User:HuskyHuskie/Northern Illinois University (lead section)

=Current version (as of 11 June 2011)= Northern Illinois University (NIU), is a nationally recognized comprehensive teaching and research institution with a student body of over 24,000 and alma mater for more than 225,000 alumni. The university is located 65 miles west of Chicago in DeKalb. NIU was established in 1895 as Northern Illinois State Normal School to prepare college-educated teachers.

U.S. News & World Report ranks NIU in its “National Universities” category; the magazine ranks NIU’s program in city management and urban policy No. 3 in the nation and the public finance and budgeting program at No. 13. For more than a decade, U.S. News and World Report has consistently ranked the NIU College of Business among the best business colleges in the country.

NIU is also accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. The university is a member of the prominent Universities Research Association that manages several federal physics laboratories including Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.

Huskie athletic teams are NCAA Division 1 and compete in the Mid-American Conference (MAC).

Inclusionary problems

 * a nationally recognized comprehensive teaching and research institution
 * I think there's little doubt that the phrase "nationally recognized" is the essence of what WP:PEACOCK is all about. Its puffery, plain and simple, plus its vagueness is simply unacceptable.  Recognized by whom and for what?  These things may be answered later, but since, I suspect, 9/10 of the colleges in America can claim some type of "national recognition" or another, it doesn't really belong in here, in my most humble opinion.


 * NIU is also accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
 * Two things about this: First of all (and I think this is really hard to deny), mentioning both the HLC and the NCA is pretty clearly redundant, as the former is an arm of the latter (now that I think about it, I can't understand how the HLC even merits its own Wikipedia article). No one is accredited by one without belonging to the other.


 * Secondly, the whole idea of whether accreditation even warrants mentioning in the lead of an article of any major university seems absurd to me. Would anyone who knows what accreditation is have any doubt, even for one nanosecond, that a university with over 20,000 students might somehow lack accreditation?  It's simply impossible.  It's not much different than if we included the following in the opening paragraph: Northern Illinois University is a nationally recognized college with 24,000 and lots of teachers. I mean, we pretty much presume that if you have 20,000 students you'll probably have around 1000 teachers, right?  Check around--it's reasonably close to the same ratio as pretty much all major public research universities.  Yes, it should be in the article, but it's not important enough to place in the opening paragraph.  The opening paragraph is about giving the reader the big picture that he might lack if he doesn't read further; this is something he can probably accurately presume.  I.e, it doesn't need to be here.  The same thing is true about accreditation; readers can and will presume it.  Now if a school had lost its accreditation, that would be lead section worthy.


 * For more than a decade, U.S. News and World Report has consistently ranked the NIU College of Business among the best business colleges in the country.
 * First of all, I always object to phrases that are guaranteed to go out of date. "For more than a decade" is not as bad as "For the past ten years", but it's still not the best way to keep the article current.  How about "Since 1999 . . . "?  Secondly, the phrase "one of the best" is clearly puffery, because it doesn't indicate if it's top ten, top ten percent, or even merely in the top half.  Beyond this issue of keeping the article current and using puffery, I'm unenthusiastic about including one specific program as being great because it's cherry picking.  If we found out that our urban geography program ranked 452 out of 455 such programs nationally, would we include that as notable?


 * a student body of over 24,000 and alma mater for more than 225,000 alumni
 * I actually have mixed feelings about this. I think I'm actualy okay with the 24,000 current students being mentioned so prominently, but I think I'd stick the part about the 200,000 alumni much lower, maybe in the last paragraph.


 * U.S. News & World Report ranks . . . NIU’s program in city management and urban policy No. 3 in the nation and the public finance and budgeting program at No. 13.
 * So this makes three specific programs listed in the lead. I really think one is enough (as another editor mentioned).  If it was up to me, I'd probably have zero specific programs in the lead, and mention all this in the major part of the article.

