Talk:Shimer Great Books School

Unique name shortening
Now this was a brilliant edit. When speaking of this institution, people sometimes shorten it from "Shimer College" to just "Shimer"? I'm so glad this information was included in the article. Otherwise, I may have been totally confused when meeting someone who said something like, "I got my bachelor's degree from Shimer", I would probably have concluded that they found it on the ground while getting gas in Shimer, Pennsylvania, or perhaps that they had gotten it from a person named Shimer. I'm so glad that other colleges and universities do not engage in such a needlessly confusing practice. Can you imagine the uproar if anyone was to refer to The Ohio State University as just "The Ohio State", or if anyone called "Dartmouth College" just plain Dartmouth? I bet a lot of students would get so confused that they would not be able to find their way to their classes and would just end up dropping out. Thanks again to the thoughtful editor who made that point clear. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is common practice in school articles, as a quick glance at, for example Dartmouth College and Ohio State University would reveal. Recall that some schools are commonly shortened to non-obvious names ('Bama, Ole Miss), so it makes some sense to indicate what the common short name is. In any event, it detracts nothing from the article, so why rant about it? I have reverted the edit. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, your use of the examples "'Bama" and "Ole Miss" appear to indicate that you may not understand my point, though you yourself indicate that these are non-obvious. Look, a person could learn one day that there was a place called "Ole Miss" and a few days later learn that there was a place called "the University of Mississippi" and not necessarily recognize that they were one and the same (I know; it happened to me many years ago; upon learning that there was a university in Mississippi called "Ole Miss", I wondered--in no particular order--whether this referred to Mississippi State University, the University of Mississippi, or perhaps some private school that I had not heard of. It's just not obvious), and that's why such nicknames do need to be included in some places, so that the reader who arrives there--perhaps via a redirect-will realize immediately that, yes, she has arrived at the right article.


 * But when one is talking about colleges (and here, the opening sentence includes is a very small, private, undergraduate liberal arts college), and one mentions that the college is "Harvard University" or "Augustana College" or "the University of Texas", one does not then need to clarify that these are shortened to "Harvard", "Augustana", or "Texas", because this is presumed by the entire literate population of the English-speaking world. Insisting upon this would be the equivalent of requiring the following opening sentence in the article of the President of the United States,


 * Barack Hussein Obama II (often referred to simply as Obama) is the 44th and current President of the United States.


 * Now doesn't that look dumb? It is dumb, because all it's doing is enunciating a common practice in the language that does not need explaining.


 * The best argument you have is that other articles do the same thing. Well, sometimes there could be a reason.  I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but Ohio State grads have a penchant for referring to their school at "The Ohio State University", and maybe that justifies a clarifier there.  But ultimately, if a stupid practice is happening at many other articles, does that mean you want to emulate the stupid practice as well?


 * You say it detracts nothing from the article, but clearly it detracted my attention. Step back from this and just think how ridiculous this looks.  Simply put, it's bad writing.  Doesn't your alma mater deserve better than bad, stupid writing? 98.82.34.127 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:BRD, the point of which is to revert and discuss, not revert and just revert. I would prefer if you would discuss this point before further edits and I will do the same. Respectfully, this is a very minor point, the emphasis of your response is not proportionte to the issue, and this is not worth an edit war. It seems to me you are taking issue with a widespread practice with respect to articles about schools. What you call "emulation" I call "consensus" which we are supposed to to respect where we can. If you are adopting a universal point of view (i.e., that is, as you so politely put it, "stupid") you could bring it up at one or more project pages. If you take issues with this article, I think you must address the prior consensus. On the merits, it does add value to clarify that the schools nickname is something seemingly obvious (e.g., "Michigan") since so many nicknames are not obvious (e.g., "State" for Michigan State). To your query in the priot edit summary reagarding schools that are not nicknamed the way Shimer is, I offer Boston College (never "Boston") and Ohio University (never "Ohio") and there are others. Exceptions abound and it is not as safe to assume as you suggest. So it *is* helpful to clarify the point in passing. Stepping back as you suggest, I do not agree that it is ridiculous or distracting, nor do I believe the average reader would get seriously hung up about it. I do however, think your comments are condescending and insulting, which distracts from my ability to take them seriously. I would prefer to restore the edit. If you have further, hopefully helpful and collaborative, thoughts, I follow this page. Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, it's your school, and clearly, it's your article, so I won't revert your inevitable return to the previous form. I admit that my arguments were hastily assembled, thus, were far from perfect. But I think that the Average Joe would wonder why my points needed any clarification at all.  All the exceptions you point out merely prove the point I am making.  Yes, there are exceptions to the standard expectation, and those warrant clarification.  Maybe it's 50% of all schools.  Maybe it's 60%  Who cares?  In this article, it's purposeless, adds nothing, and hence, constitutes crappy writing.  Why is Boston College never shortened to "Boston"?  Because Boston University is a similarly sized post-secondary school in the same town, so of course its necessary to clarify it.  Now what exactly was it that people were going to be confusing with Shimer?


