Talk:Stanford University School of Medicine/Archive 1

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
5/17/09. Edited out some stuff on Match ranking and percentages, as I was unable to find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.59.203 (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Stanford says that it has the highest average USMLE score, BUT by mutual agreement of the AMA the USMLE scores are not published. I do not know how Stanford would know this then, and would like a source!

Can this page get any more biased? It even uses specific language like "here."

There needs to be a section on significant counter-arguments, and the language needs to be cleaned up to not make it so obvious that a haughty Stanford student wrote this article.

Anyone agree/disagree? Consider this an RFC.


 * Totally needs to be rewritten, but a few edits ago, it was clearly written by someone who was strongly biased against Stanford Med, so I suspect the natural flow of Wiki will erode the POV in due time. Also, I don't think getting an MD-PhD is the most important thing the world needs to know about SMS. jengod 21:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this article is way over the top and not appropriate for Wikipedia in its current form. Some of the bullets should not be in the article at all (for example the one about biking in Stanford because of good weather? come on, this is not something that should be in an encyclopedia)