arts university in Florida and UF as the flagship agricultural university in Florida. Both were created with the same law, both fit this profile perfectly, which is duplicated at other states in the United States. This works.Sirberus 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa does not award chapters on the basis of sex. There is no "women's Phi Beta Kappa" and "men's Phi Beta Kappa". It awards chapters on the basis of academic excellence.

Sir, what you fail to realize is until there is a system governing the universities, there cannot be a flagship. That system began in 1905 with the creation of the one university and two colleges. If you want to get right down to it, the school in Tallahassee never reached "university" status until 1947 while the school in Gainesville was a University since 1906. There can be only one flagship for every system. This is clear. UF was created for the system as the university, and Florida State College and the State Normal College. Finally when there were too many men wanting to attend UF after the GI Bill, they decided to create a new UNIVERSITY in Tallahassee. There has never been a UNIVERSITY in Tallahassee until 1947. FSU did not even has significant graduate programs until the late 1960's, early 1970's and still cannot even compare to UF. In the article you gave, He also argues that graduate programs are the key to a flagship. Well UF has DOUBLE the graduate students FSU does. FSU didn't even get a medical school until 2003?! Sounds like a flagship to me. Finally, because UF was created as the first and only university for the first 40 years of the system, and is the most prestigious and honored University in the state, basically everyone outside of Tallahassee would call UF the flagship of the state university system.

Again, the three qualities your Berkley article talks about, it the oldest university in the system. That would be UF since it was the first university created in the system, or in the state overall for that manner. That should be common sense to understand the flagship. The article states, "It was in the context of this massive expansion, then, that the term "flagship" came to be used to refer to the original campus of the system."

Second, the flaghip should be the leader in graduate education. Well since UF has DOUBLE the graduate students that FSU has then this would probably point to the University of Florida once again. Actually USF has a slightly larger graduate student base than does FSU. So FSU comes in third for this category, with FIU a close 4th. So watch out FSU because you may drop to 4th soon with the new medical school being built in Miami.

Third, the flagship must be the research center of the state. Well, this one is very easy and is the knockout punch. The recent study by the Pappas Group which was approved to be done and financed by the Board of Governors says, "The University of Florida is the only significant research university in the state."

You are in a jam now. So your article basically proves UF is the flagship of the state. Likewise, the other article you cite from USA Today would be laughed at by the man from Berkley, since it lists UCLA as a flagship? I don't think Berkley would agree with that, at all. It even lists Georgia State as a flagship, which started from a night school at Georgia Tech?! This is fascinating, and shows how wrong that article was to use the word "flagship" to describe these schools, including FSU. UF is the flagship university of this state, however you want to spin it or not. The facts speak for themselves.

Well said. Now, let's keep the wording and stop the revert war: There is one flagship university, UF. Rlove 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy that you know your own definition of "flagship" but can you provide any verifiable citations or is that original research and opinion?
The problem here is that there is no universal and agreed-upon definition of the term flagship. We can't rely only on our own preferred definition; NPOV demands we accept the views of others and present them accordingly without giving any view undue weight. --ElKevbo 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion about FSU not being a "university" until 1947 is incorrect. Please see the law where FSU was declared by the Florida Legislature to be the "Literary College of the University of Florida" in 1885. Since at the time there was NO other University of Florida, FSU was it for the entire state. This law is still in effect. So much for that assertion.

On your other point that the State of Florida had no university system until 1905 with the Buckman Act, it too is incorrect. The Buckman Act did not create a new system, it was merely a reorganization of a system formerly in existance in Florida since 1851. This is easy to prove - if the entire system was created in 1905 FSU, UF and FAMU would all have the same establishment date. They do not. Secondly, FAMU and Florida Agricultural College were both Reconstruction Period federal Morrill Act (1863) projects of the 1880s. Both FAMU and FAC were land-grant schools...UF is primarily the descendant of FAC; not the Seminary East of the Suwanee. It is interesting to point out, however, that UF's first date on it's seal was 1905...which was later changed to 1853.

On your point that UF currently leads in several areas - no problem. Such leads change hands over time - as with FSU and the Alpha Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, UF now has more research dollars. FSU has the only National Laboratory in Florida...UF doesn't. It does not change history.

It is also interesting to note that UF has never been declared the "flagship" by the Florida Legislature. Believe me, if the UF alumni had their way, they would have a statue to this effect. However, FSU alumni outnumber the UF alumni at least this year, so take it to the bank you'll never see this in law. The history is very clear about the entire matter...FSU and UF are the higher educational forces in Florida and have been from the beginning. UF's marketing campaign and UF alumni from the College of Journalism cannot change history, much as they might want to.

