Talk:St. John's College (Annapolis/Santa Fe)/Archive 1

The list
The Annapolis and Santa Fe websites give and respectively as their reading lists. They are identical. Consequently I've harmonized the list with these websites and am describing it as "the" St. John's list.

I think it's stupid to suppress the first names and present W. E. B. Dubois as Dubois, and think those truncations should be removed... what do others think? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any comments, I went ahead and did it. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The seminar Reading List is identical for both campuses, and the new format looks fine. --Mister Tattle 06:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In actual fact, the seminar reading list is not quite identical between the two campuses. There are differences between what is in fact read, and differences in the order of the readings. The lists are for the most part the same, of course. But there are subtle differences.


 * Yes, the lists often differ—each campus has an Instruction Committee and both lists change over time.


 * Also, shouldn't it be made clear that these lists are the seminar reading lists and do not include a great amount of material read in the math, language, lab, and music tutorials? Whenever I see the SJC education characterized as the seminar reading list, it strikes me that it's no wonder that so many students do not really expect the math and science many will struggle through.

Santa Fe does not read Middlemarch. Annapolis does not read Gulliver's, i think. Annapolis has a music seminar every year. Santa Fe only has one, senior year, Tristan and Isolde.

Reality Weekend
I attended St. John's College, Santa Fe campus in the 1997-98 and 98-99 years, and I attended Reality. It was just as rowdy and bacchanalian as described below - no, more so. One of the events one year was a staged wrestling match (a la WWF), in which several students and one faculty member participated. Staged wrestling matches often involve real blood and real injuries (sometimes planned, sometimes not), and this was no exception. In the climax, one of the student-wrestlers was choke-slammed through a flourescent lightbulb (the kind that is several feet long; it was resting on two chairs). The choke-slammed student ended up rolling around in shattered glass, quite visibly bleeding. The student was not disconcerted by this fate; he continued the match for several minutes after this, went to the hospital later to have the glass removed from his skin, and described his experience with pride and joy to me and others in the following days. I watched this wrestling match with my own eyes; I myself helped clean up the blood afterward, and best of all, I HAVE THE WHOLE THING ON VIDEOTAPE.

Another fun thing about St. John's is the shady student government. (By the way, I'm not complaining here - I think its all very amusing.) Student government raised money for Reality weekend by 1) running an annual gambling event called Lola's, 2) selling beer, 3) selling cigarettes 3) selling massages (I am not making this up - I don't know whether massages should be in quotation marks, because I never paid for one!). That was the stuff they did OPENLY. Not so openly. . . well, I better not get into it.

Is it true that "everyone gets smashed and the administration looks the other way" on Reality weekend? Well, not everyone gets smashed. Although the school is not religiously affiliated, there was a large contingent of Christians with conservative lifestyles among the students, at least when I attended. But plenty of people get smashed. And as far as I could tell, the administration doesn't look at all. (They will get sued one day for something if they haven't already.) Having since attended a large, mainstream university that also has a reputation as a "party school", my impression is that Johnnies (as St. John's students style themselves) are not any rowdier than typical college students; the difference is that at St. John's the rowdiness happens on campus (in dorms and other areas) and is funded by student government. Part of the reason is that at the Santa Fe campus (where I attended), there is no where convenient for college students to go get trashed in the immediate area, as the campus is located on the outskirts of town and it isn't really a college town anyway (there is a community college but no major university in Santa Fe).

I am uncomfortable with the lack of sources for this section, inserted by an anon. I hope the anon will create an account and discuss here.

The college website makes it clear that such an event exists.

The anon's description gives the impression that it is an alcohol-drenched carnival of debauchery.

I'm particularly bothered by the line to the effect that "In addition to the ubiquitous presence of beer during Reality, freshmen are woken up each morning with hard liquor. It is of course not forced upon them if they really do not want it." If this is factual, it should indeed be in the article. It is not our job to be a PR outlet for any college's admissions department. But could it be an exaggerated account of a custom in one dorm or fraternity or whatever?.

It needs to be crystal-clear, preferably by reference to press or similar sources, what the college administration's policy toward alcohol is, both stated and (if different from stated) real. The paragraph gives the impression that everyone gets smashed and the administration looks the other way. Could be true, but I don't see how we can say that on the authority of one anon.

For the time being I'm putting a "disputed" tag on the section. If nothing happens to buttress this section with good, verifiable sources, I intend to remove it.

Now, frankly, I believe the description. I don't want to remove it. What I want is to see the story told, not as unattributed text from an anon, but as a linked group of colorful quotations from student publications or local news media that present the same view of Reality Weekend but put the specific statements in the mouths of verifiable outside sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Reality most certainly is an alcohol saturated debauchery of occasional epic proportions. The problem is that it's certainly not anything the College would want to document.  In what context would the students?  It occurs to me, however, that now in the age of blogs, perhaps some students will blog about Reality.

http://www.panimp.com/images/archives/2005/Feb/23/monster_maus has a nice remark:
 * This weekend St John’s celebrated the the traditional Reality, three days of drugs, song and sex to send their Seniors off to make their fortunes. I paid dues and so enjoyed the free alcohol, cigarettes and dance (with skirts of floral design.) We did all the great things: Denny’s at midnight, climbing fences and the water tower, told dreams of meeting death, danced with gin and tonic, and went to sleep as the birds awoke. Cameron busted his toe and lost some beard while playing Spartan Madball.

I have removed the following material from the main article. Please do not reinsert it until good, verifiable references are provided indicating that this is an accurate characterization of the weekend. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reality Weekend
Every year at each campus is a weekend in early May which is designated Reality weekend. The official College description is:


 * This is a theme party run by juniors the weekend before commencement featuring mock-Olympic games, Miss Sophrosune Contest (a mock beauty contest), Sophistry Contest, epicycle races, food, drinks, live music, a game of Spartan-madball, and a skit-parody of campus life.

The sophomore class is responsible for raising money throughout the year and organizing the weekend. In particular, a theme, usually from a Great Book, is chosen and the campus is transformed by the sophomores into the early hours of Friday.

Reality is probably most notable for the campus-wide party atmosphere, especially at the Santa Fe campus since it can be considered isolated in comparison with the Annapolis campus. Administration allows some alcohol to be provided on account of the educational experience (simulating Greece and Rome), but as many as 40 kegs are rented for 400 - 500 students. In addition to the ubiquitous presence of beer during Reality, freshmen are woken up each morning with hard liquor. It is of course not forced upon them if they really do not want it.

Other notable activities during reality include morning cartoons with breakfast, sophistry contest, evening concerts, ring wrestling, jello wrestling, and the closing event of Reality weekend on Sunday afternoon, Spartan Madball.

Firsthand Account of Reality
I attended the Annapolis campus, but only for a year. However, I've stayed in touch with people, including the primary author of the Reality skit two years running. Reality is unique, and the accounts quoted above do ring true with what I've seen. But it's anything but standardized--I would say that it's different every year, and certainly different on each campus, because different students are involved every four years. The year I was there the skit sucked, but the Spartan Madball day was epic. In other years, the skit has been a high point, I hear. Alcohol is certainly ubiquitous--at least when I was there SJC had more openly underage drinking than any other college I've been at, especially during Reality. I believe that's changed in the past three years, but to what extent I couldn't say. Regardless, Reality is unique and something objective and non-specific might be good. I may go ahead and have a go at it. It's an awesome and unique party at a awesomely unique school, so it deserves some mention. But it is different every year, so whoever writes/edits the Reality section should probably keep that in mind to avoid disputes. More about the spirit of the event than specific memories would probably be acceptable to all. --Mister Tattle 06:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism"
The anonymously-added "Criticism" section has no attribution, and much POV, some of which I've removed. But while I'm tempted to say that whoever wrote it is just jealous, there are some good points in there. I'd just like to see the name of someone who's said any of that. --zenohockey 21:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen, brother. This section has got to name the "critics." And it has to tell more of its story by using the critics' own words. And it needs some balance. In its present form, I think it's completely unacceptable and I'm removing it for the time being, pending discussion. It reads rather like a personal essay to me. Like zenohockey, I'm not saying it doesn't make some interesting and probably valid points.

And, really: "Other critics claim that the proscription of secondary sources is detrimental to the student." Well, students who agree should not go to St. John's. It's not as if the college's educational philosophy were a big secret. It's rather like saying "Critics complain that the emphasis on music at Berklee College of Music is detrimental to the student" or "Critics complain that the cooperative work-study program at Antioch distracts students from concentrating completely on their academic subjects."

The material I've removed follows. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Criticism


 * The educational philosophy of St. John’s College is a contentious issue in academia, where some feel that, despite the persistent claims of superiority by those who advocate the St. John’s program, the college does not adequately prepare students to breathe in the intellectual climate of today. Their main arguments can be organized as follows:


 * Some critics point to the school's non-didactic approach to learning, arguing that group learning is only efficacious when those involved possess a high level of intellectual maturity. St. John’s espouses a “one class fits all” doctrine, which asserts that students of all ages and educational backgrounds can come together in a classroom setting and have a coherent philosophical discussion. In this way, the quality of the class is dependent entirely upon the quality of the students, whereas in a traditional university, the quality of the class depends on the competence of the professor. Another problem critics see, resulting from the tendency of tutors to refrain from interfering with discussion, is that the ratio of answers to questions remains very high, and very often the answers to more concrete, textual questions which are answered (by the students) are incorrect. Thus, students exercise their intellectual muscle, but may not always fully comprehend the material; they gain only a superficial conversance with philosophical works.


