Talk:Dartmouth College

If you attend or have attended Dartmouth College, you can add this userbox on your userpage: {{user Dartmouth}}, to display this on your userpage:

D This user attends or attended Dartmouth College.

Discussion at Talk:List of Dartmouth College faculty § Touch-ups needed

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Dartmouth College faculty § Touch-ups needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Rankings/Acceptance Rate

I am a bit confused at the inclusion of the exact undergraduate acceptance rate for particular classes as well as the extraordinarily awkwardly phrased ranking statement. How is the particular figure "8.8%" or the phrase "between 6th and 13th in the nation by US News & World Report, and more recently, Forbes and The Wall Street Journal, among others" relevant or remotely helpful in any way, shape, or form to the overwhelming majority of readers? As you may know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; this isn't College Confidential or r/ApplyingToCollege. These figures add very little (if any) value to the article, and their inclusion is clearly unnecessary. Dosafrog (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that these are good questions. Additionally, including this information in the lede without any similar information about other programs places an undue focus on the undergraduate programs at this research university. ElKevbo (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Contributor321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosafrog (talk • contribs) October 19, 2020 (UTC)

@Contributor321: I think Dosafrog is requesting that you participate in this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that placing the acceptance rate in the lead can place undue focus on the undergraduate programs of universities where the vast majority of students are not undergraduates, such as University of Chicago, where undergraduates are 38.2% of the total. But in Dartmouth's case, undergraduates number 67.5% of all students, and I think their acceptance rate does have value in the lead, whether it's 8.8% or 90.8%. As to the phrase "between 6th and 13th in the nation by US News & World Report, and more recently, Forbes and The Wall Street Journal, among others": that's vague and doesn't impart particularly useful information. It should be clarified or deleted, in my opinion. Contributor321 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand where you’re coming from, and I acknowledge that you made some valid points about Dartmouth’s focus on undergraduates being an important factor, but at the same time, I wanted to center the discussion on how much value the inclusion of the particular acceptance rates adds over a general statement on “high selectivity” because frankly the percentage has very little intrinsic meaning beyond the exact ratio of accepted applicants to the applicant pool in a particular year; I would even say the yield rate (the percentage of accepted applicants who choose to enroll) is a far more illuminating figure, but their inclusion is unnecessary to most readers. It’s also interesting that you mention the University of Chicago, as it is the premier example of a college that has become extremely proficient at fudging their admissions statistics and rankings without any changes to their teaching or relative standing. Dosafrog (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT KEEPING in Lede -- Dartmouth College is primarily an undergraduate university and this has been an intrinsic part of its identity for 250 years. The acceptance rate of an undergraduate school is a critically important metric to understand and as such is widely quoted in all college comparison websites. It's one of the first things a prospective student will check when considering applying to a school. Dosafrog has been single-handedly removing it from several similar articles and I strongly object to it.Sedimentary (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia for all readers, not an admissions brochure for the university or a how-to guide on applying to college, so we're not terribly interested in what will be most useful for a "a prospective student [who is] considering applying to a school." ElKevbo (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo on their point. And even if we operate under the assumption that the only readers of Wikipedia are high schoolers applying to college, I still cannot imagine a single prospective student who would read through an entire encyclopedia article just to find their approximate chance of rejection rather than just look it up on Google. You’re giving them way too much credit. I also disagree with the point that the acceptance rate is an important metric. It is virtually useless as a measure of the quality of a school, nor is it particularly useful as a predictor of future acceptance rates, given that the rates for the following year will be drastically different due to the high volume of students taking COVID gap years from the previous applicant pool. I believe the proper venues for inane discussions on particular chances of getting in certain schools to be Reddit and College Confidential, rather than an encyclopedia. Dosafrog (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think some mention of Dartmouth's ranking should be included in the lead paragraphs, but it's not a major priority for me and I don't have strong feelings either way about that information being there or not. As for the acceptance rate, I strongly agree with the others that it is of minimal importance. The number is too easily manipulated by admissions offices and should be omitted from the lead. For example, UCLA's acceptance rate has gone down in part because of how UC began to allow applications to multiple campuses in 1986. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This is a 2007 Featured article that has not been maintained to WP:WIAFA standards. The following should be addressed, or the article should be submitted for a Featured article review:

• There is considerable uncited text; I am not tagging it so as not to deface a Featured article.
• There is poor layout along with MOS:SANDWICHing issues everywhere, caused by editors plopping in unnecessary (and not likely compliant with WIAFA) images.
• The gallery of Dartmouth alumni does not comply with WP:GALLERY (those images could be added to the alumni list page).
• There is information with dated sources throughout, yet no "as of" date provided, one sample only, Approximately 20% of students participate in a varsity sport, and nearly 80% participate in some form of club, varsity, intramural, or other athletics.[187] ... sourced to 2008.
• All sources should list a publisher and a date or author when those are available.

That's just a start; a revamping is needed, starting with reducing the images by about half (and checking that those remaining comply with policy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)