Exclusionary problems
So what's missing from the current version of the lead section?
 * One major thing, as I've noted elsewhere, is the honest inclusion of the USNWR ranking. You can't say USNWR calls your B-school one of the best without saying how USNWR ranks your school overall.  Beyond that, the inclusion of the USNWR rankings is an important thing to do in a university's article, much more than any other ranking.  Read the following, from Rankings of universities in the United States:

Referred to as the "granddaddy of the college rankings",[2] America's best–known American college and university rankings have been compiled since 1983 by U.S. News & World Report and are widely regarded as the most influential of all college rankings.[3]

The US News rankings are based upon data which U.S. News collects from each educational institution either from an annual survey or from the school's website. It also considers opinion surveys of university faculty and administrators outside the school.[4] The college rankings were published in all years thereafter, except 1984.

The US News listings have gained such influence that some Universities have made it a specific goal to reach a particular level in the US News rankings.[5] Belmont University president Bob Fisher stated in 2010, "Rising to the Top 5 in U.S. News represents a key element of Belmont’s Vision 2015 plan."[6] Clemson University made it a public goal to rise to the Top 20 in the US News rankings, and made specific changes, including reducing class size and altering the presentation of teacher salaries, so as to perform better in the statistical analysis by US News.[7] And at least one university, Arizona State, has actually tied the university president's pay to an increase in the school's placement in the US News rankings.[8]

These rankings are important, and as I've said elsewhere,

So what do I think should be included? From my perspective, there is little doubt as to which is the ranking to include: US News rankings. They are far from perfect, and if it were up to me, I'd like to go back in a time machine and put the person who invented them into a leaky barrel and toss it into the Fox River. So, if they are so imperfect, why do I think they should be included?

They are the oldest rankings, more or less continuous for nearly 30 years. This is valuable because it allows one to examine how a university has risen or fallen in the rankings over a period of decades. The Washington Monthly rankings, which appear to be growing in popularity, have only been published since 2005, and the Forbes rankings since 2008.

They allow for some type of comparison between all four-year schools, which is what people expect from "rankings". Many other rankings, such as the CMUP, are not comprehensive, and look only at a small fraction of American universities, hampering comparisons. And the Carnegie classification--which I readily acknowledge is highly prestigious--is just that--a classification system, rather than a ranking of schools.

But the most important reason to use the US News rankings is because Wikipedia is not supposed to create what we think is best, but to reflect what is really out there. And what is out there is this: The US News rankings utterly dominate the discussion of university evaluation today, both in public conversation, and behind the doors of university administrations around the US.
 * I think the lead section could possibly do a better job of summarizing the article and pointing out (genuinely) unique points. Do we have a singular, most famous alumnus who would merit mention in the lead?, for example?  And isn't the role of the SGA with the Huskie Bus Line something unique to NIU?  Just something that would add flavor to the lead section without being pufferized POV.

Good things about this version that I'd like to preserve

 * NIU was established in 1895 as Northern Illinois State Normal School to prepare college-educated teachers.
 * Great sentence, the whole thing; it includes important history and context.


 * The university is located 65 miles west of Chicago in DeKalb
 * This is also necessary, and I agree belongs somewhere in the 1st paragraph. Current location is probably good, better than its one-time location in the opening sentence.


 * U.S. News & World Report ranks NIU in its “National Universities” category
 * I think this must stay in. The US News rankings have become incredibly influential, and we must make it clear that NIU is not on the same plane as other universities with similar-sounding names (specifically, WIU and EIU, which are merely "Regional Universities".


 * ''Northern Illinois University is a . . . comprehensive teaching and research institution"
 * This is simply part of what defines the university, and, unlikely as it may seem, without it, someone could come here and be confused.


 * The university is a member of the prominent Universities Research Association that manages several federal physics laboratories including Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.
 * Call me a homer, but I don't think this belongs here because I want to brag, but rather because (as far as I know), this is something significant that sets us apart and that couldn't be "guessed" or presumed by the reader. It could stand some shortening, but I'm not sure how just yet.


 * Huskie athletic teams are NCAA Division 1 and compete in the Mid-American Conference (MAC).
 * Absolutely belongs in the lead. I might even go further--NIU is the only public university in the state besides U of I that plays in the highest division of all NCAA sports.  SIU, ISU, EIU, WIU, UIC, etc., have never played in a bowl game because their programs are at too low a level to participate in bowls or AP rankings.