User talk:FT Reader/2015/May

welcome to business school articles
Yes, I could use some help here. I've been going through them, moving the various ratings sections to the end and condensing them, and removing the details of admissions and courses. Of all the PR profession that contributes to WP, the most incompetent seem to be  the PR writers for academic institutions.  DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  God, it's a mess, isn't it? I didn't edit yesterday apart from a few routine things, but spent some time reading 30-40 articles on business schools. Worse than I expected. My guess is that it's not really PR writers from the schools, instead I'd say current or former students are likely to be behind most of it. When they apply for jobs, potential employees may Google their schools and come upon the articles here. Sadly enough, if I'm right, these students and alumni fail to understand that a neutral, factual article that highlights notable strengths but without excessive claims give a much better impression. I guess you've also noted the creative use of ratings? For most business schools referring to Financial Times' annual ranking of European business schools, the referral is to the year they placed the best, not to the latest ranking. Speaking of ratings, that is an aspect I would consider dealing with a bit differently. I think they are relatively important precisely because they can counter excessive claims. For business schools, there are the three widely recognised accreditation associations and that is something I think could be used to Wiki's advantage. If a business school has all three accreditations, its quality is verifiable and no need to make promotional claims - the accreditations speak for themselves. If a business school has no accreditation, it is almost certainly not a leading business school in any way (although there are good schools with "only" two accreditations). Likewise, the Financial Times' ranking of European business schools is pretty solid, goes back to a good source and is annually updated. I think a case could be made for using it to our advantage. These are thoughts. I'll start editing a bit today, but I won't act on any of these ideas yet. Better to have a proper discussion and a shared view before doing anything drastic. Cheers FT Reader(talk) (contribs) 13:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I recognize that Triple accreditation seems to be widely accepted, we have an article explaining why, and I see no objection to using it even in the lede. I agree ratings should be included--the question is which ones, and where ; we need some sort of standard -- the best example of such standards here is the list of what charts are acceptable for music recordings.  Personally I can see there is some point in including the highest as well as the most recent. What I most don't like are the ratings in subfields. (In fact, I don't like using similar sub-field ratings in all sorts of articles--most trade associations seem to have a scheme where everyone can be first at something, at least for one year)  I think location at the bottom is the best place, especially if we are going to accept listing a large number. It's easily findable, and is more of less the standard in most college articles. Your expertise is better than mine about using the FT ratings as the primary one, but if we do so we need to explain why--possibly a separate article on those ratings, with sources showing it's the standard, but at least a paragraph in the article on the FT, again with sources. What's your opinion of emphasis on job placements and on % acceptances. They are not irrelevant to quality and are I think included in the indexes, but they are so very easy to manipulate--especially job placements--both of these are more of a problem with law schools, though.


 * I continue to most notice the PR people, judging by the standardisation of articles. In the US, I have enough acquaintance with such offices that I also know characteristic tricks of style, but that doesn't hold for other countries. The complicating factor is that other editors may simply copy the format. Certainly some articles are written by over-enthusiastic students or alumni. They too have some standard features, at least in the US: emphasis on sports and extracurricular activities, inclusion of student housing facilities sometimes to the point of individual articles on each of them--and in a few cases actually on each wing of the buildings, emphasis on student government, neglect of the research component.   Some of this too will be US specific. And many times students will add on such material to a PR article. What one can also observe is a section on a particular program that is way disproportionate to the extent of coverage of the other programs--these are almost always PR.


 * But some of my focus on PR is a general special interest I have here in reducing PR editing in all sorts of articles. I  feel it less important to be demanding objective coverage from  the students.


 * We have a general practice of mentioning it specifically if a school does not have accreditation, tho accreditation is not a requirement for coverage--I've a few years ago got it accepted that it is particular important we cover the worst of them. Other things worth looking at are claims of affiliations with other schools--I've found it necessary to check the actual sources to verify. Some of the European schools, especially what seems to be a fly-by-night industry in Switzerland, have long been special problems. And Indian higher education of all sort is so unique a situation that it needs different consideration. I've worked a little here, with some advice from people who know their system.  DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what you're talking about, I've also come across some schools in Switzerland just like that... Anyhow, I agree that the triple accreditation would be nice already in the lede, it is among the most informative pieces of information for business schools and any triple accredited school is good (relatively speaking, in a world of thousands of business schools). I would also consider mentioning when a school lacks any of the three accreditations. This is anecdotal and subjective, but despite over ten years in the field and quite some knowledge of the business schools, I can't think of a single really good one without any of the three accreditations; having none of them is indicative of not being a great school, yet I come across some schools making claims to be leading business schools despite no accreditation and never figuring on the FT ranking. I believe that is akin to the PR pushing you mentioned, and a mentioning of the lack of accreditations would seem relevant. So a fairly easy case for triple accredited schools and schools without accreditation. A bit tougher for schools with one or. Some schools with only one or two accreditations regularly earn top spots on the FT ranking, showing that they are good. I would lean towards mentioning the accreditations they have, not over emphasise the accreditation they lack.


 * The FT ranking is very good, and by far the most prestigious one in Europe. Then again, it's hardly even notable outside Europe... Nevertheless, I would include it for all the European business schools. Speaking of which - I noticed there is no article on the actual ranking, highly notable though it is, and I plan to write the article. It seems the copyright rules for lists and rankings are changing from time to time, and I'm sure you know what the latest call is. Would it be appropriate to add the entire list of ranked schools in the article? If not, what about 10, 20 or 30. I seem to remember there being 83 schools in total in the ranking. This far I've focused on creating some articles for some well-known academic journals (Journal of Marketing and Journal of Business Research, more to follow) but thought to turn to the FT ranking during the weekend.


 * The subfields rankings are largely irrelevant, yes - at least for general purposes. Having said that, if, for example, FT's subranking of Masters in Finance (post-experience) show London Business School to be the best (it does), I see no reason not to mention it in the LBS article. To complicate matters, and nicely illustrate your point about the perils of subrankings, FT has another subranking of Masters in Finance (pre-experience) where HEC Paris wins. Whenever a school does well in a subranking coming from an authoritative source, I'd include it in that rating session you place at the end, and agree to place it in the end. As for accreditations and the FT European business school ranking, I would introduce them very early; possibly even in the infobox, akin to reporting the impact factor of academic journals in the infobox. FT Reader(talk) (contribs) 23:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)



FT Reader, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure