Talk:Grinnell College/Archive 1

Archive 1

prominent alumni list

someone please alphabetize the alumni list. it's silly right now.

Not only that, it's filled with not-so-prominent alumni.

• Also, technically Walter Koenig is not an alumnus because he did not graduate from Grinnell College. I believe he attended Grinnell for two years and then transferred elsewhere. (Does anyone care?) I don't think I can find a confirmable source for this, though. It was something I heard pretty regularly when I was a student there (early 90's). TishaStacey 23:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note that the Wikipedia entry for alumnus indicates that anyone who has been a student (or been matriculated) at an institution is an "alumnus," regardless of whether the person has been graduated. --Klmarcus 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Self Governance

I'd like to see someone start writing a section on self-governance. To me, self-governance was an important aspect of campus life when I was a student there in the mid 1990s. My understanding is that there has been some erosion of this philosophy. Information on how this came about would add to this section as well. Froff22 05:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Will do! It won't be much at first, but let's get 'er going. Andersem 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Campus

I know it's minor, but I always thought that Chicago and Minneapolis were more like five hours away, not four, and shouldn't Saint Louis be included as well?Kaibab 04:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Chicago and Minneapolis are both approx. five-hour drives -- definitely closer to five than four. TishaStacey 23:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's really a function of how much like a maniac you drive, and which part of Chicago you're going to. I used to make the drive from Ann Arbor, MI to Grinnell, which took me through the southern outskirts of Chicago, and it was definitely only about four hours from there to Grinnell. I don't have any personal knowledge about the trip to/from the twin cities, but Google Maps lists the trip from there to Grinnell as being about 10 minutes shorter than the one from Chicago. That being the case, I suspect that the two are roughly equivalent. I'm comfortable with the estimate being four hours instead of five. Azriphael 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Then again, this thread is a year out of date, and the relevant portion of the article has been removed. I'd call it a wash, and this whole chunk of the discussion could stand to be blown away. Azriphael 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I added citations to the campus section--and delted request for a citation for the fact that there are loggia in the dorms at Grinnell. You can see them in the pictures viewable on this very website...I'm gonna say that a citation here is unnecessary. Col pogo 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Academics

"Nearly 100 percent of Grinnellians who apply to either law or medical school gain admission." Is this really true and verifiable? How much is "nearly" 100 percent? Does anyone know? What about Heyhey, who added this information? --Babcockd 12:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heyhey seems to be interested in spinning everything about Grinnell in the most positive light. I've had to cut much of his or her work for NPOV reasons. --Exeunt 16:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

GrinnellPlans

I just dumped some text in here for a merge...someone familiar with the subject should clean it up more thoroughly. NickelShoe 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be that little more than a one-sentence reference is worthwhile here. GrinnellPlans seems to be a not-particularly-remarkable text-based virtual community. It would seem to have WP:NPOV#Undue_weight here. -- Gnetwerker 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an incomplete sentence in the GrinnellPlans section. It looks like it might have been interesting in its full state. Does anyone know about this? -- Maleficarum 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff where it was originally added. -- Gnetwerker 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

page could use a photo or two

This page could use a few photos. Any of a number of buildings would be interesting to include. Alumnists who are not recent may be interested in seeing photos of new construction such as the science building, the arts ceter, East campus, other buildings that I have no idea about. If you get very ambitious, the Grinnell city page could use a picture of the bank as well. Pdbailey 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ask and received. I have more, and I put up the ones that I thought were useful, but I could always put up others if there's a request (I drive through the area a lot, and I wouldn't mind stopping off again since it's really not out of the way if there's a request for a photo that I didn't take). Madmaxmarchhare 06:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

wealthiest liberal arts college?

According to an edit by 130.221.182.61, "Darthmouth has the largest [endowment] of a liberal arts college." With and endowment of 2.7 billion, Dartmouth College does have a larger endowment at nearly twice that of Grinnell. However, there is an issue in semantics as to weather a school such as Dartmouth that grants the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Medicine is, stricly speaking a liberal arts college and not a university. Given the massive resources that must be dedicated to a medical school and graduate students, the distinction seems appropos. Pdbailey 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Grinnell is the wealthiest liberal-arts college (as you point out), but also has the highest per-student endowment, which is in itself significant. -- Gnetwerker 06:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking undergraduates then Caltech has the highest per-student endowment. I've been to both campuses and there is no comparison. Though I must admit Grinnell's total is crazy big. --vossman 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dartmouth College isn't a liberal arts college in this context. Liberal Arts college refers to a college that has been classified as such by the Carnegie Foundation. That's why Dartmouth does not appear under the liberal arts college rankings in the US News and World Report list.

Right, the Caltech endowment is about the same as Grinnells and it has fewer undergrads, but (1) it's not a liberal arts college by any stretch, (2) endowment/student is smaller then at Grinnell when you count all students (i.e. do you really believe that Caltech's endowment is being used only for the college students?), (3) Caltech has a lot more money flowing threw it than Grinnell because it's a graduate school and faculty write huge grants and then spend the money (on research). Pdbailey 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to agree with the above, the term "liberal arts college" has been more or less defined in the modern era by the US News list. Many of the other Ivy League (which are quite old) have only recently made the formal name change to "university" due to historic nostalgia. Dartmouth is listed, like the other Ivy League schools, in the National University category. Anyone looking down the list of highest endowments is quick to notice the inexplicable presense of Grinnell. --Bobak 05:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "recently". None of the Ivies has changed its name in decades, at a minimum. I wouldn't be surprised to learn there has been no such change in 100 years or more.

Dartmouth is a university by just about any reasonable definition of that term. The only reason people often mistake it for a liberal arts college is that it calls itself "Dartmouth College" rather than "Dartmouth University", but it does so for historical reasons -- New Hampshire long ago tried to seize the college and turn it into a public institution called "Dartmouth University", and Dartmouth does not want the name that was almost forced upon it -- and not because it lacks any characteristics of a university. (Note that Boston College is also a university; it kept its original name as it expanded because "Boston University" was already taken.) Dartmouth has liberal arts programs, but also has schools of business, engineering and medicine. It offers Ph.D., M.B.A. and M.D. degrees. A liberal arts college only offers liberal arts -- and only at the undergraduate level. Schools that depart modestly from this definition are given some leeway, but Dartmouth has gone too far to still qualify.

Hancock's alumni listing

Whoever keeps deleting the part about Herbie Hancock attendeding Grinnell for one year, stop. He was only enrolled for one year. I think it's significant that Grinnell considers him an alum considering he never graduated from the college, he transfered. [unsigned comment of 132.161.189.63]

It's also possible that he considers himself an alumnist. Read this inverview, [1] a search shows that he is often listed similar to this [2] page which reads, "He attended Grinnell College, majoring in engineering for two years, then he changed his major to music." Please provide reference to his single year attendance. I'll also note that the college lists him as '60 Pdbailey 23:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hancock spent four years at Grinnell (not one) and graduated from the college in 1960. Elephant11 21:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Elephant11

Elephant11, can you give a reference for this? Pdbailey 04:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Elephant 11, but the Grinnell Alumni Directory lists Hancock as a graduate of the class of 1960, with a BA in music.

