Talk:San Jose State University/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:CSU.PNG
Image:CSU.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sjsulogo.jpg
Image:Sjsulogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP CSU
--Dabackgammonator (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alumni Section
The alumni section was getting a bit out-of-hand. I went through and deleted some folks that were on the lower-end of the notability scale and organized it to make it a bit more interesting. This is certainly a rough-draft, so change away as needed.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The section looks like it is about ready to be split off into a standalone article like many other universities. Alanraywiki (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hadn't thought of that. I agree, though.  --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Moore
SJSU lists Intel cofounder Gordon Moore as an alum here. They don't say what degree he recieved, or when, but I'd assume the university knows who it's alumni are, so I'm going to restore him to the list. Gentgeen 17:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's entry for Gordon E. Moore claims he spent 2 years at SJSC before transfering to Cal, which was common back then (my mom made the exact same transition about 8 years earlier). And his wife is a graduate of SJSC.

A quick google check shows the smoking gun of an oral history, where he says "I went through grammar schools here locally, Sequoia High School, two years at San Jose State, where I met my wife-to-be, and then transferred to University of California at Berkeley for my junior and senior years." So the oral history has been added to Wikipedia's biography and we can say that Moore attended but did not graduate from SJSC. JoelWest 22:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Not suppried, as the practice is still common. I've got a freind who made the same transition only 7 years ago. Gentgeen 23:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Famous Faculty
I removed "Donald West - chemistry" because he is not listed as current faculty. I don't think there's a problem in including former faculty, but since he doesn't have his own Wikipedia entry and there's no information about him on the SJSU site, his significance should be noted to justify listing him ahead of several thousand other faculty. JoelWest 18:51, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Doctor West is one of the authors (with Douglas Skoog from Stanford University and James Holler from the University of Kentucky) of Analytical Chemistry, an Introduction (my edition's ISBN 0-03-097285-X), which is the standard analytical chemistry textbook in the world, translated into dozens of languages, and used to train generations of chemists (my aunt still has her first edition Skoog/West from the 1970s). A google search for Skoog and West and Holler and Chemistry  yields 2,280 results, and if you remove Holler (who became involved in the 5th edition, I think) you get 4,110 results . Dr West was a professor emeritus when I was there 6 years ago, teaching one class a semister. It's possible he's completely stoped teaching by now. Gentgeen 23:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Donald M. West retired as of 1995 JoelWest 19:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

South Campus
Would someone be willing & able to edit in the explanation of why the "Olympic Salute" memorial does not include a statue of Peter Norman? It seems to me like a natural question for anyone who reads about the story, and the SJSU article seems the proper place to explain it. I found the transcript of an interview with John Carlos at this source:

"ZIRIN: [..] But the greatest Peter Norman moment has to do with the statues at San Jose State. They're 25 foot statues there. Would you like to tell that story, John? Please do.

CARLOS: ''I'd love to tell that story. So when I went to San Jose and heard that weren't putting Peter's statue up and I went to the student body. Why aren't you guys putting Peter's statue up? And they said, well, you know, Mr. Carlos, we raised the money for this. The students did. And Mr. Norman didn't go to school at San Jose State. I said, yeah. But it's not about the school. It's not about what happened at San Jose State. It's about what happened in society. So if you're not going to put Mr. Norman's statue there, I don't want my statue there. And they said, well, John, Peter doesn't want it there. So then I went from them to the president's office. I said we need to make a call. Call Australia. Call Peter's house.''

''Just by the grace of God, he picks up the phone. I said, Peter, what is this I understand about you don't want your statue here? What are you, ashamed of us? You walking away from me? He said, heck, no. I'm not backing away from you. He said, John, I didn't do what you and Tommie did. I supported what you and Tommie did. He said, I thought it would be apropos for me to step back and not have my statue there. For anyone that ever comes to San Jose State and supported you, they can stand in my spot and take a picture.''"

--195.37.61.178 (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Wow, this article surely talks up SJSU, an institution that is fairly mediocre and within the bay area, doesn't have much of a ranking since those places are taken by University of California, Berkeley, Stanford, University of California, San Francisco, and University of California, Santa Cruz. I'm amazed at how talked up SJSU is. LOL LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.5.245 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed this sectionb's heading from "Wow!" to "Neutral Point of View". The article clearly lacks NPOV! Please see my related comments under the "Rivals" talk heading. - Johnlogic (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

-

Unqualified statements such as "fairly mediocre," and smug (and irrelevant) comparisons to Stanford and Cal reveal your overtly biased POV. This is not about the SJSU article lacking neutrality so much as it's about your biased preconceptions. Any reference to SJSU's academic distinctions or national rankings, etc., is perceived by you as inaccurate or unbelievable or trumped up, or whatever, based on your biased POV.

Having said that, I did go through the article and attempt to neutralize language that could be perceived as boastful, and I located and added citations for all ranking stats and figures, which without exception proved accurate. Outside of that, I could not find any information that was unverifiable or inaccurate or exaggerated. This article is no different from the Cal or Stanford articles in that it emphasizes the university's academic distinctions, history and general pride points, while ignoring perhaps more mundane facts and figures, etc. In the case of the Cal and Stanford articles, you interpret a positive voice as a neutral POV because you admire Cal and Stanford, but you don't accept a positive voice in reference to SJSU because you clearly look down upon SJSU based on overtly biased and arguably inaccurate preconceptions.

