Talk:Maastricht University

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Endowment figure?[edit]

After checking the source of the endowment figure, it looks like this resembles total revenues and not endowment of the university. If someone has more accurate endowment figures from SWOL (The university fund) it would be informative to adjust the figure. I find it hard to believe that the endowment is this large for such a young institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.54.233 (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased?[edit]

I found this article very biased - almost an advertisement. I will keep an eye out here for unsourced and biased claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.61.107 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's make this a better article by using the guidelines for improvement of the WikiProject Universities. I have already added sections on history, campuses and organizational structure. The information on faculties needs improvement. Ideally, each faculty should have a separate subpage. More sections, e.g. on academic or student life at the University, are desirable. BluLex (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

youngest?[edit]

It cant be that both the Universiteit_voor_Humanistiek and the UM are the youngest. I vote that the UM has to let go of the title.

Universities with a theological or ‘levensbeschouwelijke’ ground are, for the ministry of OCW, not a ‘normal’ university, a different category. UM is the youngest ‘Real’ university in the Netherlands, while UvH is not a ‘real’ university

http://www.minocw.nl/documenten/Voorstelvanwetophethogeronderwijsenonderzoek.pdf Mach10 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia is not the ministry of OCW, and WP states that a University is an institution of higher education and research, which grants academic degrees at all levels (associate, bachelor, master, and doctorate) in a variety of subjects. -- 62.178.132.236 (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the above definition given by you the UvH is NOT a university, since they only grand Bachelor and Master degrees in one subject, namely Humanistiek. By this definition also the UM was not a university till 1980, before 1980 only obtaining a degree in Medicine was possible Mach10 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the definition is about plural, degreeS? But I assume they gave to more then one student a degree, both the UM and the UvH, so I dont agree here. If you read Dutch, the Dutch article also states that it is actually recognised as a scientific higher education institute. But I think were taking the "whos younger" question a bit too far. You wouldn't agree when i prune the UM's claim to youth? - 62.178.132.236 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because of the plural subjects, UvH offers degrees in one subject, and that does not agree with your definition of an University. You can put it out there, I will not change it, but I cannot speak for othersMach10 (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion[edit]

Also, I think some university employess are using wikipedia as an add for prospective students. It is not so relevant to have all these rankings here. UM ranks lowest as it is towards women on educating positions. That it is the thirteist on a 40-rank list of the FT is totall not noteworthy. I think this whole paragraph shoudl either be deleted or massive moved to the bottom. -- 62.178.132.236 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case you should put a nvp banner on here, and you can check for IP address and the edits they make. In the 40 list, they are not only 28th for one category but they recieved one 4th and one 3th place. The paragraph used to look different, the first edit creating a seperate heading was made by 91.86.24.128 (traces to some were in Belgium) on the 7th of september 2007. Mach10 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did too, but didnt get to a real conclusion. 137.120.x.x is the UM itself, but there werent a lot of edits of. But besides who does it, I think its not relevant for the article how high it stands. -- 62.178.132.236 (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats an NVP banner?

Sorry NPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). It is relevant who does the editing as you come out here and University Employees to make these edits so the University looks good (that is quite a serious allegation, if you have followed resent news items on the editing of Wiki by members of parliament and the Dutch royal family). You can always balance it out by adding the lowest in women in education to the rankings (sourcing it of course). I still think it is a shame that someone threw the whole article around, but I was to late to stop it. However the article, as it is, still merely reports facts, and before removing any of those consensus needs to be reached (by a lot more people then just two).Mach10 (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]