It should also be noted that according to Merriam-Webster[3], an alumnus is "a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university". Note that this includes people who have attended, regardless of their graduation status. Azriphael 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Should how Grinnell ended up with its mega-endowment be included?

Back when I was involved in the administrative politics at a major US research univerity, I reviewed the list of the largest US university endowments. I was surprised to see Grinnell on the list (just below the University of Washington and above CalTech). My curiousity demanded that I find out why the small, relatively young school in Iowa was so, ahem, endowed. Then a friend mentioned that a co-founded of Intel was an alumnus...
(From the article on Robert Noyce, co-founder of Intel and alum)
"While a student at Grinnell College, Noyce stole a pig from a nearby farmer for a college luau and then slaughtered it in Clark Hall. The prank nearly earned him expulsion, if not for the intervention of Grant O. Gale, a physics professor at the time. He later returned the favor by allowing the college to invest in Intel at an early stage."
Should this be adapted and included? I mean, considering the section on rumors, this is actually fascinating and true! --Bobak 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bobak, I think it might be a bit revisionist to say that Noyce `allowing the college to invest in Intel.' I think it is often told that Joseph Rosenfield saw that Robert Noyce was going somewhere with the company, invested and donated the investment to the college. Rosenfield was a briliant investor, and friend to Warren Buffett, who also became a trustee, perhaps because of thier friendship (I don't know). [4] Pdbailey 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! I was just saying it would be fascinating to hear how the endowment turned out the way it did. I clearly heard what must've been an urban rumor (or the academic-circle version thereof...ivory rumor?), whatever the real story is I think it would be notable enough to include. Grinnell is an exceptional case with its endowment (sort of like how Kamehameha Schools ended up with the 7th largest endowment in the country... and it's not a college!). --Bobak 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall learning that Grinnell was very wealthy almost 25 years ago when I was deciding where to apply. I doubt that Intel stock had much to do with how Grinnell became rich in the first place, even if it did help the endowment soar more recently.

I've always been told it had less to do with Noyce, and more to do with Warren Buffet's investment advice (and Rosenfield's own abilities as an investor). And the college wasn't always rich. Grinnell had some great investment luck in the 1980s, but in the 1970s it was very poor indeed. Incidentally, it's not that young. 160-odd years isn't anything to sniff at for US universities--I'm sure that puts it on a par with most land-grant universities. --Col_pogo 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The first major boost for the endowment was when Warren Buffett convinced the trustees to invest in a television station. The college is a non-profit, and as I understand it, a list of its holdings and results are therefore available to the public through the annual IRS Form 990. I'm sure they're published at guidestar.org, if you really wanted to know. WhatamIdoing 19:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Intel investment was a bond, which has a fixed interest rate. While the interest rate may have been large to compensate the investors for the risk, it doesn't have the apparently unlimited returns of a stock. Pdbailey 13:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Advert tag

Some Anon has messed up this article with a large number of edits that have turned a solid encyclopedic article into a brochure. I created and greatly expended the category on for-profit colleges and universities, and this article now reminds me of the ones for DeVry and ITT Tech before editors undid the articles that were clearly written by shills of those (far, far less respectable) institutions. --Bobak 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I took the tag off, but meant no general disrespect for doing so without discussing it here first. As an outsider, it doesn't seem that bad to me, in fact, not really out-of-line at all. Maybe a few edits here and there by Bobak can get it clearned up, and if not, then the tag can be replaced at any time. Madmaxmarchhare 06:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

that's fine with me. There's no set rule as to who should remove it. I think it's been touched up well. --Bobak 15:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

the fact that Grinnell has a social justice emphasis doesn't need to be mentioned in the first sentence. Please keep the intro direct and to the point. Also, it should be clearly stated that Grinnell has the highest endowment of any liberal arts school, regardless of what the Chronicle for Higher Education says.Elephant11 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Elephant 11

Not sure what you mean. I think the `social justice' is a more centeral focus than `lots of money.' The Chronice was to add a source for the claim, esp. after it was removed by someone claiming that another college had a higher endowment. Pdbailey 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some heavy-duty editing. It seems like every once in a while someone comes in and inserts items from the brochure. Judging from the information, it's either the same person or they are employing the same brochure.--Exeunt 04:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the latter. Thanks for your work! --Bobak 23:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:Exeunt

The history page needs substantial work. A lot of it repeats useless tidbits from the college's pamphlets.

Also, the prominent alumni list seems suspect. About half the list can probably be purged.

Also, I would like to know where the current enrollment figures are from. I took mine from the the colleges Common Data Set for the year 05-06. Exeunt 22:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I modified a fraction of these to include them back in the article. I'll start with what I didn't add back. A good poriton of the history was taken from verbatim from the Grinnell website, which I presume is not a compatable copy right at the best. It's also a questionable source since it's essentially an autobiography. However, I added back two high profile media outlets claims about the college, you might want to read the wikipedia verifiability policy before trying to dispute this. I will point out that the U.S. News source is a more common source for 'rankings' which Americans are addicted to, but their publication is just one source of comments on colleges, adding in others gives more depth and flavor.

I'll also point out that I did a double rv because the version you changed back to had some bad gramar, such as, "Grinnell is ranked fifteen for liberal arts colleges" and a request for a fact check on the claim, "Grinnell's $1.4 billion endowment is the largest of any liberal arts college." added by user:Exeunt shortly after user:Exeunt removed an appropriate citation in another edit.

user:Pdbailey, your comments in no way addresses the fact that your edits are stylistic ballast, and they misrepresent facts (see the Newsweek article, which used "buzz" as its main criterion). The fact that you comment on my bad "gramar" is laughable, when that sentence is not only sound, it's much more precise.

Also, I hardly think it's appropriate to rearrange a talk page with a section dedicated to my edits.--Exeunt 23:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I think we can both agree that (1) there is a reference for the endowment so there is no citation required. (2) one can not be "ranked fifteen." (this is gramar) (3) Newsweek did write an article where they said what is attributed to them.