 * Other critics claim that the proscription of secondary sources is detrimental to the student. The idea behind this is that the “Great Books” confront philosophical matters which are universal in nature, matters which transcend the authors’ particular historical moments. As such, as books that examine the human condition which remains essentially the same through time, they are self-contained, and require no outside sources to be understood, in the fullest sense. Consequently, St. John’s does not provide any historical or authorial context, and actually discourages its students from researching these on their own. While critics accede that the subjects of these books are universal, they claim (pointing to Friedrich Schleiermacher, the great hermeneutist, among myriad others) that every book is inextricably tied to its author and the historical moment during which he was working, and to sever these ties releases the books into a contextual vacuum of meaninglessness. Greek tragedy provides an example: one cannot understand Sophocles without understanding the theatron, which all the Greek tragedians specifically wrote their plays for. At St. John’s, Sophocles is read without any background information, without any discussion of the orchestra, alter, skene, and so on, nor of strophe and antistrophe. “How then,” critics ask, “can one possibly understand the plays?” Thus, the parochiality of the St. John’s approach to books, critics claim, leads not to polymathy, but dilettantism.


 * Finally, critics bring up the St. John’s science program, which is neither a historical, nor philosophical, nor traditional examination of science. The program consists of readings of original publications by scientists whose theories are in some way associated with contemporary scientific paradigms. (Thus giving the possibly erroneous impression that the development of science is linear.) The program does not include any examination of epistemology or metaphysics, i.e. how we know what we know and what the existential status of the external world is; these subjects, which Einstein claimed are "dependent" on science and science on them, are eschewed both in and out of class. Again, the St. John’s approach to books precludes historical and authorial details necessary to understand the works (especially science works) from being considered. In addition, formulas, nomenclature, laws, and so on, are not required to be memorized. Critics argue that to be an erudite individual, one must possess not only a deep understanding of concepts, but the jargon terms that refer to those concepts. Without a conversance with these specialized vocabularies, one simply cannot communicate with others (from traditional universities, for example, where terminology is emphasized).


 * Thanks, Dpbsmith. And to the coward who put the section back up: either cite some sources, protest here on the talk page, or go   away.


 * And for what it's worth:
 * Quine said a lot of things. "(See Quine)" is profoundly unhelpful.
 * Regarding the science issue. The goal of this aspect of the program is obviously NOT to teach the student up-to-the-second scientific knowledge; if it were, we'd just throw out Aristotle's Parts of Animals and read some generic biology textbook.  The point is, rather, to teach students to reason scientifically, to better observe the world around us, etc.  And, to make a point that's almost too obvious to make, Mr. 70.32.7.36's "economic speech about [science's] subject matters" didn't exist when Aristotle or whoever
 * Further...
 * Kuhn's paradigms &mdash; Students here get a front-row seat of the progression of paradigms! Watson & Crick obviously didn't use the same one as Aristotle, did they?  And frankly, I'm astonished a Kuhnite wouldn't like St. John's, given that science is discussed in the most non-dogmatic way possible.
 * Secondary sources on literature &mdash; Yes, the dean told us we shouldn't read them. But I personally paid him no heed; I even brought my Hayden White with me to Annapolis, and am reading Bernard Knox's introductions to the Iliad and Odyssey. And... the library and bookstore are filled with secondary sources.  And... the school subscribes to JSTOR at what I'd imagine to be a hefty cost, so contemporary argument is obviously not verboten.  Why, as we speak, I'm reading an article on Vico's "discovery of the true Homer."  And if you object that that's a red herring, give me an example of a good secondary source.  And... if someone really wants to read one, and present a cogent argument from it in seminar, they're free.  So if any student really thinks that critic so-and-so has something important to say about something, by all means, they can bring it up.  Frankly, this whole line of thought is bizarrely illogical, and if I wanted to do some armchair psychologizing, I'd say it reflected an unhealthy animus toward the school.
 * And by the way, kids here are smart enough to grasp what a skene is, even if they don't know the term for it.


 * I don't mean to be too hostile, but the brazen behavior of whoever keeps doing this just invites it. --zenohockey 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've once again removed the section, and have requested page protection. --zenohockey 05:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) See Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism. 2) As a St. John's student, I dont expect you to have read Kuhn (or Quine), or even be familiar with his theories (beyond knowing that the jargon term "paradigm" is somehow associated with his ideas). If you did, you would know immediately that St. John's examination of science is not a Kuhnian examination, nor is it anywhere close to this. Individual scientists are "studied" (if reading a few excerpts qualifies as "studying"), NOT paradigms, nor ordinary/extraordinary science and its relation to paradigmatic science. Kuhn espoused a radically relativistic, nonteleological veiw of science, where epistemological issues decussate the domain of metaphysics (which some claim was his theoretically fatal mistake). Absolutely none of this is considered at St. John's, in fact, it is eschewed (like I said in the essay), i.e. the curriculum is so logocentric that paradigms are entirely passed over. Futhermore, I dont know a single "Kuhnite" who does like the St. John's science program. Nor did Einstein or Russell, who (are not Kuhnites, of course, but) both wrote essays specifically mentioning the St. John's science program. They had only pejorative statements to make about it. Thus, I believe it is important to include these facts in an informative article. 3) It doesnt matter what YOU do: I am not referring to the individual actions of recalcitrants such as yourself, but to the policies of the college. Last time I was in the bookstore, I was told I pronounced Levinas wrong (the lady pertinaciously claimed it was a hard "i"). The only way someone can bring up a secondary source in seminar is to NOT site it! Thus, this section too should be posted, since it, despite your comments, depicts the St. John's situation more or less accurately. 4) I am not an aggresively disputatious individual, but I feel strongly that, for the benefit of the reader, this or an essay similar to it be posted, providing insight into the manifold problems with the educational philosophy. I understand that you, as a St. John's student, have a vested interest in this page, and therefore are not inclined to include my addition. But, in the St. John's spirit of dialectical exchange, why not post it up? It will give people something to cogitate, and thats what St. John's is all about: cogitators, not regurgitators! Carnaptime 18:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What can go in articles, what can go on personal user pages, what can go on Talk pages


 * Just to be crystal clear. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for personal essays or original research, no matter how well founded that research might be. In an article in the encyclopedia&mdash;the "main namespace"&mdash; the kind of reference that is needed to support a statement about
 * "a larger phenomenon at St. John’s of jargon suppression"
 * is a citation which
 * names a person
 * whose authority can be judged by the reader
 * who says something about "jargon suppression" at St. John's.
 * The citation cannot just drop a name, it must enable a curious reader to find and read the passage and understand the context. So a proper citation (e.g. a page reference to a print source, or a URL to an online text) is needed.
 * If you are making an original argument, and explaining and buttressing one of the points in the argument with a reference to Quine, that won't wash.
 * If the criticism of St. John's is really well known, it shouldn't be hard to find someone citable who has said so.
 * The source doesn't need to be someone of Quine's stature. If St. John's has an alumni magazine or a student newspaper in which this sort of thing has been bruited about, I'd accept that. Or if the president has given a speech in which he refutes these criticisms, that would be fine, too.
 * But unnamed "critics" that claim, and point to, and bring up, won't do.


 * Material bearing on the effectiveness of St. John's unusual educational methods, how St. John's is regarded by traditional institutions, etc. certainly would be appropriate to have in the article. Articles do not need to be puff pieces or resemble admissions office brochures. But any such material needs to be handled very carefully, with a Neutral point of view, and with cited sources. Material critical of St. John's needs to be so neutral and well referenced that any open-minded St. John's advocate would agree with its inclusion.


 * By the way, Carnaptime, you are free to post any essays you like, within reasonable limits, on your own user space. If you "feel strongly that, for the benefit of the reader, this or an essay similar to it be posted," you can put it in your presently-unused page. And by the way, user pages get indexed by Google so people will be able to find it just about as easily as they can find one in the main namespace.


 * And this Talk page is a suitable place for "dialectical exchange." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * P. S. I think page protection is premature, but it might be a good time for everyone to familiarize themselves with the Three revert rule. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For what (little) it's worth: I'm a St. John's graduate who thinks that although the deleted section above is excessively POV, the St. John's page ought to have some (properly sourced, NPOV) content about criticism of the Program. It's only fair. &mdash;Josiah Rowe 05:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree completely.


 * As someone with no connection whatsoever to St. John's I've always been intensely curious as to how St. John's graduates fare after graduation, particularly when they enter grad schools at traditional universities. How the heck does a traditional university figure whether they've met the prerequisites or not? My guess is that the difference between St. John's and traditional colleges may be less than meets the eye, and that the sort of synthesis and "secondary" viewpoint normally provided by textbooks is in fact presented in the classroom instead. My mental picture, of course, is of a sort of Amish academy where the cloistered, isolated students emerge at the end of four years and blink their eyes in bewildered wonderment at Picasso, iPods, and the discovery extrasolar planets. But I suspect that is not accurate. I'll bet instructors use a bit of verbal sleight-of-hand from time to time. And I'll bet the school bookstore keeps copies of Samuelson's Economics hidden behind the counter, and sells them on the sly to students, in plain brown wrappers. Or in counterfeit dustjackets that say "The Wealth of Nations."  Dpbsmith (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * When I applied there, they had a quite reasonable library, and it didn't only have copies of the Great Books. Septentrionalis 22:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Dpbsmith, for improving the article greatly. I hope you will continue to do so.
 * For what it's worth&mdash;Yes, I am indeed a student at St. John's. I am also white, male, and have brown hair.  None of these traits precludes me from editing those articles, or from acting to counter what I justifiably believed was malicious vandalism.  I am glad to see that Carnaptime is dedicated to improving the quality of the article, not to spreading baseless criticism out of spite, etc.  As others have pointed out here, the legitimacy&mdash;indeed, the need&mdash;for a Criticisms section is undisputed; the problem was that the essay posted there by an (initially) anonymous user was far too conclusory to belong in an encyclopedia article.  Surely it is far from well-established that one must know what a theatron is in order to understand Aeschylus, for example.
 * And on that note, let's put this unpleasantness behind us and...um, go to sleep. --zenohockey 06:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A response from 204.69.190.75
As a current student at St. John's, I feel obliged to respond to this "Criticism" section--with mixed subjectivity and objectivity, I grant, and even, perhaps, with a slight slant towards the former. I can offer no defense of my prejudices, preconceptions, or otherwise.

I suppose the most coherent argument will be the one that begins side by side with the "Criticism," and follows, from point to point, the less than poignant arguments made by our anonymous benefactor, the honey-tongued author of this "Criticism."

While I am struck by the force of the first argument, namely, that the lack of didacticism at St. John's is detrimental to students' mental health, it occurs to me that the argument is not so much an insight, as it is the restatement of a fact we proudly advertise to any and every prospective student, in all the college literature, and on every campus tour. This, of course, does not address the complaints made by critics of the college, so let us move on to those complaints, and for the time being, set aside their mundane nature.

The tutors’ reluctance to interfere with class discussion, presented as it is, misleads the gentle reader, and what is more, displays the ignorance of the writer. Tutors neither refrain from interfering with class discussions, nor interfere with their tonsils atremble and fidgety fingers.

The tutors pose an opening question designed to lead the discussion to a significant end, and quickly obliterate ill-conceived ideas when they are at odds with the text, and when the class begins to latch onto them. On another note, students who detract from the positive, productive dynamic of a class are generally disenabled (thrown out) before the start of their junior year. I have never posted on Wikipedia, so I do not know exactly what is appropriate and what is inappropriate; therefore, as pressing class work demands my attention, I will leave off here. If my post is appreciated (as appropriate, not as persuasive or pleasing) I will return and finish, if not, I will have saved myself some time by not finishing now.


 * 1) What's appropriate is to be bold. Particularly on Talk pages, where almost anything goes, subject to civility.


 * 2) You're on the Talk page, not the main article. The "criticism" section was removed from the main article. It's sometimes considered wise to put deleted material on the Talk page so it can be discussed. I don't think the anon who put in the criticism section is actively editing the article at the moment, though, so it's probably not important to respond.


 * 3) Your writing style is a bit too formal for a Wikipedia Talk page. Wikipedia Talk pages are not exactly part of the Great Conversation. :-)  Dpbsmith (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Should the conclusion to the criticism section include some perspective on the end to which science and math is studied at the college, ie as a supplement to the general philosophical questions of the program over the course of history? -Wilhelm Ritter

All right, Math and Science at the College it is. The man behind these words, by the way, is the very same current student you first became familiar with half a dozen paragraphs ago.

The Math program is, to turn a phrase, the incarnation of pragmatism.

First, allow me to chronicle a few beliefs about the Liberal Arts that tend to put nonprofessionals ill at ease, for the sake of continuity, and with the hope that my description of the Math program will assuage this all too common angst.

One criticism often launched at the Liberal Arts by the multitude of lowbrow laureates is that the subjects therein aren't grounded in reality. I make no claim to an overly admirable, American sense of ambition, but I do aspire to more than the encyclopedic pedantry displayed nationwide at traditional universities, by department chairs and adjunct professors of philosophy, alike. We at the college think of the Great Books Program as an education in the lost art of thought, rather than a just cause to condescend to most anyone who durst cross our path. Rote memorization of the facts of a philosopher's life and work leads one to far too few independent thoughts and far too high an opinion of oneself. Here, the focus is on the cultivation of good thinking. At our college, in the classroom, there is no room for ego. In fact, for any vaguely perceptive individual, ego becomes a joke. Once confronted with the greatest works of the greatest minds of the Western world, the student is forced into a clear, relatively obvious choice: Admit inferiority, abandon ego, and learn like hell, or, with eyes clenched to a close, embrace a grab bag of chuckleheaded, ego-placating delusions.

Opposite this rehearsing once and again of the excruciating catalog of trivial facts, focused with fascist specificity on a single philosopher, or worse, a single work, lies the second of two stereotypical complaints levied against the Liberal Arts. Sophistry, that is.

Around the time film came into its own, a rift could be seen snaking its way across America, dividing the populace into classes based less on wealth, and more on education. Around the same time, the word “culture” came to mean “high culture,” “snobbish culture,” and the like. Blue-collar families gradually abandoned art exhibits, the theatre, poetry, and the novel. This, however, is the subject of another entry. Just know that this rift in American culture gave birth to a tension that still exists today between poetry readers and moviegoers.

In an interview that made anti-intellectuals around the globe cream their pants, Robert Frost chastised literary critics who, he claims, sullied his poem "The Road not Taken," by attaching symbolic meanings to it that he himself, never conceived. Ever since, Academia has been subject to derision and ridicule from the philistines. The same thing probably went on long before the Frost interview, which seems to have merely confirmed the suspicions of the many, many of whom couldn't--and still can't--see the attraction of the Great Books, many of whom felt--and still feel--diminished by their want of desire to participate in what many consider the "loftiest" of pastimes, and many of whom, finally, felt vindicated when Frost tore the intelligentsia down a notch (this is not to say that Frost's rebuke wasn't a long time coming). The Math program at St. John's addresses this criticism in particular.

The Math program, starting with The Elements of Euclid, is a study in the proper way to think. Rather than taking classes in logic, students at St. John's engage some of the most rigorous and remarkable experiments in thought ever offered by human minds. Sophomore year includes Ptolemy, Copernicus, Apollonius, and Archimedes; junior year is a step up, focusing on Newton and Leibniz, among others, before the program comes to a climax senior year, with Einstein. In the study of these thinkers, students are exposed to the ideas that have shaped our world, and simultaneously develop their ability to reason through complex problems and convoluted issues. Finally, the study of math at the college sets an example for students, urging them to approach philosophy, literature, and the liberal arts with the same empiricism, urgency, and methodical precision with which they approached geometry, calculus, and relativity.
 * "...cream their pants..." &mdash; So much for Johnnies just repeating what Plato said ;-)

Criticism revisited
How would one add a St. John's rejoiner to the 'criticism' section in light of the 'no original work' rule of Wikipedia? That is, it seems to me that Russel and Einstein rather miss the point of the science and math curriculum, which is more of an exploration of what science is and a complement to the study of philosophy, and I feel that it would be only fair to say this in the article, but I don't know how to do it. Wilhelm Ritter 17:24, 18 May 2006


 * The best way would be to find an essay, article or talk from a St. John's advocate or supporter that addresses these issues, and quote from it or paraphrase its arguments. I'm not sure where the best place to start would be, but I'd wager that someone like Chris Nelson or Eva Brann has addressed the subject of St. Johns' approach to science and mathematics at some point.  The key thing is to find something that's been previously published, which could be a newspaper or magazine article, something from the alumni magazine, or even a lecture or speech that's been transcribed and sold in the bookstore.  As long as it can be cited, that should take care of the "no original research" concerns. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Arts, Inc.
Searching a database of New York Times articles for references to other schools incorporating the St. John's approach, I came across some stray references to a venture called Liberal Arts, Inc. that involved a college founded, or to be founded, in Pittsfield, MA by Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanan. I've started an article on it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Zig Ziglar
Oh, I'm sorry, I really am. It was really mischievous of me to include some remarks by the famous business motivational speaker, Zig Ziglar. I just happen to think it is hysterically funny to see him commenting that "the books they use are terribly hard" and concluding "Sounds like St. John's is onto something."

I think perhaps someone ought to protect the page again to stop me from doing such things.

So, is Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill on the St. John's reading list yet? All the writers of "Success" literature concur in calling it a "classic." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just for the record, the quotations and reference are 100% authentic. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

P. P. S. Ziglar says "roughly 19 percent... become teachers or administrators. Twenty-seven percent are scattered across professional spectrum, working in government, public affairs, computer science, engineering, and so forth. Another 20 per cent find careers in business and finance, 8 percent go into law, and almost 7 per cent go into the health and medical professions." This was actually the sort of thing I was looking for, for this section, when I ran across Ziglar. But this particular quotation seemed both lengthy, and vague ("scattered across the professional spectrum.") Anyone have anything more precise... succinct... and up-to-date? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Radical Visions
Wow! Dare I call this a "great book?"

Charles A. Nelson (2001), Radical Visions: Stringfellow Barr, Scott Buchanan, and Their Efforts on behalf of Education and Politics in the Twentieth Century. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT. ISBN 0897898044.

Very well written, thorough biography of the dynamic duo replete with all sorts of details and insights.. full of information about St. Johns and Liberal Arts, Inc. some of which I hope to get into the articles.

Well worth digging out if you have any interest in any of this stuff. Probably NOT quite worth it's $90-odd purchase price, however! Dpbsmith (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Masonic clarification
I revised the previous text to "The College's original charter, reflecting the Masonic value of religious tolerance as well as the religious diversity of the founders (they included both Presbyterians and Episcopalians),"

because the previous text spoke of the Masonic faith. Freemasonry is not a faith; it is a fraternal organization. Freemasons are required to believe in a Supreme Being, but they can be of any religion (or no religion). Freemasons heavily emphasize religious tolerance, and they do not discuss religion in their meetings. For a reference, see "Freemasons for Dummies" which is authored by Christopher Hodapp, a Freemason.


 * I wouldn't worry about it. That is, I wouldn't worry about justifying your change; nobody is likely to challenge it. In addition to "Freemasons for Dummies," everything you say is also supported by our own article on Freemasonry. I don't know who wrote that sentence originally but I'm sure it was just a casual misstatement. I don't know much about Freemasonry myself, but I know it's not a religion; it's a fraternal organization which, like many fraternal organizations has some religious overtones. And I've personally know some Jewish Masons and some Catholic Masons so I'm well aware that it is not associated with any single denomination. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon
This edit was made by 71.49.21.45: 'St. John's students style themselves "Johnnies" and tend to revel in what they see as the superiority of the St. John's program over mainstream U.S. college curricula. Johnnies typically deride undergraduate curricula that are oriented toward the transmission of definite knowledge, or toward success in the job market.' I have reverted it and left a POV reminder on the users talk page. AntiVan 01:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)'


 * Well, they do call themselves "Johnnies," and that can be sourced to the college's own website, and that much at least probably should be in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I feel on reflection that my removing it was excessively strict. I see from his edits to this talk page that he was a student there, so his contribution is certainly likely to be correct. I guess when I saw the edit I assumed it was a criticism (in violation of Assume Good Faith. So I will put it back. AntiVan 03:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I.e. Johnnies are in accord with Barr/Buchanan?
As I think about it, I have a problem with this statement:
 * "Johnnies", as St. John's students style themselves, often disdain the notion that intellectual pursuits need have direct practical application.

The problem I have is that this is just a way of saying that students at St. John's are aware of and share the school's core educational philosophy (as shown by Barr's disdainful remark about the "vocational interests and cafeteria courses" that "clutter" other schools' curricula). I'm trying to think of a phrasing that captures this succinctly. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is that necessary? To my way of thinking, it's almost axiomatic that a student at any college will necessarily share its "core educational philosophy," so why bother calling attention to it?  --zenohockey 03:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's sort of my point. I'm not sure which way to go with this, but I think saying that St. John's students "often disdain the notion that intellectual pursuits need have direct practical application" is a slightly distorted rendition of something that doesn't need to be said at all. Students that want their education to have direct practical application are probably not going to choose St. John's. It's sort of like saying "RPI students often place more value on engineering than on theology." However, if it's going to be said at all, I think it needs an "as you'd expect" or "in line with the school's core philosophy" or something like that. I'd be happy to see the remark omitted entirely and replaced with something that just says St. John's students are often called "Johnnies," and leave it at that. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: The List
The reading lists are NOT identical. Someone (not me, I'm a student at SJC Annapolis and too busy currently) needs to go through and fix it. One example is in the sophomore year; Maimonides is read only at the SF campus. Another example is Joyce's "The Dead", which is read at SF and not Annapolis (senior year).

...has inspired many a comparison to Athens and Sparta...
Why do I think this observation is more commonly made at the Athenian college than at the Spartan one? :-)

Once (Sometime in the Spring of 2005), a group of St. John's (SF) students (including me) took a trip to Los Alamos, where an official there pointed to Santa Fe on the map, saying "Athens", and pointed to Los Alamos, saying "Sparta". --David Hand 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss ?
His name was added to the See Also list, and glancing over the article on him I don't see why. Does he have a connection to the Great Books movement, or to St. John's? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From 1969 until his death in 1973, Leo Strauss was the Scott Buchanan Distinguished Scholar in Residence and a member of the teaching faculty at St. John's College, Annapolis MD. During that time, he gave a series of lectures which are available on cassette tape at the college library. Some transcripts from that period are available through straussian.net. Philosophiste 04:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds worth adding back, with brief explanation. His connection with St. John's should be mentioned briefly in the Leo Strauss article, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The primary reason for Strauss' being at the College at the end of his life, as I was told, is that he had been good friends with Jacob Klein during their student years in Germany. Klein was the clear intellectual leader of the College after the exit of Barr and Buchanan until his death. There is a partial transcription (apparently the tape broke during recording or playback) of a talk between them given at the College, called "A Giving of Accounts" which refers to some of this history. The transcript can be found in Klein's Collected Essays (published by the St. John's Press) and was also reprinted in a collection of Strauss' work (although I can't recall which one). As becomes apparent during the transcription, Klein was far from being a "Straussian" as that term is understood today. Steve Thomas, St. John's College, Santa Fe, class of 1974 I should add that although I was never a student on the Annapolis campus during Strauss' stay there, it is my understanding from talking to people who were that Strauss never taught regular classes. He did give lectures, and I believe he may have led some study groups, but I think it would be false to call him a member of the "teaching faculty". Steve Thomas

Jacob Klein (1899-1978) was Dean at St. John's from 1949-58. His essays are available under Jacob Klein Lectures and Essays - St. John's College Press. He was born in Russia but studied in Germany and came to the U.S. in 1938. The essays focus on geometry, mathematics, liberal arts/education, phenomenology,the art of writing/reading, freedom, and ancient philosophy. If this is the same work mentioned above I do not believe there is a section on A Giving of Accounts or Strauss. (If I am mistaken I would appreciate a sub-chapter or page reference.) --Sigao 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, working from memory, was to claim that "A Giving of Accounts: Jacob Klein and Leo Strauss" was reprinted in Klein's "Lectures and Essays". As Siago points out, it was not. The piece is a partial transcript of a public talk between Strauss and Klein given at St. John's College on 30 January 1970, and was first published in the April 1970 issue of a college publication known as "The College". It has been reprinted in a posthumous collection of Strauss writings, "Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Moderen Jewish Thought" edited by Kenneth Hart Green, SUNY Press, 1997, where it appears on pages 457 to 466. Steve Thomas, St. John's College, Santa Fe, class of 1974


 * There is without a doubt an association between Strauss and SJC. However, I think it is very wrong to assume that either the Program, or any particular member of the faculty, is/are Straussian.  Indeed, I believe that the Program is, in a real sense, anti-Straussian.  I was told a little anecdote about Strauss and Klein, who were great friends.  The thrust of it is that Strauss had acolytes and Klein quite intentionally did not.

I have noticed that Leo Strauss was deleted from the "See also" list, whereas both Allan Bloom and Harold Bloom remain. Why? Neither Bloom had any particular connection to the College, while Strauss was actually there for 4 years. I don't think that Strauss is particularly relevant to St. John's College, but he at least HAS a connection, which cannot be said of the two (unrelated to each other ) Blooms. I really don't have an opinion one way or the other about whether Strauss should be listed, but if he's not neither of the Blooms should be. Steve Thomas

Proposed Deletion
I suggest removing the entirety following section at the end of the History section:

“In 2005, St. John's was marred by scandal when it was revealed that the college had employed C.J. McCue to spy on …. was allegedly attacked by Roosevelt Langley, the Annapolis dining hall supervisor.[10]”

That sort of content does not properly fit into the “history” of an institution, and would be better suited to a “recent gossip” section. All colleges are bound to have internal disputes and legal difficulties, and I am sure you could fill a hundred pages with similar scandals at larger institutions, but you don’t find such prattle under their entries. --Sigao 03:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is St. John’s Politically Liberal?
The “Ranking and Reputation” states that St. John’s has a reputation of being politically liberal and left-leaning politically. Although this statement is qualified, I would suggest that it is even more controversial than suggested. It may have made “liberal lists” as claimed, but it also receives excellent reviews in the National Review College Guide. Indeed, according the conspiracy theories now fashionable among certain groups, it would probably be labeled as part of the “Neo-Conservative Cabal” because of its association with Leo Strauss—the new bugbear of the left for inexplicable reasons. (See the mention of St. John’s in Anne Norton’s Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Imperialism.)

The curriculum itself is certainly very traditional, and it does not suffer form any of the “(name your pet social cause)-studies” style classes or majors that pervade many liberal arts colleges. That is not to say that St. John’s doesn’t provide a liberal education, but rather, that it seeks to provide a liberal education in more of the ancient sense of the term than the modern.

While the student body may tend to be left-leaning, like that of almost any college campus, it is also one of the least politically active campuses around. There are no partisan political groups of any persuasion on campus. Some would say this is because of an Ivory Tower mentality, others that it is because the students don’t suffer from the same sense of boredom as they do on other campuses and, therefore, they aren’t tempted to invent causes to rally around. Either way, it is a unique feature among college campuses and it would be a shame to lose it. --Sigao 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, Sigao. My roommate's friend hated Bush, but started up a Leo Strauss reading group &mdash; the posters for which featured a cartoon of Strauss puppeteering the president.  So you tell me.
 * As Sigao alludes, Strauss isn't at all a conservative in the modern political sense of the term, any more than Locke is a liberal. And when a college's students are more likely to measure themselves against these metrics than party platforms, the whole lib.-con. ranking becomes trivial at best.  --zenohockey 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was probably wrong of me to call the campus "politically liberal" just from experience at the Santa Fe campus. My point, however, was that while it may be "politically liberal" it is not liberal in the same way that other colleges are liberal--there are no wandering hippies, queer dances, strong feminism, activism, community service and things like this. Davidav87 11:59, 6 March 2006

Source citations problems in controversial section
Some edit warring is occurring over this material:


 * In 2005, St. John's was marred by scandal when it was revealed that the college had employed C.J. McCue to spy on Mark St. John, then the student activities director for the Santa Fe campus, in an effort to find a reason to dismiss him from the college. He sued the college and settled for a year's severance pay.


 * Students have been complaining about poor treatment by the administration. The college initially refused to conduct an investigation into an alleged rape on the Santa Fe campus. Many students were dismissed from the Annapolis campus after an internal cocaine investigation in which many students claimed that they were falsely accused. There have been complaints about staff attacks on students. Such complaints erupted into student protest when Webster Ye, a senior, was allegedly attacked by Roosevelt Langley, the Annapolis dining hall supervisor.

I happen to think this material as presented is overly long, tendentious, and non-neutral. (As I write this, it's been removed by an un-logged-in user. I am not the one who removed it).

There is, however, a more serious problem with it. Originally the major facts in it were unsourced. Ostensible sources have now been given:


 * 1)  Mark St. John vs. St. John's College (lawsuit records)
 * 2)  Anna Curtis vs. Chad Williams (lawsuit records) widely reported in the Santa Fe New Mexican
 * 3)  Students Punished In Drug Probe Web Site Postings Fault St. John's, Daniel de Vise, February 2, 2006; Page AA03
 * 4)  internal St. John's College security reports, reports filed by Kathryn Jane Murray, Stephen Jablon, and Mark Ingham

It is my view that the first, second, and fourth of these "source citations" do not even come close to meeting the verifiability policy. There is no way, given only the phrase "lawsuit records," that I can check the material. I do not intend to search the "Santa Fe New Mexican" for the "widely reported rape;" dates and page numbers must be provided, and if the material is available online web links would be helpful. As for "internal St. John's College security reports," words fail me. There is no way at all for me or any Wikipedia reader to verify such a "source."

The only properly sourced fact is the one which appeared in the Washington Post, so I'm restoring that item, and that item alone. I don't know whether I think it's appropriate for the article, but at least it meets the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, having found the Washington Post source, it seemed to me that the previous wording didn't properly represent the Washington Post story, so I've edited it according. Having done so, I must say that this seems to me to be an utterly subtrivial item that does not belong in the article. I'm not going to remove it myself, not until there's been further discussion. But, you know, most of those students apparently weren't even expelled. Students are being suspended for sex, drugs, and alcohol at every college in the world and it's been going on for centuries, and it's not particularly notable when the students say they were being treated unfairly and college officials respond by saying they were treated fairly. I mean, my goodness, this is less important than the dead body found at St. John's a couple of weeks ago... and I don't think even that's important enough for the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, goodness. It seems a small faction on campus (actually, most of the participants have withdrawn) has a problem with the administration.  I would suggest that most students (at least, out here on the Fe campus) haven't heard of any of these problems.  We also wonder if they're properly "sourced" here.  There is an online forum started all of a sudden this month with all these "issues", equally unsourced/undocumented.  Interestingly, the SJC alumni mailing list was made aware of it by one Stephen Jablon, formerly a student at the SF campus.  He is supposedly one of the names on the "internal security reports".  Words fail me too.  I don't think there's even any way for a student here to verify these security reports.  I can try to find out, but I don't think it's an appropriate issue.  My thoughts is whoever posted this is one of the people involved.  Sjcodysseus 18:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the verifiability policy is clear that "the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." I bent over backwards a bit to find the Washington Post link because I did want something to remain, because removing everything seemed a little bit redolent of whitewashing... And a citation that gave a reporter, date, and page number seemed as if it shouldn't be hard to verify.


 * A small fraction on campus has a problem with the administration? How very odd. On most campuses it's a substantial fraction. [[image:ironyalert.gif]] Dpbsmith (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see that the unverifiable material was removed, though I did not remove it myself. Dpbsmith, thanks for editing the Washington Post story to present it accurately.  That said, it is surprising that students being investigated for drugs and denying the allegations was newsworthy enough to even make the Washington Post, and I agree that it does not belong in the article.  Must have been a slow day at the Washington Post. --Sigao 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why this information should be included in the history section. It is certainly not of any great significane as compared to the many number of similar lurid and embarassing events that must have occured in the history of the college. It should certainly be moved from the history section, maybe to current events or better yet to the section which deals with tripe. If anyone were to ask my opinion I would recommend deletion. - A student

If I may pile on: Everything here is either untrue or of no import. The cafeteria worker didn't attack anyone; he apparently grabbed the moron's arm to keep him from stealing a cup (this became a real problem after a while), and the latter, intentionally or not, threw the beverage on the former&mdash;and given the ready availability (not to mension sanction from the RAs) of alcohol, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a handful of kids did cocaine. No one else should be, either, no matter what college you're talking about. --zenohockey 03:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Apartheid" and recent anon addition
An anon user recently added a great deal of material with an anti-St. John's POV. I've tried to incorporate the legitimate criticisms into appropriate sections, while removing what was hopelessly POV. One aspect which I was unable to find a place for was the anon's assertion that the lack of racial diversity among St. John's student body, when combined with the largely African-American workforce at the college, amounted to an unintentional "apartheid". On the one hand, this is obviously a hugely POV and needlessly provocative formulation. On the other hand, if we can find a verifiable source of St. John's being criticized for its lack of racial diversity (possibly with connection to the domination of the curriculum by "dead white males"?), it might be an important addition to the article. I'm not sure whether the fact that nearly all the manual workers at a college in a small Maryland city are African-American is notable or not; I strongly suspect that the composition of the workforce at St. John's is similar to that of the Naval Academy, or Annapolis hotels. But the anon does have a point about the effect, which does give an appearance of a largely white student body and faculty, and a largely black staff. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is your affiliation with St. John's Collge? Who are you to decide what is and is not POV, or what is and is not included? I am a former student who thinks it is paramount to include information about the segregation of the school. There is the verification you requested... and what does the Naval Academy or Annapolis hotels have to do with St. John's College? You can "suspect" all you want, it is a matter of fact that the Annapolis campus is highly segregated. And this should be included. See my comments above. (note: comments moved below, in accordance with usual Wikipedia talk page practices.)

If the sections I added are not up by tomorrow, I will put them up. Again, feel free to add FACTS if you would like, but please do not SUBTRACT them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.32.7.36 (talk • contribs) 23:29, February 12, 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote the long comment below while you were writing the above, but I'll respond here as well: like yourself, I'm a St. John's alum. I have no more authority than you do to determine what is or isn't POV — I'm merely using my own judgement, just like you are.  (If you haven't read WP:NPOV, this might be a good time, so that you know Wikipedia's policies on the subject.)  If you feel the article — as it currently stands — is too biased in favor of St. John's, please do add more information.


 * I don't feel that I've subtracted much information at all from your additions. I rephrased the information in what I hoped was a more neutral manner — for example, I don't think that the phrasing "St. John's is highly segregated" is neutral language.  It's more neutral to say, "St. John's student body is 92% Caucasian — which I added to the article, in case you missed it.  I've rearranged and rephrased your contributions, but I've removed very little.