Unfortunately for you, the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing as a result of reading an entirely factual and basically neutral article about "that other Bay Area school" does not warrant a neutrality dispute. Perhaps you need to check your presumptions at the door before endeavoring to edit or criticize, and accept that reality isn't always what you were taught and/or conditioned to believe. Your dismissive and unsigned criticism is more reflective of a class dispute (i.e. - private school versus public school or UC versus CSU) than a genuine, heartfelt concern for truth and neutrality. The bottom line is the truth makes you uncomfortable. In your mind, SJSU couldn't possibly be as distinguished as the article suggests.

This dispute is resolved.

Londonfifo (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Londonfifo

I disagree with your unilateral decision. I'm replacing the NPOV tag, and hope that we can reach some consensus before pulling it again. - Johnlogic (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples that point to a lack of neutrality. If you cannot provide examples, what is there to dispute? You say there is a lack of neutrality here, but I fail to see it. Please show me one factual error. Please show me one opinion-based statement or assertion. It seems your version of a NPOV in this case is an article that runs down or belittles SJSU because it's not Cal or Stanford or mighty De Anza College. Londonfifo (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no further dialogue on this topic, and given the lack of specific objections and/or suggestions with regard to POV, I am removing the neutrality dispute tag. The allegations regarding lack of neutrality in this case are vague and essentially unsupported. Please do not insert this tag unless you are prepared to discuss specifics and/or suggest changes and make improvements. The generally positive tone of this article is no different from most major university Wiki articles, and is entirely in accordance with the WP:UNIGUIDE. Londonfifo (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with describing SJSU's ranking as "top tier overall". Clearly, it is within the top tier of its classification, but not among all schools in the nation. I clarified this and cleaned up the academics section. With this edit (and our previous work), I am now satisfied that the NPOV tag is unnecessary.

Also, please note that it was not I who described SJSU as "fairly mediocre". Though I had plenty of horrible experiences while I studied there, I am encouraged by the school's improvement over the last 20 years. - Johnlogic (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Rankings in the lead
I had removed a paragraph in the lead section about the university's ranking per the following from the Neutral Point of View section of WP:UNIGUIDE: "Do not use rankings in the lead as these are specific facts that should appear later in the article and provide undue weight and emphasis to only a few publications' rankings or methodologies." An editor as readded the information indicating that WP:UNIGUIDE does allow rankings in the lead. As we want to be consistent with these guidelines, maybe some clarification is needed to determine the correct approach. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am removing the ranking information from the intro per your suggestion. I was referring to the following passage in the UNIGUIDE when I added ranking info in the intro:


 * Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article — not simply an introduction.


 * This passage does not clearly prohibit inclusion of rankings in the intro, but I see now there are much clearer and stronger guidelines regarding intro structure and rankings elsewhere in the WP:UNIGUIDE. I agree we should remain consistent with the GUIDE. Thank you. Londonfifo (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with taking the rankings out of the lead-in. I prefer to keep only the most notable information in the introduction, then go from general to specific. Only if its ranking was among the very best (e.g. such as Harvard or Stanford) would I consider it worth mentioning in the introduction. - Johnlogic (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Londonfifo (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Rivals - Academic/Athletic?
I added the University of California, Berkeley, as a rival. As the two oldest public institutions of higher learning in California, these two schools have a storied rivalry dating back to the late 1860s. Their football teams started playing each other in the 1890s and have met many times since. The two schools also compete in D1A intercollegiate basketball, with the latest encounter occuring earlier this year (2006). Michaelch7

Changed the order of Stanford and Santa Clara universities. Stanford is clearly the more significant rival. CSU Spartan

Reinstated Rivals reference to Cal after apparent deletion vandalism. CSU Spartan 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again reinstated link after another round of deletion vandalism. This time put Cal under CSU Fresno. I hereby appeal for Wikipedia protection from this link. Also, how is the vandal able to hide his repeated removal's of this link? CSU Spartan 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? SJSU and Berkeley aren't rivals. Berkeley is a top tier institution and SJSU is third or four tier. Berkeley and Stanford are rival schools, but not with SJSU, an oft forgotten university somewhere in San José. LOL


