Talk:University of Michigan/Archive 2

Message to Pentawing - UM Rankings
Still haven't gotten an ID, but noticed some edits by Taxman. Specifically, he reverted edits that discussed departmental quality and rankings: he doubted the department quality, so he removed the comments. I'm rather astonished that: 1) he guessed, he didn't do the research; 2) there is a link at the bottom of the article that removes all guesswork; 3) the departments removed were departments in the list that might have been checked, not simply dismissed out of hand. Here is the list, and here are the rankings: The departments of philosophy, economics (ranked #11 in USN&WR graduate program 2005), political science (ranked #3 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program), history (ranked #7 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program), and mathematics (ranked #8 in 2005 USN&WR at the graduate program) are also highly respected for the high standards of their teaching and research. If he doubts that these departments are of suitable quality (especially political science...), then he simply doesn't know the university, and shouldn't be tampering with the article.

If you agree, please revert the edits, which I can only characterize as capricious. Further, when I see his screenhandle, it is INVARIABLY attached to the phrase NPOV, and invariable leads to a diminution of documentable/verifiable facts that he hasn't bothered to check. I think his work is sloppy. I'd also like to know: 1) what school he attended; 2) whether he is as generous with negative sentiments about his own institution; 3) if he isn't if he would like me to visit his school's site and inject a bit of NPOV.

I'm addressing this to him via you, because: 1) like him, I'm too lazy to do the research (i.e., get a screenname in order to contact him); 2) I'll leave it to you to check the accuracy of the rankings and their suitability for inclusion; 3) based on his history, I think he should recuse himself from working on this article. (Unsigned by 66.65.76.15)


 * Hmm, interesting response is all I can say. Why not just state your case and skip the polemics? The info didn't have any citation to it, and yes I did leap to a conclusion. But clicking through the references at the bottom didn't immediately show one supporting those undergrad program rankings. When there isn't a citation it is reasonable to remove unverified information, though admittedly it would have been better to have brought the discussion here myself. But have no fear, the way this wiki thing works is the information can very easily be put back in the article once verified. Anyway, wouldn't it be amusing if my math degree was from UM? If you look at my comments I'm well aware the University is considered a very good one, but it doesn't need overly positive language to portray that. The facts do all that is needed, and in fact make a stronger case. I work to make articles reflect verifiable information and be neutral. You'd do well to do the same. - Taxman Talk 03:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As of December 30, 2005, I believe the above issue has been closed unless there are more problems on the way. Pentawing 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations to the Michigan project team and to all the editors who produced an excellent article. --Mareino 00:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pentawing! It's on the front page!!! nice work __earth 03:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Smutloader" picture is a nice touch -- not!

"Public Ivy"
The term "public ivy" is being thrown around a lot right now. Honestly, I'd never even heard the term before (despite all the jokes around campus about Harvard being "The Michigan of the East"). I'm inclined to think such an arbitrary term has no place in this article, or indeed any.-Kalium 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. While I've certainly heard the term used before in reference to many of the schools that are listed on the Public Ivies page, I don't think it's something that's important enough to include in this entry. There's also a list of "little ivies," "ivies of the South," and if I remember correctly, a few years back someone came up with a list of what they considered to be "NEW ivies"! IMO, if a college or university is that well-regarded, its prestige should be able to be conveyed through the basic information included on its entry page, and adding some sort of "ivy" label shouldn't be a necessary part of justifying that. Chibeca 07:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The public ivies refer to the elite publics, and actually I heard of it before I heard of little ivies and magnolia ivies (southern elites). I think the original phrase has really changed in meaning now though to the top publics from UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, WIlliam and Mary, Michigan, UVA, and UNC-Chapel Hill. I think it is still a worthy distinction, in my opinion and certainly carries a lot of weight to guidance counselors who may be considering referring their students there.


 * As far as I can tell, the term "Public Ivy" traces back to a single book. I have moved this term to the Academic profile section, and rewritten it as such:
 * UM's academic reputation has led its inclusion on Richard Moll's list of Public Ivies.
 * This is the most factual way to word it I can think of. &mdash; Lovelac7 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the most factual way to word it I can think of. &mdash; Lovelac7 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

NOAC
U Mich is the site of the 2006 National Order of the Arrow Convention, which is attended by Boy Scout Arrowmen from all parts of the country. Where should I insert this? - Pureblade  | Θ 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How important is this event (does it set precedents or merely a conference gathering)? Is the event coming back to U-M in a later year (e.g. similiar to how the Super Bowl returns to the same city in a later year, such as for New Orleans)? If not, I don't see any point of inserting it. PentawingTalk 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the history of the university, hosting NOAC won't even register. No offense intended, --Brotherhood member, Habap 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Coeducational institution"
I'm confused as to why the opening sentence of the article states that the university is a coeducational institution. Aren't all public universities and colleges, and virtually all the private ones as well, in the Americas as well as most of the world that way? --Julie-Anne Driver 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends one what region of the world. Please note that this article is seen around the world, not just in the U.S. In some regions (I can't recall off the top of my head, but I would suspect certain parts of Asia, Africa, even Europe and the United States), there are single-gendered colleges and universities. PentawingTalk 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Coca Cola Sales Banned From Campus"
U Of M banned Coca Cola from selling its products on campus because of a Student Union. There was a story a few weeks ago about this by AP. It's probably the only campus where you can't buy a Coca Cola in America. BringCocaColaBack
 * From what I read, U-M is the 10th school to do so. New York University and Rutgers have done the same thing. PentawingTalk 05:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any news stories on other Universities banning Coca Cola. This is another example of the radical left wing on campus removing people's ability to choose for themselves. BringCocaColaBack


 * Gimme a break. Before this, coke had a vendor monopoly over campus (minus the dining hall). Nobody complaint about lack of choice back then (hey, where's my pepsi dude?)... But still, you could still get a coke easily even with the contract cut. __earth 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so. There are a lot of Pepsi machines around campus. -Kalium 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that would be the right wing, not the left wing, removing people's ability to choose for themselves. 128.192.236.246 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the motivation for the ban is one that would be labelled "liberal" - Coca-Cola plants allegedly damage the environment in India (details from Pentawing's linky):


 * It had been alleged that Coke’s bottling plants in India violated provisions of the Vendor Code of Conduct of the university by fostering environmental practices in India that resulted in the depletion of groundwater and, consequently, in products with unacceptably high levels of pesticides.


 * The radical right and the radical left tend to be far more similar than they would like to admit. See Joseph Stalin....
 * Oh, and BringCocaColaBack, if the university were to sell you something that could hurt you and didn't warn you in advance, they could be liable for damages. Far easier to simply remove the item and protect their corporate entity. --Habap 17:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been tracking this story on campus vaguely. It mostly comes down to this: the University asked Coke to live up to their obligations under the Vendor Code of Conduct. Coke didn't, couldn't, or refused to (end result is the same anyway). Thus, as a matter of University policy, the contract with Coke has been terminated. Yes, it was liberal student activism on campus that brought it to the attention of the administration and forced them to deal with it, but it was also completely in line with existing University policy. In short, it's nothing significant except for the propaganda that preceded it around campus. -Kalium 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Apollo 15 crew
It's mentioned that Apollo 15 had an all-U of M crew, which is technically incorrect. Actually, Dave Scott is a Texas Military Academy and MIT graduate, and was given an honorary degree by U of M after the mission. --Jkonrath 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

David Scott also attended U-M in ’49-’50, though he did not obtain a degree from U-M. -- swimsy
 * Thus, according to U-M's odd definition of 'alumus', he counts. Just like Madonna does. -Kalium 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I took a Russian language course there. Does that make me an almnus also? --Habap 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is hardly an unusual practice, just as not mentioning notorious students. And yes, even if you only audited WhatEver 101, if you become rich and/or famous, the U-M won't be the only one wanting your money and name. The spin is slight and the ad is fun, if you saw it this fall.  -- swimsy


 * I cringe whenever they claim Magic Johnson as an alum of MSU. As little as I attended classes, I did at least put in my 4-7 years and earn a degree. (I have a hard time remembering the 80s....) --Habap 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Claude Shannon
In Research and endowment, it states "has made major contributions to the mathematics of information theory, notably through Claude Shannon." From what I read in the Wikipedia article on Shannon, he made all his contributions while at MIT. Is it appropriate to claim credit in a section on research done by the University for work done by a graduate of the University while no longer researching for the University or on the grounds of the University? I know it can go into their brochures, but it seems a stretch here. --Habap 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on the above: 1) Shannon received 2 degrees from Michigan; 2) one might guess that he learned something at UM that helped him later relative to the contributions that he made to information theory; 3) You will note that the attribution is to a person (the "who") who is a graduate who made contributions; 4) your point refers to a particular time domain (the "when") that is not in the original sentence, and thus seems off-point; 5) your claim that a claim is being made is not supported by your own example; 6) Do you think Shannon forgot what he knew/learned at UM before he went to MIT. Weisner and Vest (2 out of the last 4 Presidents of MIT who were also graduates of UM) didn't suddently develop amnesia when they went to MIT and reinvent their entire construct of reality when they got there (MIT cereal?); they got there prepared. In your rejoinder to the above, I want you to NOT use words that you learned before 2001. (Unsigned by 66.65.76.15)


