Talk:Virginia Health Sciences

Untitled
EVMS is a private not public medical school. They get money from the state and offer lower tuition for in-state sudents, which must make up a certain percentage of the class, but EVMS is not public. The state does not appoint any members of the board of visitors.

Public / Private -- neither fits perfectly
Eastern Virginia Medical School is a public institution, but not a state agency.

It is a public institution in the sense that it operates under charter from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and its authorities are outlined by the state in that charter. It receive public support from the Commonwealth of Virginia, but it is not a full-fledged state agency like true public universities and colleges in Virginia. (Like a private institution, EVMS employees and faculty are not state employees, but like a public institution, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act applies to EVMS.) The Commonwealth provides capitated funding to support the in-state residents who attend medical school at EVMS, but the state does not appoint the EVMS Board and it is not responsible for overseeing the institution's overall operating budget (as it is for public colleges and universities like Old Dominion University).

In the past, EVMS was often referred to as the state's only private medical school, to distinguish the school from the two older state-run medical schools (the Virginia Commonwealth University's Medical College of Virginia and the University of Virginia). So institutions like the Association for American Medical Colleges categorize the school as "private" rather than "public," but neither adjective fits perfectly.

The recent debate in Virginia on the issue of "charter universities" basically revolves around the idea of allowing public universities and colleges to be structured similarly to the structure that currently is seen at EVMS: the schools get some state support but the schools would have more freedom in their operations (personnel, purchasing, etc.) than other state agencies.

If neither fits perfectly...
...then why not just explain that in the article instead of inaccurately calling it public?

Academics
This section formerly said that with 5,000 applicants for a class size of 150, the admission rate is 3%, making it extremely competitive. However, the school clearly admits more than 3% to enroll that class of 150. No medical school has a 100% yield as some admitted students--possibly even most--will choose another school. Someone with direct knowledge could fill in the actual admission rate.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Virginia Medical School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108041112/http://www.evms.edu/media/evmspublic/mediaassets/buildings/maps/media_13886_en.pdf to http://evms.edu/media/evmspublic/mediaassets/buildings/maps/media_13886_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Notable faculty and alumni
This section does not include Alexander the Great. This may seem peculiar; after all, the blue link shows he is notable. We omit him because being notable is only half the battle.

Similarly, people who are faculty or alumni but are not notable are also left out, to be fair to Alexander the Great. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The broader Wikipedia community has rejected the idea that material in articles, including embedded lists, must be notable. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. More specifically, "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Trivia sections)." ElKevbo (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The guideline you are quoting seems to be demanding that list entries be such that the material would make sense in the article even if the list section were not included. Additionally, that would require a source connecting the persons newsworthiness being connected to the school. Otherwise it would be off-topic, such as mentioning that Leonardo da Vinci ate pasta in Pasta -- it's true and we can source it, but even a single sentence to that effect is overWP:WEIGHT. (We'd also end up mentioning da Vinci is Christianity, Human, Animal, etc.)


 * Instead, a much simpler selection criterion is in use throughout the project: blue link notability. This is a smaller, younger school than, for example, the University of Pennsylvania. While the alumni and faculty lists for that school are extensive based on blue-link notability, merely finding sources that mention they went to Penn and are themselves in some way newsworthy would generate lists of such absurd length that they would be incomplete, unmanagable and utterly worthless. Blue-link notability resolves that. Are they notable enough for inclusion? Yes, if they have an article. Are they otherwise suitable for WP:CSC:inclusion? Yes, if a reliable source says they are faculty or alum. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that material in this article, including alumni, needs to be supported by reliable sourcing and otherwise appropriate for inclusion e.g., WP:DUE. But the community has rejected the idea that all content, particularly the individual items included in embedded lists, must be independently notable. There aren't many people who fit into the gap between "noteworthy enough to be included in an embedded list" and "notable enough to merit a separate, dedicated article" but they're eligible to be included in this list. (No, I don't have anyone in particular in mind; just ensuring that this article is edited with the same standards as others.) ElKevbo (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble seeing that the "community has rejected" the selection criteria commonly used throughout the project. ("A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. (and) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." WP:LISTPEOPLE)
 * I'm not seeing anything in your reading that would exclude da Vinci from Human or would provide objective criteria for who to include so this isn't an indiscriminate list of people who are, frankly, of trivial importance to the topic of this school, many of whom show up in a simple search. I could spend weeks digging through those thousands of results for Nancy Welch, Edward Oldfield, Serina Neumann, etc. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE and WP:NOT still apply, of course. ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to stand-alone lists (list articles), not embedded lists (lists in larger articles). That is the distinction that WP:LISTBIO makes. ElKevbo (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)