 * To the unidentified poster who refers to SJSU as a "third or fourth tier" institution, please refer to USNWR. SJSU has received a top-tier regional ranking for many consecutive years. If you know anything about public higher education in CA, you understand the mission of the CSU is entirely different from that of the UC, which is why CSU campuses are prohibited from granting doctoral degrees. This is why the CSU campuses don't appear in the national ranking indexes, along with many fine private liberal arts colleges and other undergraduate and/or teaching-oriented (as opposed to research-oriented) institutions. A regional classification (as opposed to a national one) absolutely does NOT make a university inferior by default. Londonfifo (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, Stanford and SJSU have a storied football rivalry that dates back to 1900. It even has a name! It's called the Bill Walsh Legacy Classic after the late, great legendary coach Bill Walsh. Walsh played football for SJSU and graduated from SJSU with two degrees, but he was the head coach at Stanford for many years. There is another bit of trivia and intrigue related to this rivalry. Legendary FB coach Jack Elway coached for SJSU when his son John was the starting QB at Stanford. SJSU defeated Stanford all three times father and son faced each other on the field. Please know the subject about which you speak before you post ignorant, antagonistic and inflammatory comments. Academic reputations aside, SJSU's football rivalries with Stanford and Cal date back to 1900 and 1899 respectively, and are most certainly legit. Thank you very much. Londonfifo (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above unsigned comment. SJSU is peerless; it's the only Silicon Valley school that I know of that could manage to loose accreditation in computer science. (SJSU didn't have it while I was there 1988-1991, but has since recovered it.) According to U.S. News and World Report, Stanford is one of the top 10 universities in the nation. Cal Berkeley also ranks highly, but not in the top 10, making it a near rival to Stanford. UC Santa Cruz and UC Davis are easily better schools than SJSU. So is De Anza College, which--I observed--regularly lures away SJSU's best faculty with better pay. - Johnlogic (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Johnlogic: De Anza college? Are you serious? Of course, I would not expect you to have a NPOV regarding the Cal State flagship considering you hold five "degrees" from the local community college. Furthermore, what does an alleged loss of accreditation in one relatively narrow discipline twenty years ago have to do with football rivalries? You say you attended SJSU for three years. Does that mean you failed to graduate? Perhaps you should extricate yourself from SJSU-related discussions and Wiki articles, since it appears you may have an ax to grind. I, for one, did not attend SJSU, but I do believe in fairness and open-mindedness. Oh, and I loathe UC arrogance, especially when it appears to be coming from a community college grad (read wannabe). Londonfifo (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Londonfifo: That's an awful lot of edits you made immediately before leaving the project--did you get fed up or just get the boot? Also, thanks for the personal attacks, I really enjoy them; perhaps you might be interested in reading the Five pillars of Wikipedia.


 * Johnlogic: I don't understand what you mean here. I did not leave any project, nor did I get the boot. Londonfifo (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I don't have a neutral point of view (NPOV). (Who does?) By its very nature, Wikipedia's editors are a self-selecting group. We can, however, attempt to maintain neutrality within our work through respectful discussion and debate on Talk pages, hopefully reaching some consensus that approximates NPOV.


 * And, yes, I'm serious about De Anza College. That's where I found SJSU's best (former) faculty. De Anza pays better, and is recognized nationally for its excellence (unlike SJSU). For many years already, there has also been discussion about possibly promoting De Anza to a four-year institution. But of course I'm biased--I actually attended both schools.