 * I read the article on Shannon because I found the construct "through Claude Shannon" odd. I suppose that using that construct does correctly credit the University's involvement, but it just strikes me as odd that in a section on that I assumed is intended to discuss Research at the University that they would list research done by a graduate elsewhere. I am certain that the foundation he acquired while at U of M was critical to his development, but just find the whole thing oddly worded and oddly placed. Perhaps it would be appropriate in a section on distinguished graduates?
 * Oh, and I'd better not use words I learned before 1988, when I graduated. Sadly, that would leave me unable to write any of the words I've written here. Your comments come across as very defensive. Perhaps you could mitigate that? (I didn't know that word before 1988, I don't think....) --Habap 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, my comments were both excessive and way too defensive. I apologize. I was reacting to the vandalism of the article on that day, and your reasonable observation was swept into my micro-tirade. Feel free to remove the thread at such time as you consider the issue resolved. Until then, I'll remain in the public stocks. 66.65.76.15 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for protection
Boneheadmx has suggested that protection be enstated. I think this is in order until this is no longer the featured article. I suspect that's what driving the vandalism. -Kalium 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been the long held position for all featured articles that they should not be protected while on the main page. The day is almost over and in any case this talk page would not be the place to discuss it, the talk page of WP:FA would be. All articles featured on the main page get significant vandalism, and people apparently think that's just fine. I don't happen to agree, but we can't just go flaunting consensus. - Taxman Talk 23:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I suppose nobody said that democracy always made sense. Thanks, though. -Kalium 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That sucks, but I guess I'll just do my best reverting vandalism for a little bit. Sometimes you wonder whether these vandals get bored putting in their asanine little edits to articles. Oh well. Boneheadmx 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, they apparently have tons of fun with it. In this case though it is quite clear someone's registering names real quick to vandalize. On second thought I think that justifies a semi protect. I'll take the comments of the two of you as agreeing to that so if anyone else agrees they should have at it. - Taxman Talk 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. I forgot that the autoblocker will take care of it once I block them.--Tznkai 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's already off the main page. Autoblocker won't cover a determined vandal able to use different IP's, but protection probably won't be needed now. - Taxman Talk 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Effort underway to repair POV issues
In the interest of resolving the POV issues that have been brought up since the article appeared on the front page, I am grouping all relevant conversations in the same place. Please leave comments and suggestions within this grouping. PentawingTalk 05:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Selective praise -- school promoter POV
The intro is full of quick hits of whatever great feats can be attributed to Mich. The US News sentence particularly distorts the balanced view. The magazine ranks dozens of programs and specialties. Only the most flattering rankings are presented, the all-important and watched for overall position (#25) is omitted!  Lotsofissues 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as it is backed up there are no problems. If you know of something worth adding and have something to back it up, go ahead. PentawingTalk 06:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "As long as it is backed up" This is the attitude that cripples college pages.  As long as there are sources, why not turn the page into a vanity fair?  The result:Institution promotion across all articles, not NPOV.  Lotsofissues 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. PentawingTalk 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Who defines "all-important"? The undergraduate ranking is a poor reflection of institutional strength. Here is my count (using the link on the page, as well as excel) of a rolling count of program rankings (e.g., top 10 rolls in top 5, top 15 rolls in top 10...). You can also look at philosophical gourmet to see selectivity and quality from another point of view.

Top_5	84

Top_10	153

Top_15	190

Top_20	197

Top_30	209

== Here are the programs, the rankings, the years and sources. I think the page should reflect these FACTS. Using 30 is both inaccurate, and an embarassment. If you can't refute the rankings, which I consider to NPOV,you should consider revising the page, or let a neutral arbiter take such a decision under advisement.

