Template talk:NYC Colleges

I kind of liked this box better I allows for further expansion into the New York Metro region.

bard?
annandale-on-hudson is not in nyc... 69.253.159.242

King's restored, Cardozo deleted
I restored the entry for The King's College to the template. It is a liberal arts college, not (as User:Shoreranger claimed) a "specialized" or vocational school. Even if it were, it would belong in the section for such schools, rather than deleted entirely.

I deleted the entry for Cardozo Law School as it is a part of Yeshiva University. The medicine/law section only lists those schools that are standalone and are not part of a larger school listed elsewhere in the template.

I did not restore the entry for Bard. I originally put it into the template because of the Bard Graduate Center in NYC, but agree that it is a judgment call (as well as Touro and LIU, which are similar cases). YLee (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored Weill Cornell, as Cornell U not listed in the template (since Cornell as a whole is not in NYC). 86.142.78.63 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The King's College, by its own admission, is NOT a liberal arts college: "The King's College is not offering a liberal arts education, any more than the Empire State Building Observation Deck is offering a cross-country tour. We are offering something more specific than the liberal arts: we're offering a philosophically and theologically informed examination of the nation's (and the world's) key institutions." This place has a very specific agenda, and is not shy about saying so.  I don't recall deleting it entirely, but if so it may have been when it was not acredited.  Lacking a specific category King's would fit into, I am placing it (back) into "Other" for its "unique approach". Shoreranger (talk)


 * Four recent press releases on the [www.tkc.edu website] for The King's College describe it as "a Christian liberal arts college." These releases were written since the page to which Shoreranger refers above. As such I'm going to put it in the Liberal Arts category, if no one objects. —Evaus (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The recent press releases do indeed include a boilerplate line refering to the school as a "Christian liberal arts college." However, the definition of a "Christian liberal arts college" as opposed to any other kind of liberal arts college is not explained.  In addition, the above, very clear and unambiguous statement. "The King's College is not ofering a liberal arts education" is still up on the website.  Given the clear nature of that statement as opposed to the boilerplate, I therefore do object to the change. Shoreranger (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shoreranger, after consideration I must side with those who want to put The King's College back into the liberal arts category.