An interesting sub-note is that UF's attempt to gain some additional revenue via a tuition increse is the brain-child of...FSU President TK Wetherell. Here, as in many places, the "flagships" cooperate.

Consequently, there are two "flagship" universities in Florida. UF is one, FSU is the other.Sirberus 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I know you are just talking out of your ignorance, or you are lying because it is pretty well-known that the Buckman Act created the FIRST university system in the state of Florida.

Second, FSU even says that technically it was only a college until 1947. And was originally called the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida in 1947 after John J. Tigert called on there to be another campus for men. It was only after they threw out the Buckman Act later in 1947 that Florida State College for Women and the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida merged to form Florida State University.

"The 1905 Legislature, via the Buckman Act, shut down seven small, state-supported schools scattered around the peninsula, and replaced them with two colleges--FSCW and Florida A&M College for Negroes, both in Tallahassee--and a single university to be consolidated in Gainesville.

The three institutions were to be segregated by race and sex. FSCW was reserved for white females, while Florida was for white men only. Florida A&M was allocated to black students, both men and women.

Even before the war ended, Gainesville was feeling the effects of the G.I. Bill. War-surplus buildings were dragged to central campus and set up as emergency housing for the returning vets. But such measures proved woefully inadequate to accommodate a horde of ex-G.I. applicants in the summer of 1946. Faced with a waiting list of some 2,200 men wanting to enroll for the fall semester, UF President Dr. J.J. Tigert appealed to Gov. Millard Caldwell for help.

Probably never in the annals of Florida higher education was a university president's request handled with such alacrity. In only two days, a deal effectively making FSCW coeducational was struck between UF, the Florida Board of Control (now the Board of Regents), the governor and cabinet, and FSCW (see "The Great Transition," above). By the end of the 1946-47 school year, a total of 954 men--almost all of them G.I. Bill students--were enrolled in a legalistic creation called the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida (TBUF).

The door for men at the Tallahassee school soon opened wider, as the absurdity of TBUF began to be apparent even to the hardiest critics of coeducation. The dam finally gave way in May '47 when the Florida Legislature threw out the Buckman Act and made both FSCW and the University of Florida co-educational. Equally important, FSCW was accorded full status as a state university.

When a spanking new Florida State University opened for business in the fall of 1947, 4,400 students signed up--double the enrollment of fall 1945. Of the enrollees, 1,054 were men, and 890 of these were paying their way on the G.I. Bill. Interestingly, 25 G.I. Bill students enrolling that first semester in '47 were women."

Anything else but calling UF the flagship university in this state is revisionary history by some over ambitious recent Florida State alumni and fans.

Game. Set. Match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchauncey21:45, April 7, 2007 (talkcontribs)

Your assertions or interim reorganizations cannot change the Florida Statutes. The 1851 law remains; the 1885 law remains, the history remains. The Chancellor of Berkeley's assessment remains. Your interpretations of what you want UF to be are clear; but there will be no agreement on this issue. By the way, The California Policy Center does not write law for Florida; not to mention that it is closed: The opinions of the author of War Child are just that.
One final attempt here at finding common ground - The basic facts are that the State of Florida set up two schools of higher learning in 1851. This is the start of Florida's educational system, no matter how feeble it appears today. Both would become what today are known as FSU and UF. Both passed through numerous changes in name and organization. UF had more organizational changes than FSU, but it's not that uncommon. Each university recognizes this entire history officially. Neither start their history only in 1905. The laws of Florida also support this view officially.
There are NO others like these two in Florida. None. Nothing even close. One school focused more on what today is known as liberal arts the other on agricultural sciences. The pattern set in 1851 remains evident today. Laws passed that reflected changes in society or population or other pressures like world war had only a temporary effect on the basic pattern set in 1851. Neither university can dominate the other in the Florida Legislature; UF had preferential legislative treatment for a period following 1905, but FSU had the same in the 1990s and before 1905. Rankings fluctuate up and down over time; neither university really is a clone of the other - they each specialize in areas the Legislature dictates.
To me, this is extremely simple. In Florida there are two primary universities that are the center of higher academic work in Florida. Any other interpretation denies clear and uncomplicated well-documented fact. Both UF and FSU are Florida's flagship universities.
I suggest mediation is warranted by a disinterested third party.Sirberus 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur - mediation seems to be necessary. There are clearly sources supporting both assertions.
And once again, Dchauncey, cease the inflammatory remarks and unwarranted hostility. I've never even been to the FSU or UF campuses much less attended one of them so your claims that this discussion is motivated by "ambitious Florida State alumni and fans" is ridiculous, insulting, and unproductive.
Finally, please sign your posts. You've forgotten to do this several times and it's beginning to get tiresome. --ElKevbo 03:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC) LightSpeed1 05:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That article again says UCLA is a flagship. This makes no sense. Berkley would not approve of this article, and neither would Virginia, in which this article says Virginia Tech is a flagship. I forget to sign my posts, but they sing themselves. It happens. But, USF is just as much a primary institution as FSU. It has more graduate students than FSU and has a much more reputable medical school and other graduate programs, than does FSU. Again, there can only be one flagship for every system. UF is that flagship for the Florida State University System. In all reality, West Florida Seminary was not established until 1857, which was four years after East Florida Seminary was created. Again, if you can find me a system where there are two flagships, I would consider putting FSU as one. If not, UF is the flagship, and by far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchauncey (talkcontribs) 02:35, April 8, 2007