 * By the way, I've got several friends and acquaintances who are alumni of Ohio University, but even if you do not, a quick glance at the sports pages will reveal your information above about that school's nickname is in error. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not saying you don't have a point. I am saying that any argument which requires that all of the experienced editors who created and reviewed this article and others like it (including Dartmouth College) be stupid is not a very good one. There is a reason this device has been included and not objected to. It seems to me that where similar articles that use the "often shortened to" device (should you care to look), it generally proceeds the pronunciation key. That makes sense. In this case, the IPA and pronunciation key are for "Shimer", not "Shimer College", which is jarring and inconsistent. Even as a formality, it is helpful to say: Here is what the subject is usually called and here is how to pronounce it.


 * I claim no ownership of the article or I would not be striving for consensus with someone who is not apparently striving all that hard to be civil. Is your goal to improve the article? If so, please propose a solution. If your goal is to insult the writing, I would say you have already achieved it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting no further discussion or objection, I will restore the original edit. Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Was computerless for a spell there, keeping me from replying. But as promised, I won't revert you, even though I disagree. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What a stupid argument. The owner of this article makes a piece of dog crap case for her point, but she won't get a debate out of me--no point in arguing over an article read only by alumni and Random Article button pushers like myself. No, I'm going to leave this behind and go change the opening of Albany, New York to read:


 *  Albany, New York, (often referred to as Albany) is the capital city . . .


 * Ha! You obviously have no idea how silly your argument is, or how ridiculous your guarding of this article appears to be. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've said nothing to convince me or anyone else that it is. If you have a point to make, make it. If your only point is to be trollish and insulting, go away. Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Washington Monthly Ranking of "Worst College"
Another editor has begun an edit war to ensure this article includes the sentence "In 2014, the Washington Monthly ranked Shimer as the worst college in America, based on a combination of graduation rate, student debt, and percentage of minority and low-income students." He or she included a reference from the magazine and an article from The Guardian that (erroneously) refers to the Washington Monthly article.

As I stated when I initially reverted the first edit that inserted this material into the article, it's a distortion of the article to simply say that it ranked this college the "worst college in America" without providing any additional context or information. The article was a thought exercise exploring the complexity of creating college rankings in the context of a new effort by the federal government to create a new set of college rankings, not an actual attempt at ranking colleges. To that end, the author went through a series of experiments where he used different criteria and weights to create four different lists; Shimer College was included in two of them and was only ranked number one in one of those lists. So it's incredibly misleading and dishonest to simply tell readers that Washington Monthly ranked this college as the worst in the country based on an article that (a) wasn't really about create rankings for use but about demonstrating the challenges inherent in create ranking systems and (b) didn't conclusively rank any college or university. ElKevbo (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added information to the section to more accurately describe the ranking referred to, using language taken directly from the article. I have also referred directly to the Washington Monthly piece, in in particular that portion thereof that refers directly to Miller's article and his quote that refers to it. I hope this makes the information both more accurate and neutral. Please do not revert without discussion. Thanks. Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes
Although I haven't been active here for some time and so really can't complain, I am troubled by the edits over recent months, which seem to have brought this article into substantial noncompliance with the featured article criteria for reasons that are not particularly clear. Does the casual reader really need to be deluged with so many minutiae about Shimer and its (admittedly fascinating) history? -- Visviva (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is a mess. I cleaned a few things up today, but it is a much larger project. It needs a good scrubbing for copy, MOS, and consistent sourcing among other things. I will try to chip away at it when I have time. But assistance from any quarter would be greatly appreciated. Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I made a pretty good start today. I condensed a lot of the sections to comply with WP:UNIGUIDE again and did a lot of general copyediting. I fixed the most egregious of the citation problems and what WP:MOS issues I could see. I doubt it would sail through WP:FAC in its current form, but it is better. I will scrub more when I have the chance. It needs a really good copyedit and MOS review (the latter of which I am not really qualified to do).
 * The main thing is that a lot of the information is now out of date. It cites a lot of sources from 2009 and 2010. If someone felt inclined to source more recent info, it would improve things a lot.
 * Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as it does not meet FA standards, might it be worth submitting it to FAR? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