Index	Category	Cohort	Division	Program	Ranking	Source 32	Graduate	Number_01	Anthropology	Anthropology	1	NRC_1995 33	Graduate	Number_01	Archaeology	Archaeology	1	SAA_1993 49	Graduate	Number_01	Business	MBA	1	WSJ_2004 83	Graduate	Number_01	Education	Higher Education Administration	1	USN_2004 121	Graduate	Number_01	Health Services Administration	Health Services Administration	1	USN_2003 123	Graduate	Number_01	History	African-American History	1	USN_2001 157	Graduate	Number_01	Music	Conducting	1	USN_1999 184	Graduate	Number_01	Politics	American Politics	1	USN_2001 205	Graduate	Number_01	Social_Work_Aggregate	Social Work	1	USN_2001 208	Graduate	Number_01	Sociology	Historical Sociology	1	USN_2001 28	Undergraduate	Number_01	Special_Undergraduate	Undergraduate Research/Creative Projects	1	USN&WR 9	Undergraduate	Top_05	Business	Management	2	USN&WR 11	Undergraduate	Top_05	Business	Marketing	2	USN&WR 99	Graduate	Top_05	Engineering	Industrial/Manufacturing	2	USN_2004 25	Undergraduate	Top_05	Engineering	Mechanical	2	USN&WR 117	Graduate	Top_05	Geology	Geochemistry	2	USN_1999 119	Graduate	Top_05	Geology	Sedimentology/Stratigraphy	2	USN_1999 130	Graduate	Top_05	History	Women's History	2	USN_2001 133	Graduate	Top_05	Information	Archives and Preservation	2	USN_1999 156	Graduate	Top_05	Music	Composition	2	USN_1999 183	Graduate	Top_05	Political_Science_Aggregate	Political_Science_Aggregate	2	USN_2001 189	Graduate	Top_05	Psychology_Aggregate	Psychology_Aggregate	2	USN_2001 192	Graduate	Top_05	Psychology_Aggregate	Developmental Psychology	2	USN_2001 193	Graduate	Top_05	Psychology_Aggregate	Experimental Psychology	2	USN_2001 202	Graduate	Top_05	Public_Affairs	Social Policy	2	USN_2004 29	Undergraduate	Top_05	Special_Undergraduate	Learning Communities	2	USN&WR 2	Undergraduate	Top_05	University_Undergraduate	National_Undergraduate_Public	2	USN&WR 44	Graduate	Top_05	Business	Executive Education Open Enrollment Programs	3	BW_2004 3	Undergraduate	Top_05	Business	Business_Aggregate	3	USN&WR 6	Undergraduate	Top_05	Business	Finance	3	USN&WR 60	Graduate	Top_05	Classical Studies	Classical Studies	3	NRC_1995 67	Graduate	Top_05	Dentistry	Dentistry	3	USN_1993 81	Graduate	Top_05	Education	Education Psychology	3	USN_2004 104	Graduate	Top_05	Engineering	Nuclear	3	USN_2003 16	Undergraduate	Top_05	Engineering	Aerospace/AeronauticalAstronautical	3	USN&WR 22	Undergraduate	Top_05	Engineering	Environmental	3	USN&WR 23	Undergraduate	Top_05	Engineering	Industrial/Manufacturing	3	USN&WR 132	Graduate	Top_05	Information_Aggregate	Information_Aggregate	3	USN_1999 163	Graduate	Top_05	Nursing	Nursing_Aggregate	3	USN_2002 169	Graduate	Top_05	Nursing	Midwifery	3	USN_2003 177	Graduate	Top_05	Pharmacy	Pharmacy	3	USN_1999 188	Graduate	Top_05	Political_Science_Aggregate	Political_Science_Aggregate	3	USN_2001 191	Graduate	Top_05	Psychology_Aggregate	Cognitive Psychology	3	USN_2001 201	Graduate	Top_05	Public_Affairs	Public Policy Analysis	3	USN_2004 209	Graduate	Top_05	Sociology	Social Psychology	3	USN_2001 210	Graduate	Top_05	Sociology	Social Stratification	3	USN_2001 206	Graduate	Top_05	Sociology_Aggregate	Sociology_Aggregate	3	USN_2001 4	Undergraduate	Top_05	Business	Accounting	4	USN&WR 8	Undergraduate	Top_05	Business	International_Business	4	USN&WR 80	Graduate	Top_05	Education	Education Policy	4	USN_2004 87	Graduate	Top_05	Engineering	Aerospace/AeronauticalAstronautical	4	USN_2004 97	Graduate	Top_05	Engineering	