Given that (which you don't have to give me) argument is reduced to removing the Newsweek quote. And according the Wikipedia policy (see above) your only remaining argument against it's inclusion is only that it's not encyclopedic. I would argue that it's exactly as encyclopedic as the U.S. News rankings. The USN rankings have the viel of being hard science because they use numbers, but they do so in a completely indefinsible way. No particular weight in their ranking scheme can be defended. The fact that Reed College droped in their rankings after failing to report some inputs make the scheme laughable. In contrast, Newsweek tries to put their finger on something that is much more real and a much better target for a journalist (and not a Social Scientist) "Buzz," as you say. It's like being rated best band by Rolling Stone, it means something and nothing at the same time, and the reader can understand that. Pdbailey 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

--

The usual grace period for a response is 24 hours, and it's been 6 days, so I'm going to change the top paragraph back to my edits. 68.252.245.24 15:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC), didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Pdbailey 15:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--

readded newsweek link. Pdbailey 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

edits by unknown editor

To whoever did the last round of edits: First, thanks for cleaning up my poorly worded budget stuff. Couple questions, though: Why was the reference to Clay removed? And as far as the reasons for the increasing fees, while I do not have any document I can point to, through personal discussions with Osgood and many of the VPs, as well as meetings (both Trustee meetings and ones w/ administrators), I know that these are the reasons for the ever-growing comprehensive fee. Is this enough, or should I not include these types of facts unless there is a document I can point to?

I wasn't the one who did the edits you mention, but as a general policy of Wikipedia, you should not include information for which you don't have a published source. It's not that I don't believe you (and I doubt other's fail to believe you, either), but that relating your personal knowledge, as compared to paraphrasing and citing a published source, contravenes the "No Original Research" policy. Azriphael 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The faculty count is mentioned here: [5]

business

I think it's fine to delete the stuff about business. I've never seen facts to support it (though it may be true), and this shouldn't be a place for rumors or disenchanted former students trying to get back at the college. Also, I updated the financial stuff posted by 12.105.22.1 to something that is actually accurate. If anyone wants me to expand it, I could make as lengthy a section out of it as desired. - Matt Cleinman/1matt 15:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

edits by 12.105.22.1

I've unceremoniously altered a number of contributions by 12.105.22.1, not because that person isn't welcome but because parts of the contributions weren't balanced, relevant or, in a few cases, factual. Even now, I'm not entirely sure that the bit about students being driven away from business is relevant - without hard numbers on the number who do go into business, this is essentially gossip - but as a leftist myself I didn't feel qualified to judge. - Andersem 05:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Later: after consulting Wikipedia's entry on citing sources, I'm even more uncomfortable with my "some argue" formulation. I don't feel the sentence is necessary, and unless someone objects in the next few days (or adds some more authoritative source) I'm inclined to delete it. - Andersem 05:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

12.105.22.1, please review the guidelines on citing sources and neutral point of view. If you think it's important to record that some students feel professors provide "hard-core leftist indoctrination," I think a standalone section dealing with academic freedom would work better. If you don't know how to do that, make a note of it here and someone else can. Also, if you think there's a link between campus politics and student careers, find some statistics or authoritative testimony that support this idea. Andersem 16:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

editits by Minidoxigirli

I removed some very sketchy stuff from this article. Keep in mind prospective students and their parents will be reading this, guys. For example, the quote "Students proceed to take several beers to the face while sitting in the street playing drinking games" is not what I want represented about my school. I also removed the link to the cyrillic (sp?) of Grinnell, as that really didn't give any extra information. I wasn't certain about the link to IowaProgress, but I thought I should put it up here before changing it myself. If I don't hear from anyone in a week either here or on Plans ([woodschr]}, I'll assume it's okay to delete it. Minidoxigirli 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations?

I noticed someone added info on AltBreak. Sweet! Now let's get some citations in there.Minidoxigirli 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation for the bit about Grinnell having the most Peace Corps volunteers per capita. Babcockd 04:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section?

Do we need a controversy section, to hold things such as the "Students against Hippies" thing that just got added in the Myths and Legends section? We could add when the college revoked the charter of the local chapter of the Intervaristy Christian Fellowship because of anti-homosexual stances. That showed up in national media. Maybe a list of events that were notable enough to be reported in news sources outside of the immediate area. Blade 03:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I mean, it would be cool to add stuff like that, but then do we have to get into the suicides? Right now (speaking from the perspective of a student on campus) it might be difficult to right that in a NPOV. Or maybe I need to go back to editing my paper. Minidoxigirli 04:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Television Sets

Since when? That's nonsense. I knew many people who had television sets before 2002 -- NONSENSE. Zweifel 04:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And "mixed results"? Wha? I'm deleting it. If you, oh Grinnell alumn who is angered by TVs, want to explain this, please do so here. Thanks.Minidoxigirli 18:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Motto

I like the new motto posted. However, I can't find any documentation that it is actually Grinnell's motto. Can I get some verification? Jacobko 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I did a little research (and contacted Grinnell's Office of Institutional Research). I fixed the motto and made the formatting fall in line with other institutions of higher education. Man am I glad that I took Latin in college... Jacobko 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

10/10

Just so you know, I created the article on 10/10. Check it out! Zweifel 07:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

New Stuff

Someone added this info on the class of '10 randomly. If it can be better worked in, that would be great. I'm putting it here for someone to do something with.

Class of 2010 Profile
Median SAT Combined Score: 1390
Median ACT Composite Score: 31

26% of first year students were recognized by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation as National Merit Finalists, National Merit Scholars, and National Merit Commended Students. 14% of first year students are Advanced Placement Scholars as designated by The College Board 64% of the Class of 2010 graduated in the top 10% of their secondary school class and 90% graduated in the top 25%
Application for Admission
3,703 students applied for admission
37.8% of those who applied for admission were admitted
406 new students enrolled

minidoxigirli^-talk-_-contribs 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see the value of this, but more in the college box on the side. Too bad it isn't included. Perhaps a seperate "recent student statistics" box should be developed. I think we would have to look around at other entries first. Pdbailey 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Iowa Progress

I am reverting stuff about the Campus Democrats for a second time. Unless there is something notable about the organization (and I've yet to hear anything notable about it), I don't think it deserves to be listed anymore than any other campus organization. Please do not re-add it unless you can provide a citation indicating some sort of notability. Blade 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Lbgconfetti has broken the revert rule. minidoxigirli^-talk-_-contribs 06:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Social Activites and Myths and Legends

I restored the entire Social Activities and Myths and Legends sections, which had been deleted. This information is fact-based, NPOV, and is of interest to both current and prospective students. --wiscesq 14:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Legends, Pt. 2

I removed the myths and legends section due to the fact that none of it was verified. In fact, some of it was not verifiable. As the below myths and legends become verified, they can be moved back to the original page. Jacobko 17:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Like most colleges, a large body of myths has accumulated over the years.

One of the most persistent was the notion that the Quad Dining Hall, with its high ceiling, dark wood paneled walls, and stained glass windows, was supposed to be a church. The legend claims that money was bequeathed to the college to build a chapel, but the college needed a dining hall, so it built something that could be used as either. The Legend of Quad (which was actually built to look like a dining hall at Oxford College) -- complete with details such as an annual carrying-in of pews for a church service -- was born. Quad is oriented north-to-south, unlike all traditional Christian churches which, like Grinnell's own Herrick Chapel (which had been dedicated several years before Quad was built), face west.