Flagship status is not determined by the med school of a university. It cannot be awarded by a university to themselves just because they think they have the best magazine rankings. Flagship status can only come from origin, legislation and history. It does not matter that you cannot find a state with what you think is a parallel. The chancellor of UC Berkeley, an esteemed educational professional, has clearly laid out the characteristics of this troublesome title in the text of his 1998 speech. If you give it read a fair reading you'll see that FSU and UF fit perfectly into his analysis. I'll post this link to the text for convenience:
In reality, FSU could claim 1843 as the starting date as much as UF can claim 1853. FSU absorbed a seminal school in the same manner as UF and is, by the way UF uses the date 1853, perfectly entitled to claim that date. Apparently, they decided to conform to the 1851 law, with the permission of state officials, and thus avoid the inevitable complaints from UF. Sirberus 09:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Dchauncey, your posts do not "sing [sic] themselves." That signature is added by either a bot or, more likely, another editor. In the most recent two cases it was added by me. So please behave as if you're a member of this community if you're going to interact with us and save us the trouble of having to literally do some of your work.
Back to the topic at hand: Once again, you're making the assumption that there is a universal and agreed-upon definition of "flagship." There isn't such a definition. Hence NPOV demands we include all credible claims and related information rather than deciding on our own which definition or claim is the "correct" one and ignoring all others.
If you're still deadset of finding other examples of states where this is similar jockeying position and abuse of undefined words like "flagship," you should look at Michigan, particularly the recent decision by its legislature to treat its leading institutions (or "flagship institutions," if you prefer to use the vernacular) differently when considering their budgets. --ElKevbo 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

An important political aspect that should be considered is that FSU and UF, as flagships, really need each other as allies now and for the foreseeable future. This is why FSU President Wetherell is working closely with UF President Machen to pass the tuition fee. Everyone knows FSU will impose it the second UF's "test" is completed, just like UF will. The Governor of Florida supports the concept of FSU and UF being designated the flagships in Florida law to protect a status earned over 150 years of proven worth at both schools. In no way am I suggesting at the moment that FSU will beat UF to Top-10 national status overall. I think UF has a lead right now due to favorable legislative treatment invested years and years ago in areas like medicine and engineering, which are emphasized by many ratings services. FSU, in those areas, has to catch up. However, FSU will beat UF in it's areas of emphasis like meteorology, nuclear physics, the arts, certain business areas and so on. Therefore, I still suggest the 1851 law co-flagship compromise - the "one of two" statement - due to the most authoritative evidence available from the Florida Archives. Both FSU and UF can live with it. Sirberus 17:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is only one university system in the state of Florida. Michigan has four separate systems with four separate flagships. You can only have one flagship for every system.

Likewise, FSU and UF should be partners since they are run by the same system and that is great. And if you had read my earlier posts, I went by the qualifications of the Chancellor of Berkley on what a flagship should be.

1. The first university in the system - University of Florida (FSU was a women's college until 1947, when it became the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida, and then became the full fledged Florida State University the next semester.

2. The leader of graduate studies - University of Florida again

3. The leader in research - University of Florida

These were the guidelines of the Chancellor for a flagship.

Again, there can only be one flagship in every system.