EnvironmentalEnvironmental Health	4	USN_2004 98	Graduate	Top_05	Engineering	Industrial	4	NRC_1995 24	Undergraduate	Top_05	Engineering	Materials	4	USN&WR 26	Undergraduate	Top_05	Engineering	Nuclear	4	USN&WR 118	Graduate	Top_05	Geology	Paleontology	4	USN_1999 134	Graduate	Top_05	Information	Information Systems	4	USN_1999 160	Graduate	Top_05	Music	Orchestra/Symphony	4	USN_1999 161	Graduate	Top_05	Music	Piano/Keyboard	4	USN_1999 155	Graduate	Top_05	Music_Aggregate	Music	4	USN_1999 165	Graduate	Top_05	Nursing	Clinical Nurse Specialist Community	4	USN_2003 196	Graduate	Top_05	Public_Affairs	Environmental Policy and Management	4	USN_2004 197	Graduate	Top_05	Public_Affairs	Health Policy and Management	4	USN_2004 212	Graduate	Top_05	Sociology	Sociology_Aggregate	4	NRC_1995 30	Undergraduate	Top_05	Special_Undergraduate	Service Learning	4	USN&WR 41	Graduate	Top_05	Business	Accounting	5	USN_2004 12	Undergraduate	Top_05	Business	Production and OM	5	USN&WR 13	Undergraduate	Top_05	Business	Quantitative Analysis	5	USN&WR 86	Graduate	Top_05	Engineering	Aerospace	5	NRC_1995 101	Graduate	Top_05	Engineering	Mechanical	5	USN_2004 102	Graduate	Top_05	Engineering	Mechanical	5	NRC_1995 21	Undergraduate	Top_05	Engineering	ElectricalElectronic/Communications	5	USN&WR 110	Graduate	Top_05	English	Gender and Literature	5	USN_2001 116	Graduate	Top_05	Geology	Geology_Aggregate	5	USN_1999 122	Graduate	Top_05	History	History_Aggregate	5	USN_2001 126	Graduate	Top_05	History	European History	5	USN_2001 150	Graduate	Top_05	Medicine	Family Medicine	5	USN_2004 151	Graduate	Top_05	Medicine	Geriatrics	5	USN_2004 159	Graduate	Top_05	Music	Opera/Voice	5	USN_1999 168	Graduate	Top_05	Nursing	Gerontology/Geriatric	5	USN_1999 174	Graduate	Top_05	Nursing	Nursing Services Administration	5	USN_2003 180	Graduate	Top_05	Physics	Atomic/Molecular/OpticalPlasma	5	USN_2002 186	Graduate	Top_05	Politics	International Politics	5	USN_2001 194	Graduate	Top_05	Public Health_Aggregate	Public Health_Aggregate	5	USN_2003 48	Graduate	Top_10	Business	International_Business	6	USN_2004 50	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Management	6	USN_2004 54	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Production and OM	6	USN_2004 66	Graduate	Top_10	Creative Writing	Creative Writing	6	USN_1999 95	Graduate	Top_10	Engineering	Electrical	6	NRC_1995 96	Graduate	Top_10	Engineering	ElectricalElectronic/Communications	6	USN_2004 20	Undergraduate	Top_10	Engineering	Computer Engineering	6	USN&WR 136	Graduate	Top_10	Law	Clinical Training	6	USN_2004 141	Graduate	Top_10	Mathematics_Aggregate	Algebra	6	USN_1999 144	Graduate	Top_10	Mathematics_Aggregate	Number Theory	6	USN_1999 198	Graduate	Top_10	Public_Affairs	Information and Technology Management	6	USN_2004 45	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Executive MBA	7	USN_2004 51	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Marketing	7	USN_2004 55	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Quantitative Analysis	7	USN_2002 72	Graduate	Top_10	Economics	International Economics	7	USN_2001 75	Graduate	Top_10	Economics	Public Finance	7	USN_2001 92	Graduate	Top_10	Engineering	Civil	7	USN_2004 94	Graduate	Top_10	Engineering	Computer Engineering	7	USN_2004 100	Graduate	Top_10	Engineering	Materials	7	USN_2004 15	Undergraduate	Top_10	Engineering	Engineering_Aggregate	7	USN&WR 135	Graduate	Top_10	Law	Law_Aggregate	7	USN_2004 146	Graduate	Top_10	