Talk:Berea College/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Pictures and alumni

Adding pictures to this article would give it a new look; some notable or historical landmarks within the campus would give some idea to a general reader about how the college actually looks like. An important aspect of any college is its list of alumni. Some names of notable alumni would add another dimension to this article.

Benjamin Hooks is actually not a Berea alum, although his grandmother, Julia B. Hooks was. I changed the article accordingly --Kp_kyak 12:31, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

"Berea College campus is a strange mixture of progressive and conservative thought. Being a 'liberal christian' institution, in the heart of America's bible belt, has a tendency to cause bizarre rules and regulations."

I deleted this whole paragraph. It's poorly developed, and judgemental in tone ("strange mixture" and "bizarre rules"). The use of the term "bible belt" is slangy at best and offensive at worst. "Christian" should be capitalized.--BAW 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Endowment

I know people like to put $800 million on there, but I know second hand from the president Larry Shinn that the endowment is now 1 billion+. He wrote a campus email about it. I am a Berea student too. Mikaelsenp 04:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that kind of information may not meet WP:V. Edits need to have a verifiable source. That said, most don't. I reverted the edit because that seemed like a high number, and without a source, I erred on the side of caution. Given your claim, I will assume good faith and let the edit stand should you change it back. I cannot promise, however, that someone else will not revert it. Acdixon 14:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Berea College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Graphiq

Graphiq created a ranking by postgrad salaries in 2015, and it went viral. Just like all the other rankings, it listed Berea at 4th. It's neither a good nor bad ranking, but just another that adds perspectives. Graphiq was bought by Amazon, and it moved to a new host. So, we don't have original link as it's broken. But we do have many duplicates and associated discussions. SSH localhost (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The link to San Franciso Chronicle is not a "blog". It's SFC duplicate that was republished with permission. The Washington Monthly article discusses the merit of that ranking but does not duplicate it. MSN article does the same. Cheers. SSH localhost (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is this one novel "ranking" something that should be included in an encyclopedia? What lasting impact has it had? What expert sources have cited it or otherwise confirmed that it's noteworthy beyond popular press repeating it immediately after it was released? ElKevbo (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can say the same about pretty much any ranking--but sadly, most were not even repeated by popular press. For example, nobody ever bothers to read Kiplinger's Personal Finance but yes, we would feature it prominently. No newspaper mentions it. As opposed to others, Graphiq generated a lot of discussions. Academics (as in Washington Monthly, MSN, etc) wrote opnion peices about it. The problem is some people consider it as "negative" and want to remove it as much as possible. But Wikipedia is not an ad page, it's an encyclopedia that covers all viewpoints. SSH localhost (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The link for the MSN article actually does not work but I found it by the title. Neither the MSN nor the Washington Monthly articles mention this specific ranking by Startclass/Graphiq. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Here’s a very strange one I’ve been seeing on social media in the last few days. It’s a list of the “Colleges Where Alumni Make Less Than High School Graduates.” And went on to discuss the issue for the rest of the article. SSH localhost (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The link to to startclass.com longer works so the connection is not clear and I think that is an issue, unfortunately. Readers will not know these articles are discussing this the Startclass ranking so the content you are adding looses any claim to verifiability. S0091 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Wikipedia actually does not cover all viewpoints, only significant viewpoints as represented by published reliable sources. You read more at Wikiepedia's neutral point of view policy. S0091 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't cover all, of course. What I am saying is the viewpoint is siginficant. Wikipedia covers all significant viewpoints, not all siginficant positive viewpints. If you read what I said above, it clearly states that the ranking generated a lot of controversies and discussions, as opposed to others that nobody read but we feature prominently in the article. SSH localhost (talk)

The Washington Monthly ref makes clear the serious flaws of the ranking (college grads earning less than HS grads) that in my opinion make an mention of the ranking flawed. Briefly, it compares what graduates are earning six years after they enrolled in these colleges (meaning 1-2 years after they graduate) to HS graduates ages 25-34. David notMD (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I thnk many rankings are flawed and we do have a lot of criticisms regarding the industry as a whole. I don't want to participate in their debate, but I think the Washington monthly's point would make little difference. The income for those with less than high school was 27,000, only 3000 less than that of high school gradutes. At around 30,000, it's approaching the income of full-time minimum-wage jobs and hard to earn less. So, if they compared the graduate's salaries to the average salary of high-school grads at age 24, it wouldn't make much difference. One of the point of the ranking was to show that many college grads are working in minimum-wage jobs; colleges aren't doing enough to equip students with skills needed by the industry.

Anyway, the ranking is cited by reliable sources and duplicated by many others. Perhaps, we can say "controversial listing of 24 colleges" to acknowledge the controversy it generated without digging too deep into it (since it's not an article about rankings). I am not dying to add it, but I remember the college from the list I read years ago and thought it would be a good addition to offer a new perspective. SSH localhost (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Was there any lasting impact or was this merely a "flash in the pan?" ElKevbo (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What more you need? MSNBC, Washington Monthly, and others. Do you want it to win the Nobel Prize in Literature to include on this page? Nearly all rankings listed (except US News and World Report) aren't even "flash in the pan". It encouraged readers to think about college as an investment (agree or disagree) of time and money. There were/are articles on that perspective. SSH localhost (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we are probably too generous in the amount of coverage we provide to many of the ranking systems but that's a different topic of discussion. The focus here is on what appears to have been a one-off list created by an obscure organization that received a little bit of media coverage immediately afterwards but then little or no coverage in the medium- or long-term. And the ranking doesn't appear to have been consequential or meaningful in any sense. If that is true then it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should be included in an encyclopedia article any more than other stories and incidents that briefly receive media attention but have no discernible impact on the college. ElKevbo (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That's what you think. An obsecure orgination? Graphiq is very well-known in AI circles. It didn't receive "little" media coverage. It's discussed a lot, with both detractors and supporters, as opposed to many in the article that weren't even discussed. Does a source need to be perennially discussed to be on Wikipedia? Then, it would clear up most of the article. The value of that is it offers a different perspective as opposed to the rest listed in the section, and specifically about graduates' outcomes, as opposed to others that are more concerned with reputation ("what other colleges think of that college"). SSH localhost (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All sources fade with time. Perhaps, we'll find a better source offering a similar perspective in the future. 2016 is just too recent to conclude "it has no long-term impact", espeically when many reliable sources republish it. Maybe they'll create a new list in 2021. You just don't know. What we do know is the statement can be sourced by WP:RS. Anyway, we are discussing about a single sentence, not an article. You're using WP:NOTABILITY arguments. I am not creating an article about Graphiq listing of Berea College at 4th in their ranking. SSH localhost (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about notability, it's about due weight. Again: Did anything occur as a result of this ranking? Has it ever been discussed since its original publication? Has it even be repeated or replicated? ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with ElKevbo. Out of curiosity, I checked the articles of the top three ranked schools (or bottom in case?):College of the Atlantic, Earlham College and New College of Florida, respectively. However, going through the article and talk page histories, I could not find this ranking being added or discussed. Granted other things exists but one would think if it had such an impact to Berea, it would be greater for those schools. S0091 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I would just like information on this college. This college and stipent

Information about this college . And the stipend. Thank you. 2600:1700:B830:8C80:D090:8031:CF3A:4A6D (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)