In the early 80's the Campus had several meetings over the hiring of a football coach who actually wanted to win games, and also the restoration, after many, many years, of a female cheerleading squad. Grinnell students at the time wanted none of that.

Another story, apparently started in the late 80s, was that the football coach was fired after being denounced in the student newspaper "for winning too many games." The Scarlet and Black's editors were concerned about what they perceived as an over-emphasis on athletics compared to academics, but the coach in question was not actually fired.

Another myth involves the idea that there are three (and only three) things that will result in instant expulsion from the school irrelevant of any other factor. Exactly what the three things are varies somewhat -- the most commonly mentioned offenses are jumping a ride on a train passing through campus, entering the steam tunnels, and gaining access to the roof of an academic building.

An unverifiable story passed around in the 70's was that sometime in the 50's, students had hooked up the transmitter for the college's radio station, KDIC, to the railroad tracks that cut through campus, and that the station had been picked up as far away as Brooklyn, NY, and Mexico before being shut down by the FCC.

In the early 90s, the college attempted to expel a student for creating an organization called "Students Against Hippies". The controversy ended up on the front page of the Des Moines Register.

What constitutes verifiable when it comes to myths and legends? That they be verified to have actually been legends or myths at Grinnell College? I graduated in '99 and personally heard all of the above but the cheerling squad and the Students Against Hippies ones. Or do they have to be mentioned in some source as 'legends'? Of course, that begs the question whether myths and legends are notable enough for the article in the first place... Blade 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't think myths and legends are notable enough for the article.

2) Jimmy Wales said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough... Random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information ... should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Jacobko 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Blade 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Or not: The college newspaper published a number of campus myths in May 2005[6]. Furthermore, see the Bob Noyce and Gary Cooper myths[7], the KDIC story[8] (note that the reference also adds a myth I'd never heard before: a false claim that the college moved to Grinnell because of "loose morals"), Students Against Hippies[9], and the Quad chapel myth.[10] It's fair to debate whether cultural references like urban legends are notable (just like it would be fair to debate whether the Notable Alumni section should include spectacular failures instead of only the spectacularly successful alumni), but they are most certainly verifiable. I vote for restoring them. WhatamIdoing 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep an extra eye

After catching this article on digg, and how popular it is, I expect an extra eye should be kept on this and any related articles as its related to Grinnell: [11].--Crossmr 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Grinnell College Alumni

The reason that I moved the List of Grinnell College alumni is so we could have a comprehensive, ordered, well-cited list that did not get out of control. I think that the current "short version" is getting out of control and, as such, should be removed. Comments? --Jacobko 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

notable alumni

I tried to put a few notable alumni back on this page. an IP address only editor appears to have added a few sections with the same name and a few alumni. I tried to make this section have longer paragraph like explanations of the notability of the people. I think that the names or accoplishments of these alumni are instalyly recognizable. I thought about also including Dr. Coleman but didn't know if the list was getting too long. Pdbailey 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I liked having the notable alumni on this page listed by class year since the structure adds information, alphabetization is just arbitrary structure useful mainly for finding names in a list (but you have to know what names you are looking for, and then why are you reading the list anyway?) Pdbailey 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arranging by year sounds good to me. As long as they appear in some sort of order, I'm happy. However, my main problem is that the list keeps growing.

• How do we decide how many move from the List of Grinnell College alumni page to the main page? My suggestion would be that we limit the number of alumni "promoted" to 6. I'm basing this number on what Dartmouth College has done, given that the List of Dartmouth College alumni was the model for our list of alumni.
• Who gets promoted? My suggestion would be Thomas Cech, John Garang, Herbie Hancock, Harry Hopkins, Robert Noyce, and Joseph Welch. However, I don't really care, as long as there are fewer than there are now...

Jacobko 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, how about seven and we keep Tom Cole, the 4th in charge of the minority in the US House is a big deal. Pdbailey 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather not have ANY of the alumni on this page at all. We started with six "promoted," now we have 9! It's fine by me if we replace one of the above with Tom Cole, but I'd like a hard cap of no more than six. If it makes it easier, let's go with even fewer. How does 4 sound? Jacobko 12:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's go with your proposed six and add a commented out note to run any addtions by the talk page first. Pdbailey 23:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

endowment

I justed edited the page to read, "Grinnell has the highest endowments of a liberal arts colleges in the US." because this is the claim of the chronicle and is agreed upon out by other refs. The claim about endowment per student doesn't have a ref. If you disagree, please add the ref. Pdbailey 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek quote

I just added the Newsweek "best all-around" again. If you wish to remove it, please add your comments here. I would encourage that editor to read the Wikipedia:Verifiability entry, specifically the first sentence. Pdbailey 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

tuition

A recent edit removed, "Recent hikes in tuition and fees (more than $10,000 since the 2002-2003 school year) have caused a bit of unrest amongst the student population, with some students arguing for an increase in merit-based aid, while others propose the College use its endowment to fully subsidize tuition." I'd suggest that if there is a source (say, the S&B) for this, it can stay on the page. Pdbailey 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Honor 'G'.gif

Image:Honor 'G'.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Communities

I removed this because it is inaccurate:

The first virtual community to ever exist at Grinnell was started in 1990, and ran for several years. It was a primitive, student-created, bulletin board system called "The Trashcan". It was hosted on the College's VAX system and functioned essentially like Internet forums still operate today, with users posting messages to various threads. The community only had a few dozen members, and was once featured in a parody in The Grinnell Spectator, an underground newspaper that operated on campus in the early 1990s.

The first virtual community that I know about was UCLIB on the PDP-11 in the 1980s. Who knows what preceded that?

Besides, I don't think "The Trashcan" can be considered notable in the Wikipedian sense:

• It was really only of interest to the students who used it,
• There were dozens of similar discussion boards that year, and
• If memory serves, it was a VAXNotes bulletin board, which means that "creating" it was simply a matter of typing two commands and having a little disk space to stick the file in. 70.137.167.85 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

trivia

I just did an rv on the addition of a trivia section with a dubious claim that, "When the word 'Grinnell' is written out by hand, the sound of the pencil strokes corresponds exactly to the rhythm of the most famous melody in the William Tell Overture." If others think this is (a) true and (b) somehow relevant to the topic of the article. It might help to read, an essay on trivia. Pdbailey 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cyclone vs. Tornado

As a point of fact, the relevant Wikipedia page defines "cyclone" as "an area of low atmospheric pressure characterized by inward spiraling winds....the generic term covers a wide variety of meteorological phenomena, such as tropical cyclones, extratropical cyclones, and tornadoes."