 * "Christian liberal arts college" clearly means a liberal arts college with a Christian emphasis. Seen in this light the self-description that you cite ought to be read as "not offering a [typical] liberal arts education"; in other words, TKC (like every other college in the country) is claiming that it is somehow better or distinct from its liberal arts-college peers, not that it's a different beast entirely. You are mistaking marketing braggodocio for a statement of positive fact. YLee (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * YLee, marketing aside, I don't agree that we should assume the meaning of what is *implied* by King's own self-description, and take what an institution of higher learning writes about itself at face-value. If they meant not "typical" then we have to believe they would have said that.  Instead, in the context of the full statement, they point out how *different* they are from a liberal arts education by comparing the difference between a visit to the Empire State Building observation deck and a cross-country tour.  As if that wasn't enough, they take the pains to elaborate and plainly state they are "offering something more specific than the liberal arts" - "more specific", clearly meaning 'not the same as'.  This in not ambiguous at all, is still on the King's website, and - by virtue of its longevity - has more standing as a true representation of the school's mission and self-perception than a brief, unexplained boilerplate that is, more than anything else, *truely* marketing.  I still object, and will wait a few days for discussion before I revert. Shoreranger (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Instead, in the context of the full statement, they point out how *different* they are from a liberal arts education by comparing the difference between a visit to the Empire State Building observation deck and a cross-country tour." If this sort of rhetoric isn't proof that King's self-description is marketing talk, I don't know what is. Is there a liberal arts college anywhere that describes itself as "just a liberal arts college"? Of course not; every single one, on its website and in brochures mailed to applicants, talks of how it offers a unique experience. Doesn't change the fact that they are all liberal arts colleges (or engineering schools, or land-grant state universities, or art schools). Given King's location within the world-famous Empire State Building it's natural that the building would be used as a selling point, but that's all it is.
 * Besides, if King's isn't a LAC, what is it? The only reason Bank Street and Teachers College are listed in "Other" is because there aren't enough ed schools in NYC to justify their own category. Berkeley is some sort of for-profit school (and, on second thought, maybe belongs in "Vocational"). That leaves King's. Have the founders of King's really truly created a unique type of educational experience that doesn't exist anywhere else? I doubt it. No, King's is a LAC, and belongs with other LACs.YLee (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the location in the ESB is a "selling point" in this case, and we should take what a college says about itself in a mission statement on face-value. Secondly, King's is far from providing an educationsl experience that doesn't exist anywhere else.  It is very much on the model of evangelical colleges that are blurring the line between seminaries (yeshivas, theological colleges, etc.) and liberal arts institutions all over the nation.  That blurring is precisely what makes it an "other" when categorizing King's - that and its own, clear statement that it is specifically not a liberal arts school.  Evangelical colleges and universities are very clear that they are not practicing the same kind of universal (hence, as I understand it, the origin of "university") viewpoint that a liberal arts education has come to embody in the United States.   It is not unique to King's, but it is the only example in NYC, and that makes it an "other".  I will again wait a few days for reasoned response before I revert. Shoreranger (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no further response, I am reverting. Shoreranger (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I obviously haven't been as involved in this discussion and may have missed something, but the most recent comments make me wonder if Shoreranger is confused as to the meaning of "liberal arts". It's not a matter of "liberalism" but simply a broad range of academic study (as in, not vocational training -- not a conservatory, law school, nursing school, or any other specialised degree). Therefore a school can be "Christian" and "liberal arts" as long as it has certain religious requirements like Chapel attendance (or even a purely nominal association) with a "liberal" (that is to say, diverse) educational curriculum. TKC is most certainly "conservative" from everything I've ever heard about it, but I don't necessarily equate Christianity with conservatism (especially since I espouse one value set and not the other) even though I know it's fairly common to do so. Even if my impression here is wrong, it's not really relevant either way, as liberal arts has nothing to do with religious affiliation.

I think it's fair to say that, while their marketing (and I aver that it is marketing) might try to suggest otherwise, TKC is teaching "liberal arts" with a core curriculum of politics, philosophy, and economics: a fairly liberal (diverse) range IMHO. See liberal arts for the trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and logic or the quadrivium of geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy -- few liberal arts colleges literally use this specific curriculum today, and TKC is definitely not offering a "professional, vocational, or technical curriculum." I also know that there are plenty of "comprehensive colleges", or just four-year schools in general, that are simply called liberal arts colleges because the definition of a liberal arts college has grown so broad. Similarly "university" doesn't even mean "research institution" here in the US as it ought to, either, and in spite my disagreeement with its use for some insitutions, standard usage doesn't require a heavy research component and most of the country doesn't require the doctoral standards that a state like Massachusetts does. It's really a matter of "correct" v. colloquial usage, and the colloquial often wins out on Wikipedia (if you see WP:UNIGUIDE on article naming, for example, it's not a matter of what's official, but what's most often used). They're still not vocational schools, and not technically liberal arts, but closer to the latter.