 * Finally, please don't knock community colleges or their students or graduates. We've all got to start somewhere, and I admire anyone who's willing to get an education anywhere, however humble. And again I'm biased: I did earn my first five degrees at De Anza (thanks for stalking me) and now teach at a community college. - Johnlogic (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Johnlogic: I'll agree not to knock De Anza and two-year colleges in general if you agree not to knock a major, four-year state university with a 150-year history of academic excellence and service to its community. You appear to predicate your POV dispute based on biased preconceptions and academic rankings in a magazine. I don't get it. Oh, and last time I checked, SJSU received national rankings in engineering and library science. This information is clearly presented in the article. I'd like to know which De Anza College programs make it so much better than SJSU. Is it the Associate Arts degree program? Is it the computer tech certification program? I hear the welding certification classes over there are dynamite. Oh, and how is it "stalking" to read public information proudly promoted within your Wiki profile?  Londonfifo (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Londonfifo: That's exactly what it means: SJSU doesn't make the grade to be ranked among the 262 top universities in the nation. Surely you don't equate SJSU's "top-tier" ranking in its division to Stanford or Berkeley's national top-tier rankings, do you? Let's clarify your statement that SJSU "enjoys a top-tier academic ranking overall": SJSU has a "top-tier" ranking within its classification, which is below national universities. - Johnlogic (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Johnlogic: You apparently do not understand the purpose of the regional and national classifications. A regional classification does NOT necessarily denote academic inferiority. The various classifications are made based on research expenditures and the overarching mission of the respective institutions, among other things. Please read up on the applied methodology. There are many bottom-tier national universities that simply pale in comparison (academically) to top-tier liberal arts colleges and master's-level institutions. The reasoning behind the different classification assignments is rooted in the methodology. If one of the criterion for determining the academic standing of a university is research expenditures, for example, is it fair to compare U.C. Berkeley to Reed College? Of course not. They are apples and oranges. If you're talking about research, then yes, Berkeley is superior. If you're talking about liberal arts education and quality of undergraduate instruction, Reed is the superior choice. The point of the classifications is to ensure institutions are evaluated against their peers. Different criteria are emphasized in each of the various classifications. In the (non-research-oriented) realm, SJSU ranks among the top-15 public institutions in the western region. When compared against its peer institutions, it places in the top tier. In the end, the needs and goals of the prospective student will dictate which university classification is right for him/her. Londonfifo (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: Funny, I don't see any comparison with other schools, other than football rivalry with UC ("Cal") Berkeley and with Stanford. Academically, SJSU has a lot of competition. Nearby universities ranked (in Tier 1 nationally) by US News include Stanford (4th), UC Berkely (21st ), UC Davis (42nd ), UC Santa Cruz (71st ) and USF (121st ). SJSU has no national ranking. Of the remaining Tier 1 masters-granting universities in the 15 western states (note the heavy qualifications for this list), Santa Clara U. ranks 2nd, SJSU ranks 38th and SFSU ranks 45th . CSU East Bay (formerly Hayward) is so bad it falls in Tier 3 (without further ranking) . - Johnlogic (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see my explanation of ranking methodology (above) and the purpose of grouping universities into various subsets based on academic mission, etc. Also, please bear in mind all top-tier schools, regardless of which subset or classification they fall into, receive a numerical score that reflects overall academic quality. SJSU's composite score is actually the same or higher than 8 or 10 top-tier national universities including Arizona State, University of San Francisco, University of Utah, University of Arkansas and Colorado State, among others. Are you telling me a third-tier or fourth-tier national university (with a much lower overall academic score) is superior to a top-tier regional school simply by virtue of its "national university" classification? Again, it's clear to me you don't understand the purpose of grouping schools according to academic mission and evaluating them against their peers, nor do you understand the methodology employed to determine the rankings. All you've really done here is dismiss and belittle SJSU's objective and much-better-than-average academic rankings based on a flawed understanding of the ranking system, and then used that to dispute the neutrality of the article. Beyond that, while joining the unsigned poster in criticizing San Jose State, you suggest a local (unranked) two-year community college is probably superior academically to the founding campus of the California State University system! How am I supposed to take you seriously, especially when it turns out the community college in question (by your own admission) also happens to be your alma mater and your employer? I am the first to admit community colleges are important and have their place, and I apologize for belittling you in this regard, but I find it extremely difficult to take this dispute seriously given your own incredibly obvious lack of neutrality here and your obvious negative bias toward SJSU. Again, please point to specific language in the article that needs to be altered and explain why it lacks neutrality. It's not enough to want to eliminate positive facts about SJSU simply because your perception of the school is that it's not all that great. Londonfifo (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Famous JohnLogic quote: "I poo poo SJSU." October 30, 2009. Once again, you may want to extricate yourself from your work on this article and move on to something else. It's clear you harbor ill feelings toward SJSU. Londonfifo (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering the article's obvious bias, that description of my edit to this page seemed appropriate (and still does).
 * For the record, I have never been employed by De Anza College, nor have I claimed to be. (Though, I do now teach at another community college.) I have fully disclosed reasons why I might seem biased, but still haven't seen yours. (This discussion belongs in the NPOV section, if anywhere.)
 * With other nearby colleges now only named/linked via info boxes at the bottom of the article, do we really need to continue discussion of "rivals"? With the academic rankings, would it help (or hinder) the article to note that SJSU outranks neighboring CSUs SF and East Bay (and possibly others)? - Johnlogic (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Language
Londonfifo and I have been debating (see above) about the use of the term "tier". I find the phrase "...and receives a regional top-tier academic ranking overall" inaccurate. SJSU certainly has a top-tier ranking within its classification, which specifically excludes other schools in its region. I maintain my position that such a phrase misrepresents SJSU's performance as on par with those in the national classification. (See USNWR methodology.) I find that using the term "tier" merely detracts from the article. It's also redundant, as it's based on a school's ranking. So, I have dropped the phrase.

I'd also like to stress the need for accurate language within rankings. I have again revised the rankings, this time putting the U.S. News rankings in one (the first) paragraph. Note that I lead with text like "U.S. News ranks SJSU..." indicating the active voice and whose ranking we use (vs. "SJSU is ranked..."). Phrases like "SJSU ranks..." can be acceptable but risk being ambiguous, especially if we don't first establish who is doing the ranking.

- Johnlogic (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your strange need to downplay SJSU's REGIONAL TIER ONE RANKING is getting very irksome and strikes me as suspicious. You insist on replacing clear and well-written leads and information within the rankings section with poorly constructed, ambiguous language that WEAKENS the entry. A REGIONAL TOP-TIER RANKING IS WHAT IT IS, and is clearly not the same thing as a NATIONAL TOP-TIER RANKING.


 * I have re-worded the lead as follows:


 * According to U.S. News and World Report's college rankings (2010), San Jose State ranks 38th among all master's-level institutions in the Western region of the United States,[15] 12th among public master's-level institutions in the Western region,[16] and receives a Tier One academic ranking overall among master's-level institutions in the west.[17] The Western region comprises 15 states and is home to approximately 125 master's-level colleges and universities.[18]


 * I don't see how this info can be any more explicit. SJSU's rank among MASTER'S-LEVEL institutions within a relatively narrow geographic area is clearly spelled out here, and the size of the geographic region, the number of master's-level institutions it contains, and the SOURCE of the rankings are all clearly identified in order to provide needed context.