I realize that the breadth of the traditional use of cyclone is unfamiliar to at least one editor. However, at the time of the 1882 storm, that's what the town residents called a tornado. The college's yearbook is named "The Cyclone" after that event, not "The Tornado." I have, therefore, restored the original term to this page on the grounds that it was, in fact, correctly used. WhatamIdoing 05:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So, we want to use the term cyclone because that was the term used at the time of the storm? Frankly, that's a pretty weak argument. Today, in 2007, we call it a tornado. Using the term because that's the name of the yearbook is also entirely irrelevant. We're not talking about the yearbook, where talking about accurately describing the weather event that destroyed the buildings.

Even using your argument that tornado is a subset of a cyclone, why would you not choose to use the more specific term "tornado" in order to clarify the meaning. Typically, when you are trying to describe something, you use the most specific term that accurately describes it. Why wouldn't we be more broad, and just call it a "weather event"? Why? Because there's a more specific term to describe it. You say that's a cyclone. Then I say there's a yet more specific term, and that's "tornado".

Further, there's a reference to a tornado on the city of Grinnell's wiki in the same year. "On June 17, 1882 a tornado destroyed most of the college campus...".
- Original tornado anon

Actually, if your edit summary ("It is 100% and entirely impossible that a cyclone were to destroy a building in land locked Iowa") hadn't clearly stated that your change was based on your ignorance, I'd probably have left it alone. My major point is that we should not change to tornado simply because someone erroneously believed that "cyclone" only means "baby hurricane." A tornado is a legitimate kind of cyclone, just like an apple is a kind of pome fruit.

It might be worth mentioning the yearbook in the same section that KDIC and the S&B are listed. It's a student publication, after all, and the 1970ish yearbook has an interesting story. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing 17:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with WhatamIdoing's edit. The term cyclone is unusual and dated, but evokes the era in which the event occurred--I'm also not sure that the tornado that must have hit the college wasn't from an extratropical cyclone. It's also worth keeping because of it's link to the lore of the college. Pdbailey 20:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have joined this discussion by accident, just this morning having changed it to "tornado" without being aware of this past discussion until Pdbailey notified me of it. I am quite well aware that a tornado is a kind of cyclone; this usage of cyclone immediately makes me think of The Wizard of Oz. I agree with Pdbailey's comment that this usage is unusual and dated, but I believe that it should be removed (as I did) because of this. If we're writing about Anglo-Saxons falling off the left side of a ship, we don't generally speak of them falling off the baecbord, even though it evokes the era. Instead, we say that they fell off the port side, because it's the standard word to use in 2007. On the other hand, since I get the impression that it has a place in college lore, perhaps we could have a note such as "(then called a "cyclone", after which the college yearbook was named)"? Nyttend 14:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds much better, I'll put it in. Pdbailey 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

references needed

The history section of the article needs more references, I just added some for social reform movement, but New Deal paragraph, and the first political science claims could also use references. Also, I think the paragraph starting, "The future of Grinnell can be found in its past." is seriously POV laden, any suggestions on how to make it assertions about fact? Pdbailey 17:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

autoarchive?

This talk page is quite long, I propose we setup an archive for it using MiszaBot. Does that sound like a good idea? If others agree, I can set it up. Pdbailey 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel a little uncomfortable acting on this without support of others, can anyone comment? Pdbailey 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Blade 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jacobko 13:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it with a few non-defaults (complain/change them if you like), and will add the archive links when they exist. Pdbailey 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fumble fingers

About the principle vs. principal issue: My edit summary should have said that principle is never used as an adjective. The -ple spelling is only used as a noun. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Myths and Legends.

I made a change in myths and legends. It said the myth about using the railroad tracks as an antena occurred in the 70s and started in the 80s. I was a at Grinnell between 1970 -1972. That legend was very much existant then and was attributed (unverified) to the 50s. So I changed it. Hope that is OK.

It isn't. Unless you can source it, it has no place in the article. Learn about what you're doing before you start pissing in our article, jerkface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.169.187 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing statement

>Although two students received bachelor of arts degrees in 1854 (the first to be granted by a college west of the Mississippi River), within 10 years the Civil War had claimed most of Grinnell's students and professors.

What does this mean? Were most students and professors killed? Or died withing 10 years?

Ten years from when? 1854 (1 year before end of Civil War)? That doesn't seem to make sense. The opening of the college?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Affiliation

What's with the UCC affiliation in the infobox? I don't see anything to back it up and I think it's pretty suspect. Avram (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true, technically: The college was founded by Congregationalist ministers, and eventually (after WWII?) the Congregationalists and a couple of other small churches meged into the UCC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the affiliation is no longer accurate. The college was affiliated with the Congregationalists, but it isn't anymore, and it's definitely not affiliated with today's UCC. I feel like this should be listed as "Congregationalist (former)" if at all. [edit] Looking at some other colleges, I'm even less sure. Carleton College, another presently nonsectarian college founded by Congregationalist ministers, lists an athletic affiliation (MIAC) in that field and lists no religious affiliation. Knox College, also formerly sectarian, lists no affiliation, sports or religious. Avram (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing again: The affiliation on the Carleton page is actually "affiliations", which is the field for sports affiliations. I still hold that we shouldn't put past religious affiliations in the infobox; someone just casually looking at the page might leave with the impression that Grinnell is still a sectarian school, which hasn't been true for a long time. Avram (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One last time: The UCC connection was listed in the "affiliations" field, which is supposed to be used for athletic affiliations, so I'm going to change that to Midwest Conference and remove UCC. As it stands, we're not following the infobox instructions, regardless of whether we should be listing UCC. Avram (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Endowment - Williams College

I'm not sure I agree with the judgment that Williams College shouldn't be counted as a liberal arts college. The page for Williams lists it as such, and notes that the college has 49 graduate students (and 1,997 undergraduates). I don't know of a "common sense" rule for liberal arts colleges, but I don't see this as a common sense conclusion. Williams self-identifies as a liberal arts college. The Williams College page on Wikipedia identifies them as one. That's good enough for me. It seems to me that this feeds back into the question of whether "college" is a term applicable exclusively to schools with no graduate programs; a quick survey will show that there are many exceptions to this often-cited rule.Avram (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's all about citing sources here at wikipedia. One that I think the common definition would have to deal with is the omnipresent US News rankings, which puts Williams in as a liberal arts college. I say you're right. Now the question is, with Grinnell no longer having the largest endowment, does it belong in the lede? Pdbailey (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather the number didn't deserve to be in the lead-in, but I think that Grinnell's endowment is still one of the factors that has made it newsworthy, and the fact that it's edged out by a larger and much more well-known school doesn't significantly diminish the notability of Grinnell's dubious achievement. How about something like: "Until recently, the estimated value of Grinnell's endowment was the highest among liberal arts colleges, and it has the second-largest endowment per student among liberal arts colleges." I'm drawing from the data at List of U.S. colleges and universities by endowment, which doesn't completely match up with the data on the respective institutions pages anyway. That list would also put Amherst, Pomona, and Williams ahead of Grinnell, and make Wellesley tied. As I said though, I'd love to see this go, but it's (so far) still a major fact about Grinnell. Avram (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, run with it. Pdbailey (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up the wording both in the lead and in the body. I still feel like there are contradictory numbers and statements floating around the university endowment figures, but I'm not terribly interested in tracking them down now. Avram (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We could just say that different sources give different information. Given the state of the financial markets, anything published last year is likely to be out of date by now anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Academics and Resources Section