More to the point, however, if you take a look at the Carnegie Classification for TKC as well as Barnard, Boricua, Manhattan, Marymount Manhattan, Mercy, Metropolitan, Mount Saint Vincent, Saint Francis, Saint Joseph's, and Wagner (the Liberal Arts Colleges according to this template), you might find 2 or 3 that are classified as "liberal arts". A few others aren't classified as "liberal arts" but classified as "Bachelor's: Arts & Sciences" just like TKC. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Any specific objections to my putting TKC back under "liberal arts colleges" based on what I had to say last week? If not, I'll just go ahead and be WP:BOLD :).--Aepoutre (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still object. If anything, your post presents a good case for whittling-down the liberal arts category based on the Carnegie classifications.  IF we HAD to, I might not object to including King's in a category for "Bachelor's: Arts & Sciences", based on the same.  However, I still maintain that evangelical schools of this kind blur the line between theological colleges and what is here referred to as "Bachelor's: Arts & Sciences" colleges, and since there is only one school of this type in NYC - though certainly not nationally - it does not require its own category, and is therefore justified in the "Other" category.Shoreranger (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I wonder, though, why the template needs the subcategorization at all. I realise it's not a small template either way, but I think it'd just be easier to have a template with a long list than one with confusing and hard-to-define categories. If categories are necessary, however, wouldn't it be better to simply divide between junior colleges, four-year schools, and doctoral degree-granting universities or something? I imagine that scheme is more relevant to one's search for college information than the vague and complex idea of Liberal arts colleges in the United States versus what seems to be a way-too-specific distinction between all the arts, engineering, vocational, health, law schools in the city. Some of the groups even seem too arbitrary. Health and law together, arts and engineering together, and vocational separate from that. I'd be fine with two-year, four-year, and graduate, or something along those lines. If we can all decide on a good breakdown together, I'd like to use it for a few different college & city lists and templates. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who originally organized the template into categories (and, if I may say, the way it stands today is a great improvement over how it used to be). As for the categories' names, I wanted to balance the three demands of making sure no one category's size was much greater than the others', trying to combine categories that made some sense together (e.g., "Health and law"; note that my original name was "Medicine and law," but Shoreranger objected to including nursing schools and the like under "Medicine"; this seemed overly picayune to me, but acceptable), and not having too many categories (a half-dozen plus an "Other" feels about right). "Arts and engineering" (originally "The arts and engineering"; I still would prefer the definite article there) exsts in part also because of the unusual case of Cooper Union. "Theological" and "Vocational" could combine, but I don't see them complementing each other the way "Health and law" do.


 * I have no objections at all to other formats for the template; in fact, I organized the CUNY template in the exact way you describe. However, I dont think such a design is appropriate here; for one thing, there just aren't many (Any?) standalone two-year schools in NYC.


 * As for where to place TKC, a possible compromise is to use the Carnegie classifications for the entire template; this of course has the advantage of using an entirely-objective set of categories. YLee (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

King's restored, Cardozo deleted
I restored the entry for The King's College to the template. It is a liberal arts college, not (as User:Shoreranger claimed) a "specialized" or vocational school. Even if it were, it would belong in the section for such schools, rather than deleted entirely.

I deleted the entry for Cardozo Law School as it is a part of Yeshiva University. The medicine/law section only lists those schools that are standalone and are not part of a larger school listed elsewhere in the template.

I did not restore the entry for Bard. I originally put it into the template because of the Bard Graduate Center in NYC, but agree that it is a judgment call (as well as Touro and LIU, which are similar cases). YLee (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored Weill Cornell, as Cornell U not listed in the template (since Cornell as a whole is not in NYC). 86.142.78.63 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The King's College, by its own admission, is NOT a liberal arts college: "The King's College is not offering a liberal arts education, any more than the Empire State Building Observation Deck is offering a cross-country tour. We are offering something more specific than the liberal arts: we're offering a philosophically and theologically informed examination of the nation's (and the world's) key institutions." This place has a very specific agenda, and is not shy about saying so.  I don't recall deleting it entirely, but if so it may have been when it was not acredited.  Lacking a specific category King's would fit into, I am placing it (back) into "Other" for its "unique approach". Shoreranger (talk)


 * Four recent press releases on the [www.tkc.edu website] for The King's College describe it as "a Christian liberal arts college." These releases were written since the page to which Shoreranger refers above. As such I'm going to put it in the Liberal Arts category, if no one objects. —Evaus (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The recent press releases do indeed include a boilerplate line refering to the school as a "Christian liberal arts college." However, the definition of a "Christian liberal arts college" as opposed to any other kind of liberal arts college is not explained.  In addition, the above, very clear and unambiguous statement. "The King's College is not ofering a liberal arts education" is still up on the website.  Given the clear nature of that statement as opposed to the boilerplate, I therefore do object to the change. Shoreranger (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shoreranger, after consideration I must side with those who want to put The King's College back into the liberal arts category.