Medicine_Aggregate	Medical Research	7	USN_2004 153	Graduate	Top_10	Microbiology	Microbiology	7	USN_2002 158	Graduate	Top_10	Music	Jazz	7	USN_1999 166	Graduate	Top_10	Nursing	Clinical Nurse Specialist Psychiatric	7	USN_2003 52	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Not for Profit	8	USN_2004 53	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Part Time MBA	8	USN_2004 10	Undergraduate	Top_10	Business	MIS	8	USN&WR 64	Graduate	Top_10	Computer Science	Hardware	8	USN_1999 82	Graduate	Top_10	Education	Elementary Education	8	USN_2004 85	Graduate	Top_10	Engineering	Engineering_Aggregate	8	USN_2004 17	Undergraduate	Top_10	Engineering	BiomedicalBiomedical Engineering	8	USN&WR 19	Undergraduate	Top_10	Engineering	Civil	8	USN&WR 125	Graduate	Top_10	History	Cultural History	8	USN_2001 140	Graduate	Top_10	Mathematics_Aggregate	Mathematics_Aggregate	8	USN_2002 152	Graduate	Top_10	Medicine	Internal Medicine	8	USN_2004 164	Graduate	Top_10	Nursing	Clinical Nurse Specialist Adult	8	USN_2003 167	Graduate	Top_10	Nursing	Clinical Specialist	8	USN_1999 170	Graduate	Top_10	Nursing	Nurse Practitioner Adult	8	USN_2003 172	Graduate	Top_10	Nursing	Nurse Practitioner - GerontologicalGeriatric	8	USN_2003 176	Graduate	Top_10	Pharmacy	Pharmacology/Toxicology	8	USN_1999 178	Graduate	Top_10	Philosophy_Aggregate	Philosophy	8	NRC_1995 195	Graduate	Top_10	Public_Affairs_Aggregate	Public_Affairs_Aggregate	8	USN_2004 27	Undergraduate	Top_10	Special_Undergraduate	Internships/Co-ops	8	USN&WR 31	Undergraduate	Top_10	Special_Undergraduate	Writing in The Discipline	8	USN&WR 42	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Entrepreneurship	9	USN_2005 43	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Executive_Education Custom Programs	9	BW_2003 56	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Supply Chain	9	USN_2004 79	Graduate	Top_10	Education	Curriculum/Instruction	9	USN_2004 18	Undergraduate	Top_10	Engineering	Chemical	9	USN&WR 108	Graduate	Top_10	English	African-American	9	USN_2001 124	Graduate	Top_10	History	Asian History	9	USN_2001 137	Graduate	Top_10	Law	International Law	9	USN_2004 203	Graduate	Top_10	LS&A	Romance Languages French	9	NRC_1995 145	Graduate	Top_10	Math_Aggregate	Math_Aggregate	9	NRC_1995 171	Graduate	Top_10	Nursing	Nurse Practitioner Family	9	USN_2003 187	Graduate	Top_10	Politics	Political Theory	9	USN_2001 40	Graduate	Top_10	Business	Business_Aggregate	10	USN_2004 7	Undergraduate	Top_10	Business	Insurance	10	USN&WR 63	Graduate	Top_10	Computer Science	Artificial Intelligence	10	USN_2002 77	Graduate	Top_10	Education	Education_Aggregate	10	USN_2004 78	Graduate	Top_10	Education	Admin and Supervision	10	USN_2004 89	Graduate	Top_10	Engineering	Biomedical/Engineering	10	USN_2004 93	Graduate	Top_10	Engineering	Civil	10	NRC_1995 128	Graduate	Top_10	History	Modern US History	10	USN_2001 143	Graduate	Top_10	Mathematics_Aggregate	Mathematical Statistics	10	USN_1999 181	Graduate	Top_10	Physics	Elementary Particles	10	USN_1999 185	Graduate	Top_10	Politics	Comparative Politics	10	USN_2001 207	Graduate	Top_10	Sociology	Economic Sociology	10	USN_2001 34	Graduate	Top_15	Architecture	Architecture	11	USN_1999 35	Graduate	Top_15	Art History	Art History	11	NRC_1995 47	Graduate	Top_15	Business	MIS	11	USN_2004 70	Graduate	Top_15	Economics	Economics_Aggregate	11	USN_2001 84	Graduate	Top_15	Education	Secondary Education	11	USN_2004 88	Graduate	Top_15	Engineering	