The Reputation subsection of the Academic and Resources section is threatening to just accumulate mentions; what about making that into prose, or cutting down on the number of items? I feel like it somewhat overshadows the Academic Program section, even though the academic program section probably more important. Avram (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the last paragraph of the section, which starts "Despite the growing trend of U.S. students taking five or more years to finish an undergraduate degree...". I've marked the claim as unsupported, but I don't see what role this is supposed to play in the first place. It looks like a disgruntled student getting her (probably justified) gruntles on Wikipedia. Avram (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage of University Infobox

I'd like to find a consensus on how to use the university infobox on this page -- I opted to move the English translation of the motto to the mottoeng field in the infobox. It looks like we have some disagreement on that point, as another user has switched it back to have the Latin and English in one field. I know this is minor, but I want to preserve consensus among editors and uniformity between university pages. Avram (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Requests for this and other pages

The following subjects need photos from the Grinnell campus or area:

• Conard Environmental Research Area: A photo of the site and/or the new Environmental Education Center.Avram (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Bucksbaum Center for the Arts: Photos of the building exterior and interior.Avram (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• List of presidents of Grinnell College: A photo of Nolan House, photos of George Drake, Charles Duke, and Russell Osgood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avram (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

list of presidents

[next comment copied by pdbailey from my talk page]

RE: List of presidents Grinnell College,

You're probably right to bring up WP:NOT and remove the list, but until we integrate at least some aspects of the information provided by the list into article prose, I feel that removing it entirely causes net harm to the article. How about reverting the list as a temporary measure, with the ultimate goal of eliminating the list and incorporating parts of it into the article prose? Avram (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with discussing this, but the first problem is that I don't see any encyclopedic information in the list. Maybe you can help me out with that and then we can figure out how to put it in prose. Pdbailey (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I expect that the majority of the past presidents are sufficiently notable to justify their own articles in Wikipedia (After all, I whipped up a quick Magoun article pretty easily). Additionally, the post of college president and often the circumstances of presidential succession definitely amount to a significant part of the college's identity and history. What struck me was that the history manages to mention _one_ president of the college. That seems like excessively little.

Thinking some more about this, I'd like to move the list to a separate article, link to it from the history section, and add some more presidents to the history prose. Avram (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. go for it. Pdbailey (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Highly selective

The words "highly selective" have been inserted and removed several times now, and I'm tired of the edit war. The term is being used here as a term of the art, not simply as a bit of marketing fluff. If you want to include it, then please find a source. If you want to remove it, then please post a source on this page that says it's not highly selective.

If you're curious, Collegedata.com says that Grinnell admits 45% and enrolls 13% of applicants, which could be considered "highly selective" or just plain regular "selective," depending entirely on your personal definition. They rate the school's entrance difficulty as one of 165 colleges and universities that are "very difficult" to get into. This makes Grinnell easier to get into than CalTech's "most difficult" rating (54 schools in that list), and harder than Cornell College or Coe. (All together now: "If you can't go to college, go to Coe!") WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

According to another article on CollegeData, the cutoff for "highly selective" is <=33% admission rate. Based entirely on CollegeData's information, Grinnell is not "highly selective" given its admission rate of 45%.

Also, I'd love to have the person who continues to insert "highly selective" as an anonymous IP edit post their justification here. Jacobko (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me! Blade (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is meaningless anyway, I say keep it off the page. Pdbailey (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Collegedata selectivity labels are meaningless. Several of the schools listed as "Most Difficult," while they are arguably some of the most selective institutions in the country, do not fit their criteria for the category. The criteria is the following: "Most Difficult: More than 75% of freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class and scored over 1310 on the SAT I or over 29 on the ACT; about 30% or fewer of all applicants accepted." This is not the case for Bates, Wesleyan, or NYU, all of which received the "Most Selective" designation. Obviously there is some arbitrariness in their methodology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuadrosenberg (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like 'Most Difficult' and 'Most Selective' are different criteria. Anyway, with a descriptor like 'most selective' is bound to be arbitrary. The issue is whether CollegeData is considered notable enough to be a good source. If so, then simply saying that "Collegedata.com lists Grinnell as one of its 'most selective' colleges" with a link would be just fine. It'd be a report from a notable source and nothing more. Blade (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're back to adding and removing selective. Per the preceding discussion, I'm removing the recent addition of selective to the first line, at least in part because it's unsourced. Avram (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

round 2

US News and World Report lists Grinnell College and Harvard both as "Most Selective." April 20, 2008.

Actually, USNWR lists the college as "most selective" on a five-part scale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I don't understand your critique of the other poster's source. Pdbailey (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I want to fight this war, but I'd rather include selectivity figures (admission and yield percentages) than words like "highly selective" and "most selective". Words like that don't mean a thing, even if we can back them up with references. Avram (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pdbailey, the source doesn't actually use the words highly selective and that phrase is used (or can be used) as a term of the art, so precision might matter to some readers. Turning USNWR's "most selective" into "highly selective" is like saying that BSD is UNIX: it's technically inaccurate, even if there are strong similarities.

Avram, I think your suggestion is a good one. It obviates the need to use disputable terms. (I am amused to see that the anon above is posting from campus.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Princeton Review piece referenced in some recent edits provides the data we need: 45% admittance, 29% yield. As I mentioned previously, I'd like to work this in in place of the "selective" terminology we've been using. Any thoughts on how to do so? ("Grinnell College Admissions Profile", free registration required) Avram (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about a new section called ==Admissions==, to go just above ==Tuition and financial aid==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Avram (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started a new section for admissions information. Please feel free to change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I think that you might be misusing the term "yield" -- according to the disambiguation page the term means "the percentage of prospective students offered admission to an educational institution that actually enroll at that school"; it's seen as students' assessment of the school's attractiveness. Thus, a low admission rate and a high yield would be characteristic of a selective and strong school. As far as I can tell, the "total yield" you refer to is not usually employed in talking about admissions, and it is easily conflated with "yield". I'm removing that part for now. Avram (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

round 3

I'm removing "highly-selective" and and adding a comment directing people to the discussion here before re-adding it. As far as I can tell, the consensus was that the Admissions section made that phrase unnecessary and we were going to leave it out. Avram (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste from Grinnell website