 * "Christian liberal arts college" clearly means a liberal arts college with a Christian emphasis. Seen in this light the self-description that you cite ought to be read as "not offering a [typical] liberal arts education"; in other words, TKC (like every other college in the country) is claiming that it is somehow better or distinct from its liberal arts-college peers, not that it's a different beast entirely. You are mistaking marketing braggodocio for a statement of positive fact. YLee (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * YLee, marketing aside, I don't agree that we should assume the meaning of what is *implied* by King's own self-description, and take what an institution of higher learning writes about itself at face-value. If they meant not "typical" then we have to believe they would have said that.  Instead, in the context of the full statement, they point out how *different* they are from a liberal arts education by comparing the difference between a visit to the Empire State Building observation deck and a cross-country tour.  As if that wasn't enough, they take the pains to elaborate and plainly state they are "offering something more specific than the liberal arts" - "more specific", clearly meaning 'not the same as'.  This in not ambiguous at all, is still on the King's website, and - by virtue of its longevity - has more standing as a true representation of the school's mission and self-perception than a brief, unexplained boilerplate that is, more than anything else, *truely* marketing.  I still object, and will wait a few days for discussion before I revert. Shoreranger (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Instead, in the context of the full statement, they point out how *different* they are from a liberal arts education by comparing the difference between a visit to the Empire State Building observation deck and a cross-country tour." If this sort of rhetoric isn't proof that King's self-description is marketing talk, I don't know what is. Is there a liberal arts college anywhere that describes itself as "just a liberal arts college"? Of course not; every single one, on its website and in brochures mailed to applicants, talks of how it offers a unique experience. Doesn't change the fact that they are all liberal arts colleges (or engineering schools, or land-grant state universities, or art schools). Given King's location within the world-famous Empire State Building it's natural that the building would be used as a selling point, but that's all it is.
 * Besides, if King's isn't a LAC, what is it? The only reason Bank Street and Teachers College are listed in "Other" is because there aren't enough ed schools in NYC to justify their own category. Berkeley is some sort of for-profit school (and, on second thought, maybe belongs in "Vocational"). That leaves King's. Have the founders of King's really truly created a unique type of educational experience that doesn't exist anywhere else? I doubt it. No, King's is a LAC, and belongs with other LACs.YLee (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the location in the ESB is a "selling point" in this case, and we should take what a college says about itself in a mission statement on face-value. Secondly, King's is far from providing an educationsl experience that doesn't exist anywhere else.  It is very much on the model of evangelical colleges that are blurring the line between seminaries (yeshivas, theological colleges, etc.) and liberal arts institutions all over the nation.  That blurring is precisely what makes it an "other" when categorizing King's - that and its own, clear statement that it is specifically not a liberal arts school.  Evangelical colleges and universities are very clear that they are not practicing the same kind of universal (hence, as I understand it, the origin of "university") viewpoint that a liberal arts education has come to embody in the United States.   It is not unique to King's, but it is the only example in NYC, and that makes it an "other".  I will again wait a few days for reasoned response before I revert. Shoreranger (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no further response, I am reverting. Shoreranger (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I obviously haven't been as involved in this discussion and may have missed something, but the most recent comments make me wonder if Shoreranger is confused as to the meaning of "liberal arts". It's not a matter of "liberalism" but simply a broad range of academic study (as in, not vocational training -- not a conservatory, law school, nursing school, or any other specialised degree). Therefore a school can be "Christian" and "liberal arts" as long as it has certain religious requirements like Chapel attendance (or even a purely nominal association) with a "liberal" (that is to say, diverse) educational curriculum. TKC is most certainly "conservative" from everything I've ever heard about it, but I don't necessarily equate Christianity with conservatism (especially since I espouse one value set and not the other) even though I know it's fairly common to do so. Even if my impression here is wrong, it's not really relevant either way, as liberal arts has nothing to do with religious affiliation.

