Talk:Cornell Notes

Cornell Notes
Why do Cornell Notes work and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.193.44 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 August 2007
 * The "how" is explained in the article.
 * The "why":
 * - You get a fast overview in the cue collumn reviewing your papers.
 * - You don't need to write down whole sentences while listening. Jotting down notes is a lot faster and leaves you distracted less time.
 * - You instantly memorize when you write out your notes in full at the bottom at home.
 * MichaelXXLF 07:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality being disputed
The following section was added to the article, and I removed it. (I'm using the unsigned2 template for convenience' sake.)

Student's Opinion
While this is effective for some who learn a certain way, it is not very helpful to students who learn in other ways. Teachers should take caution in requiring their students to use these for all notes. Most students say that 'they are a waste of time' and 'I can't remember that way'. I is not recommended (by a student) to force them to write notes in conell form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.177.131 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 May 2009

The same individual put up a tag to dispute the neutrality of the entry.

If no further discussion occurs, I will remove the tag within a couple of weeks.

&mdash;Notyourbroom ( talk ) 05:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with this being removed. Not particularly encyclopedic. Sounds very much as if the editor doesn't like it personally.

The "How" is wrong: the supposed "key word" column is actually for questions you're supposed to ask yourself to help you study later on. The idea is, you can fold the paper over and ask the questions, and the answers will be the notes. It's an effective and easy way to study. Our school district is beating it into our brains that key words should be avoided at all costs, and that questions are the only appropriate thing for that column.

I'm the editor of my school newspaper writing an article on Cornell Notes. It's a little disconcerting that I'm getting information from a page that misinforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyrella (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The non-neutral part has been removed. No one seems to disagree with the removal of the offending text, so I'll remove the nomination for neutrality review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.132.252 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Not done. No projudice for moving to lower-case-n form. DMacks (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cornell Notes → — Common name. Pnm (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: A longer alternative would be the full name, Cornell note-taking system. Pnm (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gently opposed I think of Cornell method as being a baker's term for adding protein to breads and other bakery products, so I'd rather it remained Cornell Notes, which is how I've always heard this system described. htom (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happier with Cornell notes, but agree that it shouldn't be Cornell method if there's another Cornell method. --Pnm (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed per Pnm Urgenine (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name? Vandalism?
Any particular reason this article starts with the phrase "The Cornell hotdog note-taking system..."

Hotdog? iPhil (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion with no citation?
This sounds almost like marketing-speak. I know no one’s profiting from this, but - it feels out of line with wikipedia’s general standard If this is a conclusion from one of the studies, it definitely needs a citation, and probably a qualified intro – especially given the 2013 study referenced that pointed to vague / minimal results 74.65.196.33 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)