Biomedical	11	NRC_1995 105	Graduate	Top_15	English	English_Aggregate	11	USN_2001 113	Graduate	Top_15	English	Medieval/Renaissance	11	USN_2001 131	Graduate	Top_15	History_Aggregate	History_Aggregate	11	NRC_1995 149	Graduate	Top_15	Medicine	Drug/Alcohol Abuse	11	USN_2004 46	Graduate	Top_15	Business	Finance	12	USN_2004 69	Graduate	Top_15	Ecology Evolution Behavior	Ecology Evolution Behavior	12	NRC_1995 106	Graduate	Top_15	English	18th to 20th Century British	12	USN_2001 109	Graduate	Top_15	English	American after 1865	12	USN_2001 127	Graduate	Top_15	History	Latin American	12	USN_2001 129	Graduate	Top_15	History	U.S. Colonial History	12	USN_2001 199	Graduate	Top_15	Public_Affairs	Public Finance and Budgeting	12	USN_2004 71	Graduate	Top_15	Economics	Industrial Organization	13	USN_2001 73	Graduate	Top_15	Economics	Macroeconomics	13	USN_2001 76	Graduate	Top_15	Economics	Economics_Aggregate	13	NRC_1995 90	Graduate	Top_15	Engineering	Chemical	13	USN_2004 107	Graduate	Top_15	English	19th and 20th Century American	13	USN_1999 204	Graduate	Top_15	LS&A	Romance Languages Spanish	13	NRC_1995 175	Graduate	Top_15	Pharmacy	Pharmacology	13	NRC_1995 179	Graduate	Top_15	Physics_Aggregate	Physics_Aggregate	13	USN_2002 38	Graduate	Top_15	Biological Sciences	Biological Sciences	14	USN_2002 5	Undergraduate	Top_15	Business	Entrepreneurship	14	USN&WR 14	Undergraduate	Top_15	Business	Supply Chain	14	USN&WR 62	Graduate	Top_15	Computer Science	Computer Science_Aggregate	14	USN_2002 103	Graduate	Top_15	Engineering	MetallurgicalMaterials	14	NRC_1995 138	Graduate	Top_15	Law	Tax Law	14	USN_2004 211	Graduate	Top_15	Sociology	Sociology of Culture	14	USN_1999 61	Graduate	Top_15	Comparative Literature	Comparative Literature	15	NRC_1995 111	Graduate	Top_15	English	Literary Criticism and Theory	15	USN_2001 112	Graduate	Top_15	English	Medieval Literature	15	USN_1999 182	Graduate	Top_15	Medicine	Physiology	15	NRC_1995 190	Graduate	Top_15	Psychology_Aggregate	Clincial Psychology	15	USN_2004 114	Graduate	Top_20	English_Aggregate	English_Aggregate	16	NRC_1995 39	Graduate	Top_20	Biology	Biology	17	USN_1999 74	Graduate	Top_20	Economics	Microeconomics	18	USN_2001 91	Graduate	Top_20	Engineering	Chemical	18	NRC_1995 142	Graduate	Top_20	Mathematics_Aggregate	Applied	18	USN_2002 162	Graduate	Top_20	Neurosciences	Neurosciences	18	NRC_1995 173	Graduate	Top_20	Nursing	Nurse Practitioner Pediatric	19	USN_2003 58	Graduate	Top_25	Chemistry	Chemistry	21	USN_2002 65	Graduate	Top_25	Computer Science	Computer Science	21	USN_1995 120	Graduate	Top_25	German	German	21	NRC_1995 154	Graduate	Top_25	Molecular and General Genetics	Molecular and General Genetics	21	NRC_1995 148	Graduate	Top_25	Medicine	AIDS	22	USN_2004 1	Undergraduate	Top_25	University_Undergraduate	National_Undergraduate_Overall	22	USN&WR 147	Graduate	Top_25	Medicine_Aggregate	Medical Primary Care	23	USN_2004 200	Graduate	Top_25	Public_Affairs	Public Management Administration	23	USN_2004 213	Graduate	Top_25	Statistics	Statistics	24	NRC_1995 36	Graduate	Top_25	Astronomy	Astronomy	25	NRC_1995 37	Graduate	Top_30	Biochemistry	Biochemistry	26	NRC_1995 57	Graduate	Top_30	Cell and Developmental Biology	Cell and Developmental Biology	30	NRC_1995 139	Graduate	Top_35	Linguistics	Linguistics	31	NRC_1995 115	Graduate	Top_35	Fine Arts_Aggregate	Fine Arts_Aggregate	34	USN_2003 59	Graduate	Top_35	Chemistry	Chemistry	35	NRC_1995 68	Graduate	Top_40	Drama	Drama	37	USN_1999