And there has been at least one reference that has stated contradicting your assertion and the sources you have provided. Even more confusingly, if you look all the way up to my first post on this topic, the BOG themselves cited the reference in question and thus gave it some appearance of validity. Once again, NPOV demands we not pick and choose among the possible references and only include the "facts" that support our favored viewpoint. To state that this is a settled conclusion while ignoring the other viewpoints is misleading and dishonest. --ElKevbo 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you cannot ignore the efforts of the state to start a system as far back as 1823. I agree with ElKevbo. Sirberus 11:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FSU was labeled the "University of Florida" in 1885 by law. There is only one system of higher education in Florida and it started in 1851 by law. Here we have UF self-proclaiming a title, given the BOG reference provided. In the past, UF also stated on their website they were the "oldest" university, which is also deceptive. Yet we then have reports of the Governor of Florida supporting the two flagship (FSU and UF) point of view. Obviously, there is disagreement within state offices...however, there is no law which establishes UF as the only flagship. Establishment by Florida law must be controlling, since all lower state offices answer ultimately to the Florida Legislature, including the Board of Governers. Precedent shows this is how official titles are bestowed in Florida. For example FSU's Ringling Museum of Art was declared the State Art Museum of Florida in law. I guarantee other museums would have preferred to have that title themselves, but the Legislature wrote it into Florida law. It is certain FSU alumni (including the other universities) in the Legislature would stop any such official label unless FSU was included given the history of Florida.

Perhaps the best solution is to dispense with this reference altogether, if no agreement can be reached. An alternative is to have competing references on the FSU page, as we have now.Sirberus 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy if the term were omitted altogether. It's a pretty meaningless term without context and history anyway. --ElKevbo 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attached is a link to the 1838 Florida Constitution in which Article X establishes Florida's educational system on December 3, 1838. Sirberus 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not a system of governance of colleges and universities. All that did was give the legislature continued power of funding education, and put restraints on what the legislature, could and could not do. Buckman in 1905 was the beginning of a system of higher education in Florida. I do not know of any expert or historian that disagrees with that.

Likewise, there are very very few sources stating FSU is a "flagship" university.

This is from FSU's performance indicator study for the school, which says UF is the flagship and what it compares itself to:

T.K. Wetherell has used it a couple times in passing reference of where he wants to be. T.K. has said "we are on the verge of building a flagship university" and "both governors support FSU and UF as both flagships" but nothing substantial. But other than that, there are very few sources stating FSU is a "flagship." T.K. has even said a few times he considers them a co-flagship, but even that has been very very few and far between. On the other hand, there is an abundance of sources stating UF as the flagship. At this point, UF is the only school in the state, except for a few passing references from T.K., to claim itself as the flagship institution.

Jim Horne, Secretary of the Florida Board of Education, who spoke on the subjects of State University System governance and the state's education budgets. Mr. Horne extended his appreciation to the Board of Trustees, stating that the University of Florida is the flagship institution of the state university system.

More to come when I have time. Hopefully someone can list all of FSU's references as well.

Dchauncey 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Save the electrons...more self-promotion from UF does not make your point. If it's not in the Florida statutes - with regard to major state universities - it's mere opinion. Florida law is controlling. It's obvious we must continue to disagree about the authority of law, the creation and nature the educational system of Florida with this title business. You could write in the UF page that it's the opinion of some UF is the flagship; but what would be the point? It's obvious many UF fans think that, but that does not make it fact.Sirberus 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
One thing you might to see how many UF self-proclaimed "flagship" documents you can find for UF dated before 1980. Then go back to 1960. Then go back to 1940...and all the way back to 1906, obviously there would be clear references to this status in the formative documents establishing the modern variation of UF, correct? Please post them if you can find them. Sirberus 19:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

im still laughing at DChauncey previous statement LightSpeed1 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

UF being the dominate research leader is questionable not they are not in the top but UCF is massive research univeristy and I would venture that they are a dominate player for research leader. If you can't get this fact right then It's hard to trust you on the rest of your facts. 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. UF is one of two of Florida's flagship schools. The other is FSU. This has to do - again - with Florida law, history and origin. UCF is not on the map. In the interests of fairness, I am restoring the "one of two" statement to UF main page. UF should be protected and preserved as one of the flagships. Clearly, they are the top ranked university in Florida at this time. Note that this current rating does not make FSU less of a flagship than UF. Both are the primary universities in Florida.Sirberus 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To call any state university in Florida the "co-flagship" alongside UF is patently ludicrous. There's is absolutely no basis for such a false assertion. FSU is not comparable with UF in any academic category, and I'm being unbiased when I say's just fact. If any state school would have an argument to make that claim, it would be UCF, not FSU. KyuzoGator 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I added back the removed "flagship" sentence. Are the detractors of the flagship sentence in this article fighting the validity of the term "flagship" at other universities with a similar state system? (The answer is "no"). References solidly indicate Florida as the (singular) flagship university of the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:15, April 28, 2007