I think it's fair to say that, while their marketing (and I aver that it is marketing) might try to suggest otherwise, TKC is teaching "liberal arts" with a core curriculum of politics, philosophy, and economics: a fairly liberal (diverse) range IMHO. See liberal arts for the trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and logic or the quadrivium of geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy -- few liberal arts colleges literally use this specific curriculum today, and TKC is definitely not offering a "professional, vocational, or technical curriculum." I also know that there are plenty of "comprehensive colleges", or just four-year schools in general, that are simply called liberal arts colleges because the definition of a liberal arts college has grown so broad. Similarly "university" doesn't even mean "research institution" here in the US as it ought to, either, and in spite my disagreeement with its use for some insitutions, standard usage doesn't require a heavy research component and most of the country doesn't require the doctoral standards that a state like Massachusetts does. It's really a matter of "correct" v. colloquial usage, and the colloquial often wins out on Wikipedia (if you see WP:UNIGUIDE on article naming, for example, it's not a matter of what's official, but what's most often used). They're still not vocational schools, and not technically liberal arts, but closer to the latter.

More to the point, however, if you take a look at the Carnegie Classification for TKC as well as Barnard, Boricua, Manhattan, Marymount Manhattan, Mercy, Metropolitan, Mount Saint Vincent, Saint Francis, Saint Joseph's, and Wagner (the Liberal Arts Colleges according to this template), you might find 2 or 3 that are classified as "liberal arts". A few others aren't classified as "liberal arts" but classified as "Bachelor's: Arts & Sciences" just like TKC. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Any specific objections to my putting TKC back under "liberal arts colleges" based on what I had to say last week? If not, I'll just go ahead and be WP:BOLD :).--Aepoutre (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still object. If anything, your post presents a good case for whittling-down the liberal arts category based on the Carnegie classifications.  IF we HAD to, I might not object to including King's in a category for "Bachelor's: Arts & Sciences", based on the same.  However, I still maintain that evangelical schools of this kind blur the line between theological colleges and what is here referred to as "Bachelor's: Arts & Sciences" colleges, and since there is only one school of this type in NYC - though certainly not nationally - it does not require its own category, and is therefore justified in the "Other" category.Shoreranger (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I wonder, though, why the template needs the subcategorization at all. I realise it's not a small template either way, but I think it'd just be easier to have a template with a long list than one with confusing and hard-to-define categories. If categories are necessary, however, wouldn't it be better to simply divide between junior colleges, four-year schools, and doctoral degree-granting universities or something? I imagine that scheme is more relevant to one's search for college information than the vague and complex idea of Liberal arts colleges in the United States versus what seems to be a way-too-specific distinction between all the arts, engineering, vocational, health, law schools in the city. Some of the groups even seem too arbitrary. Health and law together, arts and engineering together, and vocational separate from that. I'd be fine with two-year, four-year, and graduate, or something along those lines. If we can all decide on a good breakdown together, I'd like to use it for a few different college & city lists and templates. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who originally organized the template into categories (and, if I may say, the way it stands today is a great improvement over how it used to be). As for the categories' names, I wanted to balance the three demands of making sure no one category's size was much greater than the others', trying to combine categories that made some sense together (e.g., "Health and law"; note that my original name was "Medicine and law," but Shoreranger objected to including nursing schools and the like under "Medicine"; this seemed overly picayune to me, but acceptable), and not having too many categories (a half-dozen plus an "Other" feels about right). "Arts and engineering" (originally "The arts and engineering"; I still would prefer the definite article there) exsts in part also because of the unusual case of Cooper Union. "Theological" and "Vocational" could combine, but I don't see them complementing each other the way "Health and law" do.


 * I have no objections at all to other formats for the template; in fact, I organized the CUNY template in the exact way you describe. However, I dont think such a design is appropriate here; for one thing, there just aren't many (Any?) standalone two-year schools in NYC.