 * I mentioned the Naval Academy and Annapolis hotels as other institutions in the same city which have janitorial staff, cooks and security guards. My point in mentioning them was that it might not be considered notable that most of the St. John's staff are African-American.  However, I'm not adamant about this point — if others think that the racial composition of the staff is noteworthy, please put it back into the article.  As always, I bow to the consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the so-called segregation is completely inaccurate. I am currently attending St. John's in Santa Fe and I don't think I have seen one Black worker yet, although I know a few Black and Asian students. By contrast, when I was doing my MA at SLU, the program had only white people, the cafeteria workers were all black, and the groundskeepers were all Mexican. I noticed it myself many times and commented about it to others. At St. John's we DO study "dead white males" and perhaps this is why some more politically minded students prefer to go to a different school and study (insert current fad of choice)-studies instead. Unlike MOST schools, St. John's does not ask about race in its application.Spacelord 12:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there good, published material on the racial composition of St. John's staff... and its comparison to that of other local institutions? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions
First of all, I think it's important to include the entire quote from Hook; after all, why not include it?!?

Second, the facticity of the statements added to the Reputation section are indisputable, and therefore, in the spirit of Wikipdia (as well as St. John's!) must be kept. Facts by themselves cannot be POV, only the selective presentation of facts. Therefore, instead of removing, for example, the paragraph on segregation, I encourage the St. John's student who moniters this page (presenting his own point of view) to add more facts, if they are available. Adduce some statistic about how many more individuals falling into some enthic minority matriculate at St. John's today, vs. how many matriculated in past decades. But do not remove the added sections, or I will continue to edit the previous page, which, by not including these facts, is implicitly POV.

Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, and for everyone to decide which editions should be kept. The St. John's page is currently monitered by St. John's students, who are clearly averse to additions which, although factual, may put St. John's in a bad light. I myself have visited St. John's many times, and am always consternated at the white/black segregation; I think the Annapolis campus has less than 5 African-American students, all the rest are white. This certainly deserves attention, and I insist that it does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.32.7.36 (talk • contribs) 23:29, February 12, 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss this point by point. The reason I questioned whether the entire Hook quote was necessary is that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the goal of an article should be to summarize arguments rather than present them in their entirety and original context.  I'm not sure whether the quote from Richard Courant adds a great deal that isn't already covered in the quote from the more notable Bertrand Russell.  However, please note that although I asked whether we need the entire Hook quote, I didn't remove anything from it — I merely formatted it to make it clear what is Hook and what isn't.  I also removed the characterization of Hook's essay as "often cited", because I'm not sure that's accurate (often cited where?  by whom?)


 * Second, the standard for Wikipedia articles is not whether information is truthful (as in many cases opinions may vary about what is or isn't true), but whether it is verifiable. Some of the information you added to the "Reputation" section was verifiable, but was not directly related to St. John's reputation.  I moved the information about the absence of tests, etc., to the "Curriculum overview" section, which seemed more appropriate to me.  Similarly, the racial makeup of St. John's, although certainly important, isn't really an aspect of the college's ranking or reputation, so I started a section on the student body in which I included what statistics I could find about the school's racial makeup.  I think that saying "The student body is 92% Caucasian", with a footnote directing the reader to statistics on the college's own website, is more encyclopedic and more accurate than saying "Almost every St. John's student is Caucasian".  As for the staff, please see my comment above — I suspect that the racial makeup of the staff is typical for cooks, janitors, security guards, etc. in other environments in small mid-Atlantic cities.  I think that using the terms "segregation" and "apartheid" is misleading — it's better for us to present the facts and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusion.


 * I changed a few other comments for other reasons. For example, it's not true that no other American college or university subscribes to the same educational philosophy as St. John's — The College of St. Thomas More in Texas (which so far has no Wikipedia page) and Thomas Aquinas College in California have very similar curricula, albeit presented in a Catholic context.  It's also not true that there are no African authors in the program, unless you think that Ptolemy and Augustine of Hippo aren't African enough.  There are also several African-American authors — at least, when I attended the college in the late '90s we read Fredrick Douglass, George Washington Carver and W. E. B. DuBois.  I removed the statement, "at least one student in the past year (2005) is known to have passed both semesters without reading more than two of the assigned books" because although it may be true, I doubt that it's verifiable.  (If this information was included in a major exposé published in an educational journal or newspaper — or even in a student publication — please add it back in with the appropriate citation.)  Also, I removed the phrase "although this article frequently mentions them" because Wikipedia has a policy to avoid self-references in articles.


 * Finally, you are correct that the people monitoring the article probably tend to be sympathetic to St. John's, and thus the article may tend to reflect a pro-St. John's POV. This is a problem, and should be redressed.  (For the record, I'm a 1998 St. John's alumnus, not a current student.)  Criticism of the college and its philosophy should be neutrally presented.  However, I think that the recent additions were a bit skewed in the opposite direction.  You are also correct that Wikipedia is for everyone to edit — but it also operates by consensus, and when there is a difference of opinion about article content it's preferred that the differences be worked out through discussion instead of by reversion.


 * I'm sure that if we continue to discuss and make constructive edits instead of reverting each other, we'll be able to come to a consensus. I look forward to working with you and others. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sidney Hook excerpt is rather confusing. Sidney Hook wrote the article yet all we have of his opinion is the description of the men who's quotations he uses. Here it is in its entirety with prequal and sequal so we know he is speaking specificly of the problem of St John's approach as concerns hard sciences.( at least in that part of his article)

-

If there is no cultural justification for this approach, is there a pedagogical one? Can students acquire greater competence in mathematics and science or a better insight into their character as liberal arts by reading the historical scientific classics than by systematic study? We can do no better than to turn to the mature judgment, based on long years of teaching and active research, of some great mathematicians and scientists.

Our first witness is the distinguished mathematician Richard Courant, who writes:

"There is no doubt that it is unrealistic to expect a scientific enlightenment of beginners by the study of Euclid, Appolonius or Ptolemy. It will just give them an oblique perspective of what is important and what is not. Studying the more modern works by Descartes, Newton, etc., except for a few single items, would be even more difficult and likewise not lead to a balanced understanding of mathematics."

Lest Professor Courant be suspected of parti pris because he is the author of several texts of high repute, let us hear the judgment of a mathematician whose work is one of the only two books of the Twentieth Century included on the St. John's list. Bertrand Russell writes:

"The subject on which you write is one about which I feel very strongly. I think the 'Best Hundred Books' people are utterly absurd on the scientific side. I was myself brought up on Euclid and Newton and I can see the case for them. But on the whole Euclid is much too slow-moving. Boole is not comparable to his successors. Descartes' geometry is surpassed by every modern textbook of analytical geometry. The broad rule is: historical approach where truth is unattainable, but not in a subject like mathematics or anatomy. (They read Harvey!)"

In the field of physical science, none can speak with better qualifications than Albert Einstein:

"In my opinion there should be no compulsory reading of classical authors in the field of science. I believe also that the laboratory studies should be selected from a purely pedagogical and not historical point of view. On the other side, I am convinced that lectures concerning the historical development of ideas in different fields are of great value for intelligent students, for such studies are furthering very effectively the independence of judgment and independence from blind belief in temporarily accepted views. I believe that such lectures should be treated as a kind of beautiful luxury and the students should not be bothered with examinations concerning historical facts."

-

I do agree that these men denigrate the St John's Program, it is rather presumptious that in 1944 these men had nothing better to do than become familiar with this rather obscure school, and then abuse it. What they are denigrating is a similar way of teaching science which may or may not be exactly what St John's practices. If one were to read the quotations criticly it would become clear that no one mentions St John's by name, they are speaking of a pedagological practice which was of great influence and seems similar to St John's.

I propose deletion of the Hook Excerpt seeing as how it should if included in any article should be placed in the article concening specifically the criticism of the "Classical Liberal Arts Education" or something of the sort.( at least this excerpt)

For now I will edit out Hook's introductions of speakers, for they are superfluous, and include a clearer introduction of what is being spoken of by the authoritative speakers. ( It is not St John's but a pedagelogical approach to hard science) On another note it is not clear that the St John's Program is concerned with teaching competenacy and greater insight ( of Hard Sciences) as a matter of fact. Yet this is what Hook is criticising, he may be criticising for what no one expects of the Program. It is certainly not advertised as minting skilled scientists but at the most some sort of thinkers who could do well in whatever art.

- A current student of St John's College —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.237.65 (talk • contribs) 15:25, February 14, 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, since Hook (who was a not-insignificant scholar and critic of his day) cited the three mathematicians in an article specifically about St. John's, it does seem fair to include the criticism in some degree. The only question I have is how much detail is required.  The February 6 version of the St. John's page had only the Russell and Einstein quotes.  The anon above (from IP 70.32.7.36) added the Courant quote and Hook's prosecutorial presentation ("our first witness", etc.).


 * I think that your recent addition of the context for the quotes is helpful, but perhaps it was a bit long-winded. I've tried to condense it while still presenting the context fairly.  (I'm also still not sure whether the Courant quote adds much that the Russell one doesn't say more forcefully and with a more notable pedigree, but that's another question.)


 * Whether the pedagogical approach being criticized in 1944 is an accurate portrayal of science at St. John's today is, of course, a valid question. However, it does seem at least to be an approach which is allied with the St. John's philosophy of education, of exposing untrained minds to the "Great Ideas" with as little interpretive intermediation as possible — hence St. John's emphasis on primary sources.