Please re-read the cited references. They do not support your assertions. Two of the references don't mention UF as a flagship at all and the other includes both FSU and UF as flagships. --ElKevbo 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The Florida Senate has just unknowingly contributed to this discussion. SB1710, just passed by the Senate 28-10 Friday, shows that only FSU and UF qualify as "Funding Level 1" (defined here: [7] ) Research Universities in Florida. No other universities, especially not UCF or even USF, are presently close to meeting the required criteria specified in the Florida Statutes for this funding (See Senate staff analysis here: [8] . If this bill becomes law, then Florida will effectively have a "tier" system with FSU and UF in the top tier. If this happens - and it looks pretty good at this point, it will tend to corroborate the 1998 analysis of Dr. Berdahl. The pattern set into Florida law in 1851 would then appear to continue. Sirberus 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My two cents.[edit]

Good Sirberus, after looking through your history, it appears that you gave up the fight on the FSU front. Why do you insist on fighting it here?

This is from, which renders your argument moot:


noun 1. the chief one of a related group; "it is their flagship newspaper"

There is no way that two universities could each be a flagship within a system. Either UF is or FSU is, not both. --DodgerOfZion 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can cite to settle this discussion. Disregarding the validity of that source in this context, it's OR.
I agree that it's weird and counter-intuitive to have two institutions labeled "flagship." But there are sources that do so and we must respect those sources. To not do so is to force our POV into the article. --ElKevbo 18:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
While this may not fit into common notions of intuition, we're discussing universities here. The Berdahl document (Berdahl was the Chancellor of UC Berkeley...see above in one of the posts for the link) shows how such a definition is in fact common among state systems. Further, FSU and UF fit perfectly into Berdahl's educated analysis of university structure - which does not really fit the context. This supported by Florida law and history. I suggest then, as I completely disagree with your definition based on these facts, that the FSU and UF pages then have their own interpretation of "flagship".Sirberus 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As to the location of discussion, I agree - this is not the ideal place, but that happens. It's not my practice to edit the UF page; as I would certainly hope such respect would be reciprocal on the FSU page.Sirberus 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this has been a very fruitless discussion. I would just like to see just one University System in this nation with two flagships. Again, not two separate systems in one state like UCal and Cal State, or Texas A&M and UTexas, but just one System with two flagships. It is almost contradictory to have two flagships.

Therefore, I propose that the "flagship" name be stripped from both schools on this site and put in the past because there can be no fact of a flagship, unless wikipedia is into making its own facts.

Dchauncey 21:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before: I think that removing the "flagship" reference in both articles is an amicable solution to this disagreement. There are multiple conflicting sources so either we detail the controversy or we avoid it altogether. Avoiding is the easier choice and detailing it would be difficult without getting sidetracked into OR and POV issues. --ElKevbo 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Sirberus is upset that Free Shoes University hasn't won a national championship in a while.

You might consider taking another read of Dr. Berdahl's speech. ( I find that it fits Florida extremely well. It is also used on the Wikipedia "flagship" article as a reference document. It also speaks of what may happen if Florida tries to create too many research universities. Schools like FSU and UF are extremely expensive. It makes other schools want to emulate them, but there just is not enough money.Sirberus 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't feed the trolls, Sirberus, hungry as they may be. :) --ElKevbo 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The point you miss there, is the fact that the University of South Florida is just as large a research school as FSU, and has been for years.