School still Open?
I notice that changed the tense in the article to indicate the school is still open but these changes were reverted by  because they weren't sourced. I found two articles, one that talks about how the school is being acquired by North Central college and another in the Chicago Reader confirming that the acquisition has happened and the school is still in existence. So IMO, the edits are now justified. I think a few more minor changes originally made would need to be redone (or just revert back to the version by Know4Free and include my two references) but before I did any more work wanted to post this to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything and that we have a consensus. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess the issue is that the college is no longer an independent entity, now it's been absorbed into another school. But I see the point of the people at the school: the teachers, the way they do things, still lives on and we're doing a dis-service to users if we give the impression that the place has just stopped existing. For example, the Haas_School_of_Business is part of Berkeley but it still has an article of it's own, I think the same should be reasonable here, even if we have to change the name of the article from Shimer College to whatever it's called now. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to move this article and update it so that it's clear to readers that this college has been absorbed by another institution and is now one program (among many) at that institution then that would be fine. But it's not acceptable to edit this article so that it says or implies that Shimer College as a standalone entity still exists and is continuing to operate as it has operated until recently. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Reader article says "The Great Books institution makes a move to North Central College" i.e., the institution still exists. It also says that most of the students and faculty have made the move. So it's the same institution. Before this latest move it was already part of IIT and it was still called Shimer College in the article and it said it was open. I see no difference between that case and the current case except it's moved from IIT to North Central College. Can you explain how moving to IIT meant the college was still described in the present tense but moving to North Central College means it's now being described in the past tense? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I gave this some more thought and looked at the references (as well as the web site for Shimer) I realize you are correct. I think the article could be changed so that it's renamed to "Shimer Great books program" or whatever the proper name for the new group within North Central is and then at that point the tenses could be changed but until someone does that it gives the wrong message to say that Shimer College itself is still open. I left a message on the talk page of the person who made the original change offering to help them make that kind of change but haven't heard back from them yet. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

FA in need of review
This Featured Article is in need of an update in order to comply with FA criteria.

Problems:
 * Notable alumni subsection is mostly unsourced;
 * From what I gather, this College was acquired by another college in 2017. While the article was put in the past tense to reflect this, there's no mention of how this process went down (the History section makes no mention of it) or why. Lack of funds? I have no idea, and the article does not tell me;
 * Several small sentences were added throughout the text to reflect the acquisition, but they are all unsourced:
 * "In 2017, seven Shimer faculty joined the Shimer School of Great Books at North Central College."
 * "As of 2017, tuition and fees for the Shimer School will be identical to those of North Central College."
 * "As of June 1, 2017, the Shimer School of Great Books of North Central College is located on the campus of North Central in Naperville, Illinois."
 * "This inclusive model of governance was unique in American higher education."
 * "... led the College to its new future at North Central College and was awarded an honorary doctorate in April 2017 in recognition of her service."
 * "As students at North Central, Shimerians will have access to the full range of student services and student organizations."
 * "Whether these programs will continue at North Central is unknown."
 * "This program will continue at North Central."

It's very curious how this article reads as if the college is stuck in time. Needs an update to make its current status more obvious. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should the article perhaps be brought up on FAR? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors are limited to one FAR per week; if you register an account, you could pitch in. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, like Sandy said above, I'm limited in my capacity to open new nominations (1 per week). On top of that, I wasn't planning on opening new noms during the festivities. But the article can be submitted to FAR, yes, and will probably be, sooner or later, if the issues above aren't fixed in the mean time. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:207.161.86.162, at FAR now. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)