 * Although Wikipedia is a tertiary source, our goal is not dissimilar: we aim to present notable arguments on all subjects with as little interpretive intermediation as possible. Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia shouldn't try to present texts or ideas in their entirety, but should report notable opinions on any subject accurately and succinctly.  I think that the excerpts from Hook are notable and relevant enough to be included in the St. John's article; for me, the question is how much weight the article should give them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rankings
The article said that the school does not send information to the ranking agencies, this is true, but it also says that "...and they are not included" which I'm not sure is true. St. John's College is included in the U.S News rankigns which seem to have the most influence. They rank extremely unfavorably...probably due to the fact that they didn't send any information (Interesting to point out that the "peer assessment" score for the school is higher than many schools in the "top fifty"). But they're there still! U.S News ranks most schools--even if they don't send information. St. John's is ranked in the third tier. It's interesting to point out that although Reed College also does not provide information, they are ranked very highly. I made the change.

During my time at St. John's (2004-December 2005) I worked in the Registrars Office and I remember the day that the Princeton Review form came in. The registrar, Marline Scally, gladly filled it out. Interesting.... when I asked her about this she said something like, "Well, we're just opposed to the rankings that just list the schools from best to worst." Of course, the Princeton Review does this too, but in several specific catagories. And as we all probably know, St. John's is all over the lists....

St. John's also does not try to hide the fact that they are included in the Princeton Review--in fact on the homepage of the website you could see the Princeton Review rankings proudly displayed. (however, in the press release from the college, two lists were ommitted: the "Accepting of Gays" list and the "Different Races Mingle" list...I found this disturbing)

Reed College also does not try to hide the fact that they were ranked the #1 best academic experience by Princeton Review. (However in their press relase they do not *hide* any of the lists). Am I crazy or is this a contradiction? We'll tell you about it when we rank favorably but we'll pretend that we are "opposed" to the rankings where we rank unfavorably. Davidav87 23:50, 5 March 2006

Order
I decided to change the order of the article. I hope this makes sense: before we had the "notable people associated with the college" section right after the history section. But on most other pages on colleges this section doesn't come until the end or towards the end. I know St. John's doesn't like to conform, but I think it makes sense that the section would come towards the end. Also, the "critisism" was put before the curriculum section which makes no sense. How are you going to read about the critisism before you read about the curriculum? I also added a "Don Rag" section. I tried to incorporate it into the curriculum section but was unsucessful. Davidav87 12:10, 6 March 2006

stjohnsforum.com
User:Laughing mountain recently re-added information about stjohnsforum.com to the "History" section, along with some slightly sketchy references. I've removed the text and references, but left the link to the site in the "External sites". I don't see how the existence of a website for dicussion and criticism of the college, and the banning of an individual from the Santa Fe campus, are notable in and of themselves. If the criticism and banning had any real impact outside the campus, or if they were part of a consistent campaign of intimidation which was discussed in a reliable source, there might be an argument for inclusion, but I don't see it here.

We should also keep in mind this, from Reliable sources:
 * "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.
 * This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them."

Just because "tumnus" says on the stjohnsforum.com website that so-and-so is banned from the campus, that doesn't make it reliable or notable. We need something more than that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the following to the history section of the St. John’s College entry,


 * “On February 2, 2006, the existence of stjohnsforum.com, a student-created website dedicated to the discussion of controversial issues about the college, was announced in the Washington Post. On February 10, 2006, Stephen Jablon, a former student associated with the website and the Washington Post article, was banned from the Santa Fe campus. The college gave no reason for this action.”


 * All the facts in this short paragraph are verifiable, notable, and maintain a neutral point of view. The facts expressed in the paragraph are notable because they represent a new method of student protest, namely the use of the internet to air grievances in an anonymous setting when students fear the possibility of punishment if they were to express dissent openly. This form of student protest is radically different from what existed in the 1960s. Instead of openly protesting administration policies in mass, people anonymously write individual comments. It is also notable because of the harsh tactics used to suppress dissent. The site claims that Stephen Jablon has been harassed and ultimately barred from campus for his public criticism of the administration. The ramifications of this are tremendous. When the college includes in its handbook (available on the college’s own website) a statement that any student that the administration deems undesirable can be dismissed without giving a reason and then they bar Stephen Jablon from the college after he criticizes the administration’s treatment of other students, this indicates that the college is trying to send a powerful message to students, “If you criticize the administration to a guidebook, to a newspaper, to a prospective student, on a website, or to anyone at all, we can and will kick you out of the college.” Stephen Jablon has taken more extreme measures to express his dissent than most; many students who agree that his charges are truthful oppose his tactics on the grounds that he could cost the college money and consequently cost them their needed financial aid. But I believe that his case illustrates how important basic civil liberties are. When one person’s rights are infringed upon, then everyone’s rights are in danger. Sigao on this discussion page argues that the content of St. John’s Forum is unimportant, “All colleges are bound to have internal disputes and legal difficulties, and I am sure you could fill a hundred pages with similar scandals at larger institutions, but you don’t find such prattle under their entries.” It may be true that it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things when a student is kicked out on a false charge. But I believe that it is very important when someone is punished merely for questioning why other people are punished. It is also important and strange that the college did not feel the need to justify its own action; no reason was given in the letter to Stephen Jablon.


 * All the facts in my addition to the history section are verifiable. That a protest site exists can be verified by simply going to the URL address. Also, its existence was mentioned in the Washington Post, which incidentally gives weight to the fact that it is notable. While many suspect that Stephen Jablon is behind the site or at least heavily involved, this cannot be verified because of the anonymous nature of the site. Ironically, while the site deliberately does not directly mention his involvement, he is quite happy to discuss his role with anyone who asks. It’s a very open secret. Nevertheless, all that I say in my passage is that he is associated with the site. This is clearly true, because Sjcodysseus publicly mentioned his name in connection with the site on February 3. According to Sjcodysseus, Stephen Jablon submitted a post to the johnnyexpress list promoting the site. This can be easily verified simply by checking with johnnyexpress. Immediately before my addition, there is a reference to a letter that Weigle, then the president of St. John’s College, cosigned to Nixon. This letter is not footnoted, and I have no idea how to get a copy of it. However, no one really doubts that the letter to Richard Nixon exists. This passage has not been deleted from the history section because it casts the college in a positive light; Weigle opposed a war that many now believe was immoral. A copy of the letter to Stephen Jablon can be acquired much more easily; either St. John’s College or Stephen Jablon can be easily contacted. Presumably no one at the college would deny that the text of the letter is exactly as it appears on the website. Stephen Jablon’s e-mail address is at the end of his letter to Sharon Bishop on St. John’s Forum. I would assume that he would be willing to send a copy to anyone who asked him for it. This very short letter tells Stephen Jablon that he is barred from campus but gives no reason for this decision. I also will quote from the Wikipedia verifiability policy,


 * “Sources of dubious reliability


 * “In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.


 * “Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: ‘According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun ...’”


 * It may be appropriate therefore to amend my passage to say, “On February 2, 2006, the existence of stjohnsforum.com, a student-created website dedicated to the discussion of controversial issues about the college, was announced in the Washington Post. According to the website stjohnsforum.com, on February 10, 2006, Stephen Jablon, a former student associated with the website and the Washington Post article, was banned from the Santa Fe campus. The college gave no reason for this action.” I don’t think that this qualifier is necessary, as the existence of this letter is so easy to verify. But it is definitely not O.K. to delete the passage entirely. No one seriously denies that Stephen Jablon was declared persona non grata. The doubt that Josiah Rowe maintains isn’t real doubt but pretend doubt. An anonymous poster wrote on this discussion page, “The St. John's page is currently monitered by St. John's students, who are clearly averse to additions which, although factual, may put St. John's in a bad light.” There are five websites that I know of that comment about the negative aspects of current events at St. John’s: St. John’s Forum, the appollodorus homepage of Live Journal, Whirled View, College Confidential, and the Washington Post. This is a massive amount of commentary when you consider how small the college is. Clearly many people feel that the college’s problems are noteworthy. It is unfortunate that the student monitors of the St. John’s entry consider any praise of the college notable and verifiable, but any criticism unimportant and worthy of doubt. I am replacing my three sentences to the St. John’s entry. Laughing mountain 06:33, April 5, 2006


 * Unfortunately, the stjohnsforum website is almost entirely the work of one disaffected individual, who hides his identity and discusses himself in the third person. That individual is Stephen Jablon.  The Washington Post article noted the existence of the stjohnsforum website and the allegations made in it, but did not provide any independent verification of the allegations made there.  Mr. Jablon, whose nickname on the Santa Fe campus was "Creepy Steve", has been trying to find out the names of the students disciplined in Annapolis so that he can publish them, with utter disregard for the fact that those students presumably would not want the fact of the discipline to become a part of the public record.  (The College keeps such records confidential.)  Mr. Jablon is trying to generate a mass of information all of which he has concocted himself.  I have met Mr. Jablon, and even a few minutes in conversation with him leads one to the conclusion that he has mental problems which compromise his ability to be rational.