See above for rankings 2nd to last column

I don't consider the "vanity fair" comment to be especially neutral either. If we are talking about neutrality then let's see the full distribution. In other words, if a school has several hundred departments, full programs and schools ranked in the top 10, let's say so. If you want to then include everything below top 10, say so as well. Don't pick an arbitrary number, oh for example 30, and use it, when essentially every department in the university ranks higher. By picking this number (30) you have somehow selected the 5th worst ranking out of 200+ rankings. There is a 95% probability, roughly, that a student attending the university will attend a better department. #30 is wrong 95% of the time. Show all of the numbers, not just the number that is the min of the set because that suited your preconception. Why/how did USN&WR report get to be the ONLY arbiter of rankings. Why put Philosophical Gourmet and Lombardi in the footnotes, and pick a non-existent #30 to use in the body of the article. Finally, why not do this for all schools. I should be able to go to any school and see everything, or nothing. (Unsigned by 66.65.76.15)

Why I threw up the tag
I tried to edit based on all these concerns but every single one of my revisions has been undone, so we must reach consensus on what to do.

There is an overriding POV in this article: the celebration of the greatness of UM. Most jarring is the introduction, listing every league table that is willing to recognize the success of UM. Brian Leiter's Philosophical Gourmet is positioned alongside the all-important US News ranking. Someone asked how I determined US News to be so important. There are a lot of decisive reasons. US News devotes an entire issue to ranking colleges and universities, sending it to all subscribers, and tens of thousands of parents reliably buy the issue off the shelf each year. The release is marked by an AP wire story that appears in hundreds of newspapers across the country. In comparison, PG is the unnoticed work of one professor blogger with a poor reputation. He gives UM an upbeat rating, so he's given the same place as America's most well known higher education guide--an act of defensiveness and plaudit stuffing. Neutrality would dictate we leave the rankings of the best known guides without comment instead of scrambling to select whatever good rankings are out there.

The SAT analysis is highly unorthodox to any Wikipedia college article. So many lines are devoted to proving the declaration there's an Ivy caliber population within each UM class--all using a dubious reliance only on the SAT.

There's much faulty content and taken together they form a front that tries to push the UM reputation. I advise cutting external praise to a minimum. Throwing away the SAT analysis and working more on INFORMATION (the history of the school, research, traditions, etc.)

Lotsofissues 01:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be somewhat reflective of the prevailing attitude of the student body towards UM. Many sudents are utterly convinced that UM is The Best school for everything, and will grasp at everything and anything to justify that position. -Kalium 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I daresay it's fair to praise the university if all other universities get the same consideration. Furthermore, you rarely see negativity in any encyclopedia. A fair and level list of information is all that's needed. In other words, let the University's record speak for itself. --Battlemonk 19:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Start of effort
Given the furor over various POV issues with the article, I have begun a major cleanup. For now, I have replaced the following passage with something more direct from the UM admissions data:
 * The upper quartile of each U-M class is two to three times the size of the average interquartile class of the Ivy League institutions; with a minimum SAT score of around 1400, that quartile is academically competitive with the Ivy League average of 1430. As a result, the university's student body includes weaker students as well as those who are competitive with, and as proportionately large as those of the Ivy League institutions.


 * Calculated with data from The Top American Research Universities (2004). TheCenter. Accessed October 1, 2005.

PentawingTalk 05:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pentawing great job clearing up all objections. I think though some mention of US News should remain since its the most popular name in rankings.  Tag removed.  Lotsofissues 06:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reinserted UM's overall ranking according to US News. Nevertheless, the effort continues until everyone is satisfied. PentawingTalk 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up as many POV issues as possible, which included the elimination of the Philosophical Gourmet rankings (which was considered questionable). In the meantime, I am using the following rule of thumb: if the praise is a one-off thing (it hasn't been continuous through the years) by an organization that is not widely respected and is not widely known, such passage should be eliminated. PentawingTalk 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the comparisons to the Ivy League are inappropriate here. The raw statistics are more appropriate, and certainly more neutral. -Kalium 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether we agree with it or not, U of M is considered by many (especially students, alumni and other boosters) to be similar to an Ivy League school. I went to their in-state rival, so feel relatively free from bias in this regard. --Habap 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * After typing this, I checked Kalium's user page. Sigh, you Wolverines are everywhere! --Habap 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are. Consider the implications. While many consider U of M to be at that particular level of quality in some areas, that doesn't make it fact or neutral, especially considering some of the people I've met around campus. Statistics are highly preferred. -Kalium 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The intra quartile SAT data is pretty interesting in that regard though. I agree with the problems with it, such as it only being SAT scores, but it is still useful data the shows factually why the university is considered a good one. We don't need to trump up the facts, just report them. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)