 * Furthermore, it seems clear to me you still don't understand the USNWR ranking methodology. Masters-level universities are NOT ranked against national universities, but if they were, a national classification would NOT necessarily guarantee a higher ranking than every school with a master's or baccalaureate-level classification. Virtually ALL Tier 3 and Tier 4 national universities receive a lower ACADEMIC SCORE than the hundreds (thousands?) of Tier 1 master's and baccalaureate-level institutions nationwide. Yes, there are many Tier 1 NATIONAL universities that receive a much HIGHER academic score (and are much more prestigious academically) than SJSU, but there also are many NATIONAL universities across the U.S. that score much LOWER than SJSU academically.


 * For better or worse, national universities are NOT ranked against master's or baccalaureate-level institutions since the system is designed to rank schools against their PEER institutions. National and master's-level and baccalaureate institutions are all ranked SEPARATELY. Among MASTER'S-LEVEL institutions in the 15-state Western region, SJSU lands in the top tier, and has for the past 10 years. Among public MASTER'S-LEVEL institutions in the region, SJSU is currently ranked 12th and has been ranked as high as 8th (2007). These are simple, unambiguous facts that are explicitly stated and verifiable.


 * There is NO bias here other than your apparent need to downplay SJSU's achievements and to personally make sure that anyone perhaps unfamiliar with the perceived pecking order among Bay Area schools KNOWS, under no uncertain terms, that Berkeley and Stanford, etc., are considered much "better." I'm guessing you'd only be satisfied if the SJSU rankings section included a statement that basically spelled that out, even though you must know that such subjective posturing would not be in accordance with Wiki standards.


 * Please just let the data speak for itself. I agree boosterism is bad (see Cal Berkeley's Wiki entry), but the OPPOSITE of boosterism is no more objective or allowable either under Wiki rules. A ranking of 38th among MASTER'S-LEVEL institutions in a 15-state region is not exactly what I would call stellar placement. Anyone should be able to ascertain from this article that SJSU is considered "pretty good" among MASTER'S-LEVEL, non-research oriented schools, but is not really a player on the national scene. I think its respectable-but-not-stellar REGIONAL ranking among schools that don't offer PhDs is clearly and accurately stated here and does a fair job of establishing SJSU's overall "place" in academia. I mean, it is OBVIOUS a regional ranking within the MASTER'S-LEVEL classification excludes comparisons to LOTS of other universities across the country. Again, please just let the data speak for itself, and stop trying to couch it in a way that makes SJSU appear below average academically, which simply isn't fair.


 * Also, please take the time to understand the USNWR methodology. While it's true that Tier 1 national universities are often judged to be academically superior to Tier 1 master's or baccalaureate-level institutions, this is not always the case. As I indicated in a previous exchange, USNWR actually gives SJSU a higher overall ACADEMIC SCORE than several Tier 1 NATIONAL institutions in the West, and a master's-level school like Cal Poly lands in the top 5-10% of ALL universities (National, master's AND baccalaureate) in the West, based on it's overall ACADEMIC SCORE. Of course, Cal Poly doesn't appear alongside schools like UCLA or Cal or Oregon, etc. in the ranking indexes because it is ranked SEPARATELY! Londonfifo (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Londonfifo: I understand the USNWR methodology (and linked to it, above), but continue to disagree.

As you are relatively new here, I had made some suggestions regarding Wikipedia policies and etiquette on your talk page. Since we haven't been able to work constructively together, I have asked for some assistance in resolving our disagreements.

With my revision that you struck, I had improved the names of the references in the Rankings section, and better matched the claims with the sources. (It's difficult to do the latter with many reference listings that name only "Best Colleges 2010".) I don't believe that I "downplay" or "couch" anything; the collection of data does speak for itself, but we must clearly identify who claims what.

- Johnlogic (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still bothered by the presentation of the ranking information for SJSU, which appears (at least to me) as misleading.

First off, there's no mention of "tier" in USNWR's current ranking. It may have used this term in the past, but its current pages make no mention of it. So, the reference to "tier" should be struck.

Secondly, the regionally ranked schools are not limited to those that grant masters degrees. According to < http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/09/12/how-us-news-calculates-the-college-rankings-2012 >, "2. All regionally[-]accredited for-profit institutions that grant bachelor's degrees are included in the U.S. News data collection..." So, "master's-level" references should be struck.

Thirdly, the cited page does not enumerate the states or institutions. So, this should be struck.

- Johnlogic (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I don't even see the word "tier" in the current article. Can you please clarify the specific wording to which you are objecting (if it hasn't already been removed or changed)?
 * Second, I think you're misunderstanding how USN&WR compiles their data and ranks institutions. Yes, they do collect data from baccalaureate institutions.  But they do stratify the rankings using their own taxonomy as described here.  So if I understand your objection correctly then it's misguided and the article should not be edited on that basis.
 * Third, I don't understand at all what you're referring to when you say "states or institutions." The only thing I can guess is that you are objecting to this information because USN&WR doesn't report the states and institutions included in the Regional Universities (West) category into which USN&WR places this university.  If that is the objection, then please look here where USN&WR lists all of the institutions in that category and from which you can easily infer the states in the "West" region.
 * In sum, the ranking is described accurately in the article and your objections seem to be based on misunderstandings of the UWN&WR ranking system. ElKevbo (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Princeton Review
For the claim "The Princeton Review lists San Jose State's graduate school of business among the top 296 in the nation.", I checked the reference and found no ranking nor anything to substantiate SJSU's position within "the top 296". Could someone find a source? If not, shall we remove the claim and preserve the link in the "External links" section?