 * The fact is that there simply is no major student dissatisfaction with the administration of St. John's College. There is, I would bet, a little less student criticism of the administration than is normal at a US college.  Of course, there is some dissatisfaction, but that is only to be expected.  Mr. Jablons's attempts to characterized the situation as one of abnormal discontent are simply delusional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.170.215 (talk • contribs) 11:00, April 5, 2006  (UTC)


 * Well, I know nothing of Stephen Jablon or of the debates he's involved in. (For the record, I'm not a current St. John's student, but an alumnus.)  My doubt was not "pretend doubt", but a genuine concern for verifiability and notability.  I have no beef with the verifiability of the Washington Post article, but with its notability — a concern shared by other editors above.  However, I do have concerns about the verifiability of the stjohnsforum.com information — since it is anonymous, anyone can say anything there, which is fine for the purposes of that site (to raise concerns about St. John's in a safe environment) but not good enough for Wikipedia's purposes, IMO.


 * I have no interest in whitewashing legitimate criticism of St. John's from notable sources, as can be seen in my effort to find a suitable wording for the Sidney Hook section, discussed above. I'm just not convinced that this Stephen Jablon incident is anything more than one or two disgruntled individuals — and if it is, it's not worth mentioning on the college's Wikipedia page (again, IMO).


 * I won't remove the addition again, in the interest of avoiding an edit war. However, I am going to remove the citation of this talk page, in accordance with Avoid self-reference.  If the sjcforum site is worth mention in the article body (and, as you know, I don't think it is), then it should suffice to show that Stephen Jablon is associated with it, and we don't need to cite this talk page in the article itself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I hadn't noticed that 24.164.170.215 (talk • contribs had removed Laughing mountain's addition. I can't in good faith restore it, and it's not right for the footnotes to remain if the text they're referring to is gone, so I'm going to remove them.  If Laughing mountain wants to restore the text, he/she should feel free to do so, until a true consensus emerges on this talk page; however, I suggest that the citation pointing to this talk page not be re-added. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned post on the discussion page characterizes St. John’s forum as a concoction, the work of one deranged individual. The issue is not whether the forum’s content is true, but whether St. John’s College punished Stephen Jablon merely for what he had to say. I believe that this is important for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. Many people believe that Stephen Jablon deserved what happened to him and that anyone who doesn’t like the way the administration is running the college can leave, as Stephen Jablon chose to do. The forum prints many individual names; certainly, the forum has not received permission from administration officials to include them, and it is unclear how many students, if any, the forum has sought permission from. The inclusion of names has clearly caused many people pain and embarrassment, and this is a valid critique. Putting the names of people on the site serves to show that the stories are not a concoction, as anyone who wishes to verify or disprove the content can go back to the original sources. I somehow doubt that the anonymous poster who casts doubt on Stephen Jablon’s mental health has taken the effort to do so. The forum makes strong accusations but allows anyone to refute the claims. tumnus, presumably in an effort to appear unbiased, not only makes accusations but also in the evidence section provides facts that cast doubt on the veracity of those accusations. It is pretty clear simply by asking the people involved in these incidents that the general outline of facts on the forum are true. There are a number of contributors to the site; it seems that it is not the work of only one person. Stephen Jablon was in Santa Fe at the time of the dining hall protest in Annapolis; it seems unlikely that he had anything to do with instigating it. The critics of the site, if they want to persuade people that the site is nonsense, would be better served to criticize the truth of individual stories rather than dismiss the entire site as delusional. If enough individual stories are disproven, then the reliability of the entire site can be called into question. All this being said, wikipedia is probably not the best forum to discuss whether the charges made against the school are true; as an encyclopedia, its duty is simply to mention that there is a protest going on and that the school has banned one of the leaders of that protest from campus without giving a reason.—Laughing mountain, April 5, 2006


 * Of course the issue is whether the content is true. More than that, it's whether or not it's verifiably true.  And it's not, as we've already discussed.  The issue is most certainly not whether a certain individual was punished by the college.  That's not what Wikipedia's about. Sjcodysseus 22:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Goodness. I didn't want to get involved with this, but I think I have to. First, I noticed that the stjohnsforum.com page is very infrequently posted to, and mostly by one individual, on "behalf" of others. There is no verifiable information posted for most of these cases, and I shouldn't have to talk to the concerned individuals as a way of verifying the information for inclusion in wikipedia. It does appear to be mostly the work of one person who is very disgruntled. It should be pointed out that while I know nothing about any reason for Mr. Jablon being declared PNG on campus (or even for sure if he was declared such), this simply isn't an issue on campus. Most students I've talked to were dismayed when they saw this forum, because it was so clearly one-sided and exaggerated. Of course, what I've just stated is also not verifiable, and that's why I haven't included in the article. If I wanted to, I could write a polemic about problems here. But it wouldn't be suitable for wikipedia, because a) it would be original research and b) not verifiable. I think this whole stjohnsforum should be purged from the article. It's really not relevant. Sjcodysseus 22:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think you're right, sjcodysseus. It really seems like the work of one individual with an axe to grind, and even if it were noteworthy (which I don't think it really is) there's no way to include it without violating the verifiability and orginal research policies.  I'm removing the rest of the mentions.


 * We can keep it in the "external links", though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

William F. Buckley? Maybe, but really needs a source
I'm moving this here, pending provision of a good source:


 * In addition, many famed conservatives, including William F. Buckley, have long been boosters and advocates for the college.

Could well be true, but the weasel-worded language and lack of source bother me. Plus the fact that the editor who inserted this didn't even bother to disambiguate William F. Buckley, Jr.

It really needs a source, and here's why.

First, in his youth, William F. Buckley, Jr. attended St. John's Beaumont School in England, a Jesuit school, and apparently wrote about it with nostalgia.

Second, when William F. Buckley ran for mayor of New York, he received strong support from Catholic students at St. John's University (New York City).

When you add to this my impression that St. John's College, Annapolis is not particularly beloved by Catholics, I think there is a good chance that William F. Buckley, Jr. may indeed be a booster and advocate&mdash;for some other St. John's. After all, what bothered him about Yale was its secular humanism... and I don't see why he would perceive St. John's College to be much different from Yale in that regard. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

P. S. And I find it hard to imagine Buckley being enthusiastic about a school so closely associated with the names of Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanan, and he's certainly old enough to make that association and to have been aware of their political liberalism. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would point to the National Review College Guide as a potential citation source as well as the Commencement speech William F. Buckley Jr. delivered at the Annapolis campus, May 19th, 1996. The full text appears in his collected speeches, Let Us Talk of Many Things, William F. Buckley Jr. 2000 Prima Publishing, FORUM, Roseville California, ISBN 0761525513.


 * “From quite early on, beginning when I was twelve or thirteen, I heard my father say that he hoped his sons, of whom I was the third, would attend St. John’s. This did not happen, my brothers and I opting for the more geographically expedient Yale…. But my father’s reverence for the idea that animates St. John’s lingers in the memory…”


 * I am also puzzled by the bizarre claim that there is some sort of animus between Catholics and St. John’s. Is there a verifiable source for this?  There are plenty of Catholics among the faculty and student body on both campuses, including a Christian Brother (a lay Roman Catholic teaching order) on the faculty at Annapolis campus.  Sigao 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't make myself clear. I know of no animus between Catholics and St. Johns College, Annapolis. I'm just saying that St. John's University in New York is a Catholic school, whereas St. John's College, Annapolis, is not.

His father must have been very quickly impressed; Buckley was born November 1925, so this was about 1938. Septentrionalis 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Julius Rosenberg
Recently Julius Rosenberg(described as executed soviet spy) was added to the notable people section. He is in fact not a notable person associated with St John's college. The mix up must have occured because of this St John's Alumni Website http://alumni.stjohnscollege.edu/?AlumniAssociation4

It lists Alumni Association Award of Merit Winners and if we look under 1976 we see

1976 - Fred J. Bielaski 16 Julius Rosenberg 38

This is not the soviet spy Rosenberg as per webpage introduction

In 1970, the Board of Directors voted to make “not more than three” awards each year. Bold textThere has never been a posthumous award.Bold text Awards have been made to graduates, non-graduates, and honorary alumni.

And by 1976 Rosenberg the spy was long dead hence wrong Rosenberg. Also note that Rosenberg would have had to graduate at 18 years of age if 1936 is to be his year of graduation.

Wiki's own Rosenberg page gives us his education history and St John's is not part of it. If there may be another reason to associate Rosenberg with St John's I am eager to be informed for now I have removed his name from notable people section.

70.32.2.149

Platypus?
Since when is the St. John's mascot a platypus? I'm a current student, and have never heard anything about a platypus. I know the SJCSF ultimate frisbee team calls themselves the "Books", but who really uses th platypus. Anyone have a source? Mabey there are platypus in Annapolis, but...
 * "Mabey"? Well, as a Google search for "'St. John's' platypus" reveals, " Though the College has no mascot, the platypus sometimes fills in, wearing a St. John’s College shirt and providing unique company for the students at St. John’s."  So sayeth the Annapolis bookstore.  --zenohockey 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)