But, I think it is clear to remove the flagship title from both schools, since it is only perception in what schools are flagship in the state. I move to remove the "flagship" statements immediately. Dchauncey 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your suggestion, Dchauncey. As there are no emergencies on Wikipedia, I am considering it.Sirberus 11:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
After consideration and looking at a lot of other university pages on Wikipedia, I have asked for a peer review of the FSU page. This is where the best of the editors (this means bona fide Wikipedians, not those with pressing POV) will closely examine a page and ensure that all elements meet the highest standards of Wikipedia. The finest articles on Wikipedia undergo this periodic review. I am content to leave things as they are and see what that crew comes back with in terms of the flagship discussion, if anything. Secondly, this flagship uncertainty, as evidenced by the conflicting information as revealed in this discussion, is really an accurate snapshot of where Florida is right now with regard to higher education. There is much uncertainty and discussion - especially pertaining to the Pappas Report and the Florida Board of Governors. It so happens that Dr. Berdahl's speech text figures right into that process now. Further, neither page is harmed by the claim or diminished in any way I can see. Lastly, even if we agreed to remove this flagship statement it would most likely reappear as if our discussion never took place. The process would then repeat itself. Sirberus 15:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Academic boosterism[edit]

Is there any reason to keep the language in bold below? If so, does anyone have a source to support the claims?

The Undergraduate program is currently ranked by U.S. News & World Report as by far the best in the state of Florida, 13th among U.S. public universities, 3rd in the Southeast, and 47th overall among "National Universities". Listed as a Public Ivy,[1] The 2006 Academic Ranking of World Universities list assessed Florida as 53rd among world universities based on research output and faculty awards.[2] UF's undergraduate continues to have the highest GPA, SAT and ACT rankings in the state by a significant margin making it the most prestigious school in the state of Florida. [9]

The University of Florida is also the "only significant research school in the state" according to a recently published report released by the Florida Board of Governors. Overall, UF's graduate programs are also considered the best in Florida and one of the best in the southeast United States. [10]

Cka3n 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with taking out all the bolded stuff in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is exaggerated but the report does say "Even when the state's limited resources were more targeted at fewer research universities a number of years ago, only one (University of Florida) was a major national player (and not a leading national player at that)." So it is a national player and the best in the state but no where near being good compared to other research universities. Gdo01 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The first phrase is clearly POV. The quotation in the second phrase doesn't actually appear in the cited reference. Based on those two facts, I have already removed those phrases. Interesting that we both independently came to the same conclusion (GMTA?)! --ElKevbo 19:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
First, what problem can you have with UF being called the "most prestigious school in the state of Florida." UF has the highest incoming GPA, SAT, ACT, 95% Freshman retention rate, is part of the AAU, and considered a Public Ivy. UF is also the only school in the state rated a "Top Tier University." Clearly, UF is the most prestigious school in Florida. Second, the Pappas Report page 27 says, the "University of Florida is the only significant research school" so I don't know how you can say this does not back up the claim? UF also has the best medical, law, and second best engineering(to UCF) in the state. It is also by far the largest graduate school in the nation.
Dchauncey 23:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with a statement that can be drawn from a reliable source. The quoted statement is not in the cited source. After further research, there is a quote that is close but when one says that a specific sequence of words is being quoted from a source then those specific words should actually be in the source, not just something close. --ElKevbo 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

dchaucey, it doesnt change the fact that that isnt NPOV and that you are a biased person who uses terrible arguments to defend your position. LightSpeed1 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

also can someone delete this from the article "and is one of few universities in the United States that offer all disciplines" first it doesnt make sense. disciplines? you mean majoes, and no, UF doesnt offer all majors. do they have music industry major? no, do they have music technology major? no LightSpeed1 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Board of Governors report[edit]

The language regarding the Board of Governor's Report -- that "A recent report released by the Board of Governors noted that UF is the only Florida university that can claim to be a major national player." -- does not reflect the tone of the report's content. I am going to revert the recent edit to re-insert the additional language "(and that none of the Florida universities can claim to be a leading national player)."

I have asked the anonymous editor who removed the language to address the change on this talk page.

Cka3n 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specific issue raised above, it might also be helpful or even necessary to remember that this was a report issued to the BOG and not by the BOG. It's a subtle but important difference. --ElKevbo 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification regarding the source. To tell the truth, I don't think there needs to be any reference to this report at all. Universities receive reports like this frequently, and I don't see why this language (either the short or long version) is particularly important. I had previously removed the reference altogether, and it got reinserted, so I added the language to make it a more accurate reflection of the report. But, I would definitely support the reference again being removed completely.Cka3n 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to add in the fact that the report says UF is not a "leader in research." UF never claimed to be a national leader so there is no reason to add in that fact on its page. Dchauncey 10:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the introductory paragraph is getting probably a bit too long anyway. Take a look at, e.g., University_Of_Virginia, Oxford_university, and University_of_miami. I think the introductory paragraph probably only needs a couple of sentences -- the bigger facts which are subject to dispute or yearly change (the name, the location, the founding date, and maybe a couple, meaning two, of references to university strengths). In such a scenario, the Report would not appear in the introductory paragraph. Cka3n 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

UF's Motto[edit]

Just a note, that seal is no longer the official seal of UF. It is incredibly unfortunate, but the new seal (as seen at is the UF letters with University of FLorida next to it. So, the motto is still legit, but that image is not the seal of UF anymore.