Because we have had significant debate about rankings, I'll be gentle and merely move the position of the current citation and add a "citation needed" tag.

- Johnlogic (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Princetonreview.com's website is often missing many of the "ranking #'s". I believe you can find inclusion of San Jose State's Donald and Sally Lucas Graduate School of Business in the actual print copy of from 2009 edition of "Best 296 Business Schools". The only online reference can be found here: http://whichuniversitybest.blogspot.com/2009/09/san-jose-state-university-top-rankings.html - Keep in mind, it's a blog site so the information isn't completely confirmed.

With that said, Princetonereview.com recently came out with best 294 Business Schools of 2012 and San Jose State University's business school is included in that list: http://www.princetonreview.com/business-school-rankings.aspx?uidbadge=. So perhaps an update should be added?

Tiredlogic (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Still needs cleanup
The rankings section is still pretty untamed. This section is starting to look more like an awards case than an encyclopedia article. I'll take a stab at it when I have the chance. A few examples.. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of these rankings are annual, so 2010 numbers should be updated to the 2011 stats (or removed if the ranking is no longer notable).
 * U.S. News rankings should probably be consolidated into a single paragraph or subsection (instead of each bullet point ending in "... according to U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges 2010."
 * Rankings and mentions in the media that are over 2 years old should be looked at closely to ensure that they are still relavent/notable.

Proposed merger from California State Normal School
I propose that we merge the California State Normal School article into the one for San Jose State University. As both describe the same subject, having two articles seems redundant. Also, information on one page hasn't been propagating to the other. - Johnlogic (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree.   Will Beback    talk    19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree with merge per WP:SS. Also, the CSNS was a distinct entity unto itself. The article could be trimmed, however. Amerique dialectics 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the merger as well per WP:SS. As stated above, the CSNS was clearly a distinct entity unto itself, and was an integral part of the history of several CSU schools including SFSU and Chico State. Also, to include a proper history of the CSNS within the SJSU history section would give disproportionate weight to this section of the SJSU article. Each section of the SJSU article should remain consistent both in terms of breadth and level of detail. Londonfifo (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the California State Normal School (SNS, later California State Teachers Colleges) was a precursor to and subset of the California State University (CSU), would it be appropriate to integrate SNS into CSU (instead of into SJSU)? - Johnlogic (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree that this article should be merged with either the SJSU or CSU article. The CSNS was a multi-campus "normal school" institution bigger than just San Jose, but far smaller than the California State University system that was founded in 1961, almost 100 years later. Also, these issues have already been decided.  San Jose State supporters first vandalized then deleted the CSNS article based on their political opposition to the school's Cal State history and identity, using the same argument brought up here. I fought for its restoration, which was approved by multiple Wikipedia editors.  Now the same issues are being rehashed.  The legal system has a principle called Stare Decisis, meaning that which is decided is decided.  The same should apply to rehashing the same issues with regard to this article over and over again. The CSNS was an important part of California educational history, which should not be supressed for flimsy reasons. Michaelch7 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article must remain separate from San Jose State U. and CSU so as to not hide the historical significance of the CSNS. This article is a strong reminder that using "California" to identify the university came well before using the much weaker "San Jose." EastBayM (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This matter was already decided when the article was reinstated after militant San Jose State supporters deleted it before. Also, the discussion of this issue on the San Jose State page supports keeping this article separate. How many times and how long must this pernicious suggestion of merger be entertained? I request that the notice about merging this article be removed. - Michaelch7 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

San Jose State mascot Sammy the Spartan
Righto, being of actual Spartan ancestry, the image of Sammy the "Spartan" offends me. If the school wants to be the Spartans, that's fine, whatever, I cant change that. But when they make the mascot supposedly a Spartan wearing roman armor, this bother me greatly. I mean, it kind of reflects badly on SJSU, it makes them seem.... just stupid. If you must use my ancestry, at least get the facts straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.24.167 (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

SJSU Grad and Retention Rates
I recently noticed that US News and World Report reports a four-year graduation rate of 7%. I thought that this was notable, so I included this, along with an citation to the source page. Londonfifo (who has made about 40% of the last 500 edits to the SJSU page) disliked this, removed my edit (accusing me of vandalism), and made the entry below on my User Talk page. I'd like to solicit some public discussion about how SJSU's graduation and retention rates should be presented.

JOHN:

Your placement of the low four-year grad rate at the TOP of the section is clearly an act of vandalism and is greatly unappreciated by those of us who have invested time and energy in developing what is now a very solid SJSU article. Unlike the vast majority of university Wiki articles, this one is reasonably objective and generally devoid of boosterism. I work in academia, and the standard metrics nowadays are six, eight and even 10-year grad rates. Same goes for retention rates. Please show me any other Wiki article where the 4-year grad rate (and four-year grad rate alone) is placed at the TOP of the Academics section in its own line/paragraph. SJSU's six-year grad rate is around 50% (eight-year is higher) and both its freshmen and transfer retention rates are around 80%. This is very much in line with many other large public universities in CA and elsewhere.