Much of the history section appears to have been taken wholesale from the college's website. If so, it needs to be rewritten pronto. One useful resource might be the Short History of Grinnell in the 1998 accreditation review. Avram (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Virtual communities

Do we really need this section on virtual communities? If so, we need to remove the visible external links (which could be turned into footnotes or moved to the External links section) per Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember #3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The virtual communities section is a compromise from when the GrinnellPlans entry was deleted. At that point, it was folded into the main entry and everyone went along their ways. I think that since the community is fairly large, it probably deserves mention. It isn't entirely typical, and there's even a little controversy in there. I'd almost prefer to rename the section "GrinnellPlans", since presenting it as just another usual detail about a college seems to imply that maybe every college article should discuss virtual communities. Which they needn't. As for the external links, go for it. Avram (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Academic program "advertisement"

I don't see how this section differs significantly from what I have read in other Liberal Art Colleges entries. Maybe someone can rewrite a few lines, but most of this is factual, not opinion. RickH86 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It just sounds like something that would be in Grinnell's glossy brochures. I feel like it could sound more objective. Lequis (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Dubious" tag and selectivity information

I removed the "dubious" flag that had been added to the first sentence of the Admissions section. The statement is elaborated upon, clarified, and attributed appropriately later in the paragraph. As for third-party sources, the designation "most selective" is discussed and sourced a little further down. Read as a summative sentence that introduces the upcoming material, the first sentence is completely justifiable as it stands. Avram (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Highly selective" and "most selective" are different terms and have different meanings. "Highly selective" is a term of the art, and Grinnell's admissions numbers don't meet the standard definition. That's why the admissions office was weaseling with the "self-selecting applicant pool" line in the first place. "Most selective" is a specific category used by a single publication. Equating the two different terms is inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, what exactly is a "highly selective" school? Is there a sourced definition? If there are definitions somewhere that people agree upon, then sure, we should use the one that Grinnell fits. In the absence of such definitions, admitting only a pretty small part of the applicant pool fits the lay definition of the term. Avram (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Referring to highly selective, collegedata.com states "although this label has no precise definition, you can consider any college that admits one third or fewer of its applicants as highly selective." RickH86 (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources that say exactly that. It appears to be a single-variable measurement. If you're talking about a place like UC Berkeley, then that definition is useful. They get a wide range of applicants for all kinds of things. If you're talking about a school that specializes in any particular area, or draws only from a particular population, then it's not really a useful measurement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So would "selective" be an appropriate term? I'm really just looking for a good way to introduce the admissions section. Also, it wouldn't be bad to reference the source of the term's precise meaning, so that this debate doesn't flare up again in a year or so. Avram (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be accurate, but why not skip that sentence entirely and get directly to the point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image gallery

The following initial comment is copied from User talk:208.81.184.4#Gallery on Grinnell College to provide context to the reply, which is more appropriate here.
I disagree with cleanup tag you have added and now re-added to the Grinnell College article; it refers to WP:NOT, which does not refer to galleries as an element of articles, but only to stand-alone galleries. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries does address the use of galleries as part of articles; specifically, it says "The determination of whether a gallery should be incorporated into an article or created at the Commons should be discussed on the article's talk page." The gallery you have tagged was created over time by several article editors, and there has been no discussion of whether to remove it. I realize that all the images and more are available in the Commons, but that doesn't mean that a subset of them would be out of place in the main article. If you feel that this specific gallery should not be included in the article, I encourage you to explain why in Talk:Grinnell College. Avram (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actual the current text of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files specifically states:

“ 4. Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. ”

To me this reads that images should be used to illustrate specific text elements found in an article, and require more context in an article than <here is a building named x>. Note that few WP:GOOD articles use image galleries, and fewer still are found on WP:FEATURE articles. It would seem reasonable that contributors to the Grinnell College article would be interested in getting this article to that status, and could consider the migration of the gallery to commons as one stepping stone towards that goal. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the WP:NOT statement is about Wikipedia as a whole, and generally about articles that exist for the primary purpose of collecting photos and the abuse of Wikipedia as a site for hosting such files (that is, images and other files that have no use in articles). If image galleries were always undesirable, then the gallery feature would have been disabled and the many related templates deleted. In fact, the use of galleries is permitted but discouraged. There are many articles that use galleries to good effect; the only important question is whether this article is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the role of the gallery on this page is to provide a guide to what the campus looks like, in a way that would be difficult to do with, say, a section on architecture. The gallery in the article differs from the gallery in Commons in that the latter is not curated. I'm not incredibly attached to having the gallery in the article, but I have grown to like it. Avram (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is curated in the Commons! Well, I don't know. I feel that the article is somewhat enhanced by the gallery, and I have my doubts as to whether a similar gallery in the Commons would have the same effect. Avram (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Images states more clearly what I attempted to convey above, where it says "[i]f the article can be illustrated with pictures, find an appropriate place to position these images, where they relate closely to text they illustrate."(Italics added) Likewise Wikipedia:Layout#Images states that "[i]f an article has many images ... you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons ... and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded."(Italics added) I believe that in this particular case the ideal solution is the Commons page that is now in place at Commons:Grinnell College, Iowa. Note that there there are additional images at Commons:Category:Grinnell College, Iowa that could be added that page, with the appropriate description, to more fully illustrate the campus. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Architecture

Gates Tower

The picture of the dorms labeled "Gates Hall" is erroneous. Through a miracle of remodeling, Gates tower switches floor by floor from being part of Gates Hall and Rawson Hall. Hence, I've renamed the picture "Gates Tower and Hall," which is far more accurate, since, though the tower contains parts of both Rawson and Gates hall, it is universally known as Gates Tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.4.7 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing Buildings

I have seen old photos suggesting that the College once had a small natural history museum on campus, and that it was demolished in order to make way for the religious studies building. I do not know details. It has been suggested elsewhere that there needs to be more on the architectural history of the campus, and I cannot disagree. Would anyone like to add or begin a section with details on these? Aderksen (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Prominent Alumni

Other institutions that are similar to Grinnell list alumni that are much less prominent than the one's on the "Notable Alumni" section of the Grinnell page, so I don't see a problem with the list of alumni.

Also, the wikipedia page of almost every other prestigious liberal arts college mentions the college's overall academic reputation in the opening paragraph of the article. It is important to comment on Grinnell's academic reputation in the introductory paragraph because it gives brousers a better idea about Grinnell and the type of school that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyhey (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pursuant to the discussion some time (years) ago on alumni listings, I have removed the recently-added alumni from the list on the main article. Unless we reach a new consensus on whom to include in this list, I'm working from the assumption that we're still trying to move all other entries to List of Grinnell College alumni. If the current six are not representative or interesting enough, we can discuss tweaking the list. Avram (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

figures on faculty and students good?