And it saddens me.

Signed AmonHarakhte

It is still the official seal of UF. The seal is simply no longer a part of the Logo The seal is still used on official documents etc. But yes, I agree, the new Logo sucks. Aalox 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

UF doesnt "offer all disciplines", remove from article[edit]

also can someone delete this from the article "and is one of few universities in the United States that offer all disciplines" first it doesnt make sense. disciplines? if it means majors then no, UF doesnt offer all majors. do they have music industry major? no, do they have music technology major? no LightSpeed1 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Discipline is not a Major. See "also has one of the largest graduate programs in the nation, and is one of few universities in the United States that offer all disciplines — including engineering, law and medicine — on one contiguous site"
Further information: Academic discipline

ok then nevermind LightSpeed1

Controversy surrounding the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences five year plan[edit]

Is this really Encyclopedic or needed on the general university page? Aalox 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one answer yes to both questions. Yes, this is encyclopedic: it is significant enough of an event to have garnered national press attention. (And, moreover, one of the meanings of the word encyclopedic is "comprehensive"—Wikipedia would surely be failing its obligations as an encyclopedia if it omitted an important development at a major research university). And yes, it belongs in the main article: it's at least as important as recreation, if not more so. How could we justify including information on picnic areas and open spaces—which are, strictly speaking, superfluous from the standpoint of education—and not a major development like the five year plan? Job L 22:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't realize that it has national attention. It's a current event that I feel 25 years from now would be a subsection of the History section. See: [11] I just don't feel it should be a Main Section. Aalox 04:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine, I think, as long as it's still included somewhere on the page. Job L 21:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Only major national research university?[edit]

The immediately prior version of this article included the statement that "UF is the only Florida university that can claim to be a major national research university." There are several problems with including this statement.

First, the statement is posed as if the statement was made as a claim of Florida's strength; however, it was a strongly qualified claim. The report the statement comes from was describing the previously poor state of Florida's universities research facilities, and in doing so it described Florida as the only Florida university that "could claim to be a major national player (and not a leading national player at that)."[12] (Emphasis added). The quotation of only the first part of the phrase changes the sense of the report's statement.

Second, the report does not say that Florida is a major national research university; it says that it could claim to be one. The report clearly could have stated that only Florida is a major national research university, but it did not do so, and to change its words is to change its meaning.

Finally, the report is not talking about the present tense. It is talking about the time "when the state’s limited resources were more targeted at fewer research universities a number of years ago". The implication is that, now that the limited resources are more spread out, the situation is more bleak.

Thus, I contend that this report cannot be used to support the positive claim that today Florida is a major national research university.

Cka3n 01:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Highest in the state[edit]

The article previously included the statement that "UF's undergraduates continue to have the highest GPA, SAT and ACT rankings in the state." The claim was supported by the website, which is the University of Florida Freshman Profile. That webpage, however, did not state that UF's undergraduates now have the highest GPA, SAT and ACT rankings (indeed, it didn't set any rankings forth), nor did it state anything about the history of such rankings.

Cka3n 19:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be true, but if you want we could go through all of the state's universities and link their admission standards to UF's showing that UF has the highest admission standards in the state. It is a pretty well-known fact. So you should just allow the statement and link to stand, but of course you didn't. Go to each of the admission sites for Universities in the state, it right there for you.

Dchauncey 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds pretty much like WP:OR to me (specifically, "synthesis"). If the statement is made then it needs to be supported and not taken for granted or assumed to be true. --ElKevbo 06:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

dchauncey, you're wrong, University of Miami has better GPA, SAT, AC stats. 04:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

rofl at "its a pretty well known fact", dchauncey just stop sackriding UF, its not that great, you're a tool. 05:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)z

Miami has high admissions standards but you can't say they are better than UF, according to their freshman profile, they have the same SAT and ACT scores (well Miami's Q1 is 27 while UF Q1 is 26). But the GPA is inconclusive as UF donesn't specify the absolute GPA, just "above 4.0"