 * I honestly think, even with a dearth of junior colleges in NYC, that categorization of institutions by degree offerings (as in type, not field)/institution type would still work. We organized MetroBoston by Universities, Colleges, Junior colleges, and Graduate institutions (I for one wouldn't advocate doing the same for the template). For Graduate institutions, there is hidden text specifying that the category is for institutions that are not part of a university, in keeping it clean with the one-institution-one-entry philosophy. Just one suggestion, and, while I haven't seen it in action for NYC, I like it much more than anything else I've seen thus far. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, Aepoutre's suggestion seems like a good comprimise. Also, just to be clear: if I recall correctly my primary motivation for changing the former "Medicine" designation to "Health" was to include the optometry school - dispensing eyeglasses and contact lenses does not seem to equate to medicine, while can be enthusiastically included in "heatlh".Shoreranger (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Junior colleges" in NYC include: AADA, TCI, Bramson and, I suspect, more.Shoreranger (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To Shoreranger: "I still maintain that evangelical schools of this kind blur the line between theological colleges and what is here referred to as 'Bachelor's: Arts & Sciences' colleges, and since there is only one school of this type in NYC - though certainly not nationally - it does not require its own category, and is therefore justified in the 'Other' category." Look at the TKC website: not a single degree in "theology" is offered.  To suggest it's some hybrid school is lunacy.  The politics, philosophy, and economics program is clearly structured around the trivium, and even business students are required to take foundational liberal arts courses (logic, political philosophy, writing, etc).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.233.50 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just silly.Shoreranger (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of external links and inclusion of NYU-Poly
The template should not contain external links to other website, as that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. There should only be links to other articles, and if the school is not notable to have its own article, then it is not notable enough to be included in the template. External links should generally be avoided in most cases, according to WP:EL. Also, NYU-Poly should be included in the list of schools. Although it merged with NYU, it is still its own school with its own website, its own campus, its own curricula, etc. NYU-Poly isn't so much a school within NYU (like the New York University College of Nursing), but its rather another school that is a partner with NYU and uses its name. – Dream out loud (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on the removal of external links. NYU-Poly, however, is a different story; the merger is a fact and, while internal integration within NYU is still occurring, Poly no longer exists as a separate instituton from a legal perspective. YLee (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It appeared that the template was trying to encompass all of the degree-granting institutions within the five boros, and was not a listing of "notable" schools. By that criteria, external links would not be an issue.  However, since it is true that Wiki policy frowns on external links in general, by all means they should be removed from the template.  However, all of those institutions are, in my opinion, by virtue of their existance as degree-granting institutions, "notable" enough and deserve Wiki articles, though no one has gotten around to writing them yet.  Finally, I whoelheartedly support Ylee's analysis of the Poly issue. Shoreranger (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, Shoreranger, all college and universities are considered notable on Wikipedia. Furthermore, navboxes are intended to link existing articles, and you're right not only that external links are frowned upon, but that they're particularly frowned upon when used in a navbox intended to provide navigation between articles within Wikipedia (that is to say, not outside Wikipedia). Maybe there should've been an article already, but addition of an external link is usually the result of a non-NPOV issue and usually for advert purposes. That all aside, I also agree with YLee here. It's been similarly decided "one institution, one link" for the Template:Colleges and universities in metropolitan Boston, too. --Aepoutre (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how about restoring the removed colleges with text only - no links? Then an accurate representation of the institutions of higher learning in NYC is made, without any Wiki link "issues".Shoreranger (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not support doing so for this navbox. There are various guidelines specifying that navboxes exist for existing articles. I'd focus on creating those articles before creating a navbox that uses non-articles. That's much more improvement-oriented, as it's more substantive, as well as in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I know people who don't follow the guidelines, but I just can't condone a template that flies in the face of them, especially when I agree with the reasoning behind them. --Aepoutre (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New format
So is it agreed that something like "Junior colleges", "Colleges", and "Universities and graduate institutions" is acceptable? Junior college is generally a term for two-year school, of course, colleges are generally four-year, perhaps with some master's offerings, and universities and graduate institutions have a heavy graduate component. Unfortunately, I'd need to bone up on NYC schools quite extensively to distinguish between them all. Do you, Shoreranger, or someone else, volunteer to take up this gauntlet if/when it's been agreed upon? --Aepoutre (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it in a sandbox first. I suspect that a template with only three categories will have "Junior Colleges" be very small. I prefer "Two-year," "Four-year," and "Graduate," myself, in any case. YLee (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)