Even much more prestigious academic institutions have relatively low 4-year grad rates. Case in point, I believe Berkeley's is around 50% and the average statewide (CA) is around 30%. Cal Poly's four-year grad rate is around 25%. At Long Beach it's 12%. The six-year average in CA is around 65%. SJSU doesn't even publish its four-year rate anymore, and this is true of many other schools as well, so not sure where the 7% figure even came from. USNWR should not be used as a data source for university demographic and/or G&T data. This data should come from the university itself. USN&WR as a data SOURCE is only appropriate when citing USN&WR's own ranking data.

Also, I should point out the freshmen grad rates don't account for transfer students and grad students, who make up a significant percentage of the total student enrollment at schools like SJSU. Another factor that affects grad rates is impaction. SJSU (along with Long Beach, Fullerton and SDSU) is impacted in EVERY MAJOR. This drives minimum admission standards up and grad rates down... at least in the short-term. You can't simply throw out a single figure (from a secondary source) without providing needed context, etc., and expect others invested in this article not to challenge you.

I understand you have issues with SJSU and your edits to this article in the past have clearly demonstrated you lack a neutral POV since nearly every edit attempts to cast SJSU in a negative light. I am going to leave your edit for now, but I will replace it with applicable six and eight-year stats using SJSU SOURCE DATA and move it to an appropriate position within the Academics section later when I have more time. Londonfifo (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that USN&WR is not a great source for this statistic, but the number was accurate (when I looked it up on the SJSU site, it reports a Fall 2005 First-Time Freshmen Graduation Rate of 7.1%), as was my citation. I'd like to note to Londonfifo that your apparent dislike of this statistic makes it no less true.


 * I'd also like to point out that Londonfifo's citations are poor, as the pages linked have no permanence, and require the reader to query SJSU's database. In contrast, the USN&WR page and SJSU "Quick Facts" pages make better sources, because they can be linked directly. Johnlogic (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it may be notable to include this, but if you decide to, you must follow the information with justification. The CSUs and UCs all have notoriously low four-year graduation rates now (CSUs are around 10% with the exception of SDSU at 25%) and the UCs are around 30 to 50%. Following the statistic, it should be noted the state weighs more heavily on six-year graduation rates

as a measure of academic caliber rather than four-year. Also, almost every single CSU (including SJSU) and the whole entire Cal State system collectively is now actively battling the low four-year rate, so that should be included in the article as well. Don't just put the statistic, that's not fair editing.


 * That's some good feedback, Uwatch310. (Please remember to sign your comments.)


 * Generally, I like to let the information speak for itself and leave it to the reader to draw conclusions. For example, if a prospective student wants to choose a school and wants to budget time and money, I think it's useful to know that about half of incoming freshmen don't graduate in seven years. Londonfifo added some good information, which I tried to re-position nearer to the relevant data to provide appropriate context.


 * If you can find some sources for your claims, I think it might provide additional useful context for the low rates within the article. Johnlogic (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My primary beef with the inclusion of the stat was its placement at the TOP of the section above the programs, rankings and admissions data sub-sections. The lone 7% stat appeared isolated in a single line at the very top of the section immediately below the section heading, and did not include any other relevant grad and retention data. Plus, it relied upon USN&WR as the source. I am completely fine with the revision as it appears now because it's positioned appropriately within the section, references proper source data, and also includes needed context. Also, I agree statistical data should be allowed to speak for itself, but graduation and retention rates are uniquely complex and a single stat by no means tells the whole story. For example, SJSU's high graduate student enrollment (highest in the CSU), the relatively high number of part-time students at SJSU, the high number of transfer students, and the school's impaction status (in every major) can render the four-year grad rate nearly meaningless. Londonfifo (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian = Eastern = Dubious??
I'm flagging as dubious the designation of Bulgarian as an important contribution to diversity. In any case ,it's unclear why this is as "Eastern". jxm (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Flagship campus of the CSU is at CPSUSLO!
According to some pro-Cal Poly SLO editors, SLO is the flagship of the CSU. His/Her sources are some obscure SLO-hosted website where Chancellor Charles B. Reed allegedly refereed to them as such 1 and a SJSU athletics blog 2. The again in a Los Angeles Times report, it was described as the academic star of the CSU 3 (Nevermind the fact that the article is bashing the school for the lack of diversity and elitist stances). I'm sick and tired of reverting this non-sense and would appreciate any help from CalState at San Jose editors. The CSU needs to adress its naming convention... PRONTO!--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Cal Poly article merely states that it has been referred to as such, which it has. The citation literally refers to Charles Reed's (chancellor of the CSU) position on the matter.  The SDSU article also makes the claim for itself, and the SJSU article also indirectly makes the claim.  This nonsense by Marco is merely part of his long standing attempt to vandalize the Cal Poly article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The flagship campus of the CSU system is the original CSU, San Jose State. SJSU is the OFFICIAL flagship I saw SDSU has tried to claim it, as well as Cal Poly. Sorry, but it is SJSU. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCraigA (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * SJSU is only referred to by a government referendum as "flagship", and that is because it is the oldest campus in the system. Flagship has many other meanings - including "most important", "leading", or the most highly touted or recognized - none of which SJSU is. SDSU, and arguably Cal Poly, are all of these things. This is ALSO why (in another example) UCLA is also considered a flagship of the UC system, even though it is not the founding campus (UCB is). Multiple sources have found SDSU is flagship.--Uwatch310 (talk) 23:21, February 11, 2014‎

UWatch310 you continue to post false statements. Please go see SDSU's talk board for many citations of SJSU being the flagship, as well as research citations. Your citations are news articles talking about SDSU's research. None of these name SDSU as the "flagship" I would encourage you to educate yourself on the CSU system, not just SDSU. Please stop posting false titles onto SDSU's page. If it does continue I will contact wikipedia and show them what you have been doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCraigA (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that "flagship" is an overloaded term and there are often reliable, important sources that label universities flagship institutions independent of other sources and we should account for that in our article. However, I'm not very impressed with the sources that have been cited to support the use of that term in this article for this university.  I think we need something more authoritative than the material that has been provided so far which has included minor self-published material, an LA Times article that doesn't appear to even mention the word flagship, and a few articles all referencing one minor university ranking system.  Is there any better evidence that this university has been labeled a flagship, preferablt by an authority in the field of higher education evaluation or a major media outlet? ElKevbo (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Space Grant
A newish editor, who states he attends SJSU, persists in adding Space Grant, a consortium of UC, CSU and private IHE's designed to develop aerospace-related projects, to the infobox as a type of campus. He clearly doesn't understand what a campus consortium is; these campuses typically belong to numerous projects of this sort, nor does it define the type of campus any of them is. Worse, he removes land-grant as an institutional descriptor and replaces it with Space Grant, a clear indicator of how little he understands either. I've removed Space Grant from CSULA, this article, UCLA, and UC Berkeley, and plan to remove the rest tomorrow, but this needs to stop. SJSU is a land-grant public IHE; it's membership in the Space Grant consortium can be mentioned in narrative, but not in the infobox. --Drmargi (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, SJSU is NOT a land-grant university. There is generally only one land-grant institution per state under the original Morrill Act of 1862. The University of California-Berkeley is THE land-grant IHE in California, although land-grant status in California has informally been extended to include the entire UC system. California's now defunct D-Q University also received land-grant status along with many other tribal colleges by act of Congress in the 1990's. (See Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act.)


 * The Space Grant "consortium" was established by the U.S. Congress (see National Space Grant College and Fellowship Act of 1987) and was modeled after the original Morrill Act of 1862 in an effort to promote space exploration and aerospace research, just as the Morrill Act sought to foster the study of agriculture and mechanical arts. The consortium comprises hundreds of universities (public and private) from across the nation, but is broken down into smaller consortia by state.


 * Including a Space Grant designation in the info box is no less appropriate than including a Land Grant, Sea Grant or Sun Grant designation. Furthermore, including one of these newer federal grant program designations in the info box does not suggest by default that Space, Sea or Sun grant designations are equivalent to a land grant designation, nor does it suggest federally funded research in other disciplines does not occur. Having said that, these federal research designations are unique and different from individual, garden variety R and P series grant projects, which occur at virtually all major universities with even minimal research infrastructure in place.


 * In the end, SJSU's Space Grant designation is significant, unique, and worthy of inclusion in the info box, but since this obviously disturbs some (or maybe only one), I am fine with excluding it. It should, however, appear elsewhere in the article. Also, I'm not a "newish" editor and NEVER stated I attend SJSU. I'm actually one of the primary custodians of this article and have been for many years. In the future, I would suggest to all editors (young and old) to try establishing dialogue on a given controversial topic first instead of hastily presuming to know what other users do and don't understand and then unilaterally deleting content. Londonfifo (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on San Jose State University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013043940/http://sjsu.edu/justicestudies/docs/GRAD_Brochure.pdf to http://www.sjsu.edu/justicestudies/docs/GRAD_Brochure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Change of Year of Establishment from 1862 to 1857
Someone had changed the year of establishment of the California State Normal School from May 2, 1862, to May 2, 1857, which is incorrect. I corrected this mistake, and to prevent further confusion between the school's two years of establishment added a paragraph explaining when and why San Jose State changed its date of establishment from May 2, 1862, to an unknown date in 1857.

Citation for May 2, 1862 law: Act to Establish and Maintain a State Normal School (May 2, 1862), The Statutes of California, pp. 472-473, Benj. P. Avery, State Printer, Sacramento, 1862.

I have personally examined the records indicating when school changed its year of establishment, but I did not make copies. I will go back to the Special Collections Room and secure a citation for this document as soon as possible. Michaelch7 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Minns Evening Normal School
In the info. box, I noticed Minns Evening Normal School, which appears to be an earlier name for the California State Normal School. Should we mention the Minns school (San Francisco Normal School) in the history section (and its 1857 establishment date)? - Johnlogic (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I found some information about the Minns school on the SJSU site and added (restored?) that to the history. - Johnlogic (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note: Editors requested to ensure schools' actual name--Minns Evening Normal School--is not changed. It wasn't atypical to not use the possessive in this case. All reports of the school list it as such. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)