In addition, Miami only accepts 2,000 while UF accepts nearly 10,000 so the results are misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Another issue is with the statement: "UF has the highest admissions standards in the state, with a majority of admitted students scoring more than 1400 on the SAT". when right above, when a more reliable source, also cited on the page, is says the middle 50% is 1220 - 1390... that means the 75th percentile is at 1390, which I don't think if less then 25% have 1390, I don't think over 50% (a majority) have over 1400? --Aent 05:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard infobox[edit]

Hi there, folks. There is a discussion currently underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities about the use of non-standard infotables on this and a few other articles on universities in Florida. I and a few other editors would support standardising to {{Infobox University}}. That infobox has widespread consensus among editors and is used on several thousand articles. Editors here may wish contribute the the discussion at the WP:UNI talk page. If no issues are raised, the infobox here will be standardized. — mholland (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


The active editors of this article (and the other University of Florida athletic articles) should greatly condense the football and basketball sections into the whole athletics subsection. All the specifics of the football program belong in the main Florida Gators football article, with a summary in Florida Gators, and an summary of that article should go into this articles athletics section. Pepsidrinka 01:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Text formatting[edit]

There has been a lot of reverting of the bolding of random figures in this article in the last month. Articles must be written in the house style, including all text formatting. Continuing to ignore these style rules is considered vandalism. Cmprince 18:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

More Sourcing, Less Marketing[edit]

This article needs extensive copy editing. It still reads like a marketing brochure, and lacks references to reliable third party sources. With work this could become a featured article. - Jehochman Talk 10:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To University of Florida Bashers[edit]

    • Note from WOverstreet

I am going to do what ever it takes to defend my alma mater. If I get baned, then at least I know I went down fighting. So many people tear into the University of Florida page it is unreal. I know it isn't Yale, but I have been posting exactly what my sources indicate. These sources are alittle over the top, however it is positive PR for UF. Who are these people to judge if the rhetoric is not right? If these are sources from a legitimate newspapers & journals, then what is the problem? I think UF deserves ARBITRATION.


Jimmis —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOverstreet (talkcontribs) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to own this (or any other) article. Work with us and express yourself constructively here in the Talk page. And please do not edit war; you will not accomplish your goals. --ElKevbo 16:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I have reverted edits by User:WOverstreet because I felt that they contained weasel words and unnecessary POV. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with this. My revert to WOverstreet/User:'s edits. T Rex | talk 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, I tend to agree with your edits. However, I would recommend that an attempt be made to separate those edits that are truly controversial from those simply made at the same time. Blanket reversions that include non-controversial material are not helpful or advisable. --ElKevbo 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems as if WOverstreet is unlikely to be open to the idea of compromising. T Rex | talk 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

SAT scores[edit]

how can the stated SAT median range be 1220-1390 when it states in the same section that most students score over 1400? these are cited, but i think the newspaper article has it wrong. either that or the stats are from different years or misstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

tasing incident[edit]

I added the section about the tasing incident, and it lasted about 9 hours without incident before being removed (in good faith). But soon after it was removed, the main text of the article began drawing inappropriate edits on the subject (in the lead, etc), so I've re-added it -- I think people expect to see some mention of it on the page. (If it later fades from significance, it can be moved elsewhere.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, even at the absolute very least there should be a link to the incident in the related articles section at the bottom.Ottawastudent 04:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident. Badagnani 05:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

UF's Operating Budget must be changed[edit]

$2,719,638,048 is the Operating Budget for the University of Florida for 2006 - 2007 [13]

On page 14 out of 250 it shows UF's operating budget —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Student Government now gets $13.29 million[edit]

The Student Government now has a 13.29 million dollar total budget.[14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

UF Ranked 21st overall by Webometrics ranking[edit]

Webometrics ranking of World Universities - UF: 21st Overall[15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

UF College of Public Health and Health Professions[edit]

This college has been around for about 50 years.[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccort (talkcontribs) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New Endowment figures - Nov 2007[edit]

According to this article the endowment is now at $1.2 billion.[17]

Add campus section![edit]

I beleive a section on the campus should be added. Buildings, transportation, layout etc. Most othere university articles have a section on campus, why not this one.

Arigont (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Greene, Howard R. & Greene, Matthew W. (2001). The Public Ivies : America’s Flagship Public Universities (1st ed.). New York: Cliff Street Books. ISBN 0-06-093459-X
  2. ^ "Academic Ranking of World Universities." Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. 2006.