Does anyone have exact figures for faculty and students? This information is usually printed in college literature.

The figures the college puts in the literature are sometimes incorrect, actually. At the start of the fall semester, there were 1412 students at Grinnell. 1396 in the spring. (Of course, some students take leaves in the middle of the semester.) I could dig out faculty stats from a budget, if it was wanted. - Matt Cleinman

The images look pretty bad. Can someone put better pictures of Gates Hall and the Honor G? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.212.188 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

GrinnellPlans

Not only am I uncertain that GrinnellPlans should be mentioned in this article, I am wholly convinced that we do not want to be a forum for disseminating news about it. There may or may not be a real problem (How do we know that it's not just random vandalism?). The problem may be solved as soon as someone at GrinnellPlans figures out how to spell EFF. But whatever the problem, this is not Wikinews, and adding breaking news to this article is inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While I feel that "breaking news" in the GrinnellPlans section is perhaps misplaced, I do feel that the [Plans] social networking site is worth mentioning as it is an unusual organization of alumni and current students that evolved from the same nascent gestalt that birthed entities such as Facebook. While not entirely unique, it is unusual for even a private college to have its own in-house fansite/alumni networking site, and more unusual when said organization is then kicked off campus servers by the institution for fears of liability. Perhaps it could be placed under a section on campus controversies that made national news? Aderksen (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of GrinnellPlans section

The GrinnellPlans section was recently removed. I restored it, since it had been created after the independent Plans article was merged to the Grinnell College article. At the time, I believe its inclusion reflected editorial consensus. If there are reasons to remove it now, please explain. Avram (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a WP:DUE violation, as there apparently no independent sources care about this enough to mention it. (The "reliable" sources are the website itself, which amounts to self-promotion, and a personal website.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious how an external reference by Lawrence Lessig is considered insignificant or insufficient. Would it be considered sufficient to reference the school paper on this issue? I'm sure someone could dig up the URL to the series of articles that the S&B did on the issue, if needed. Aderksen (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that I added the Lessig reference after WhatamIdoing's response. It would be appropriate to add the S&B references as well, since the relevance of Plans is still not really clear from the text in the article alone. Could you pull them up and add them? Avram (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if that source had been there beforehand, I'd probably have come to a similar conclusion. Four sentences in a blog, even if the blog is written by a notable person, don't tend to confirm significance on the fact that a website existed, or that it was spun off from a parent website. And, no, student newspapers are not generally accepted as being reliable sources, especially where student activities/organizations are concerned. They have a reputation for being rather indiscriminate in their publication of what happens on campus.

Importantly, the issue is WP:DUE, not merely whether or not the facts are reported accurately. The question we're considering is not "Did this happen?" but "In an article that hasn't mentioned several buildings designed by famous architects, or its pioneering provision of computing resources to all students without charge (back in the days of mainframes), or the memorable death of one president at his desk, just hours too soon for him to know that the college wouldn't go bankrupt after all -- why should this unimportant detail get mentioned at all, much less get an entire section to itself?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning famous architecture or expanding sections on those topics, but the very existence of said virtual community (and its complete and total rejection by the management) is something of an oddity among undergraduate campuses, even at larger universities. As stated above, it developed out of the same movements that brought us Facebook and is an interesting look at what might have been. Does anyone else editing on a regular basis have an opinion on this issue? Aderksen (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Grinnell College article does and should document the college's present state in more detail than it treats the college's past. This means that yes, there should be more treatment the college's architecture, but many interesting tidbits of Grinnell history won't fit. The latter might fit into a coherent article on the history of Grinnell, or into the project I want to complete but probably never will of creating decent pages for all of Grinnell's presidents.

If you agree in general with my characterization of the page's desired content, then does the GrinnellPlans section fit? I'm not sure; that's one reason I wanted to open this up for discussion. The Lessig and S&B references should be included in the section if it persists because they and Molly's essay describe the controversy involving Plans, but the event of Plans being kicked off campus is probably just another tidbit that doesn't worthy inclusion on historical merit alone. If the section is to be kept, it should be kept because the existence of Plans is important to understanding Grinnell College as it is and was. Is it? Avram (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to move it under "student activities" with the same amount of gravitas given to the "Student Investment Group". Aderksen (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As things stand now, Grinnell Plans used to have its own entry, which was merged into this article. Now searching for "Grinnell Plans" redirects to this article, which does not mention Grinnell Plans at all. This is confusing, particularly in light of Grinnell Plans's status as independent of the institution. The history of Plans is notable in the context of the history of the college. Evidence of its controversial nature and its larger role in the development of academic computing policies on campus can be seen in this letter: http://www.math.grinnell.edu/~stone/acup/isc.xhtml Accordingly, at a minimum, a mention of Plans's existence and the controversy would be warranted. 156.99.95.253 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Academic program

Aureliusxv deleted:

A Grinnell education is anchored in active learning that occurs in one-on-one interactions between faculty members and students. Grinnell's open curriculum encourages students to take initiative and assume responsibility for their own courses of study, developed under the guidance of a faculty adviser. Outside of the First-Year Tutorial (a one-semester special topics seminar that stresses methods of inquiry, critical analysis, and writing skills), there are no core requirements. To graduate, students are expected to complete at least 32 credits in a major field and a total of 124 credits of academic work, with no more than 48 credits in one department and no more than 92 credits in one division. In the humanities, arts, and social and natural sciences at Grinnell, students have opportunities to conduct original research and undertake advanced study through independent and interdisciplinary projects that foster intellectual discovery.

as "fixing an advert." Now I understand the problem with the tone, but deleting this information is inexplicable. How many colleges have so few "distribution" requirements? There's no such thing as "general education" requirements at Grinnell College. Compare this to the experience of nearly every other college student in the United States: They sit down with a long list of required classes and plan "two from column A, one from column B, unless I decide to major in finance instead of psychology, and then I'll need to..."

Consider as well: How many schools actually provide a faculty adviser, instead of a full-time employee whose sole job is to get as many students enrolled in classes as possible with the fewest number of computer-generated errors? At the three large schools near me, your "adviser" is paid about double the minimum wage, spends all day in a cubicle, and does nothing else. These represent major differences between Grinnell College and just about every other college in the United States.

For that matter: Consider how many state universities provide very little contact between regular, full-time faculty and undergraduate students. Many students (particular first-year students) find that their classes are taught by (graduate) students or by part-time adjunct instructors, while the "real" faculty do research or refuse to teach entry-level courses.

Does anyone object to re-adding the information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this section, 1) because it was flagged by another user as an advert effectively blighting the appearance of the page and 2) because the description is ripped wholesale from the college website. That being said, I have no issue with the content being there. You make a good case for it being important in its depiction of several characteristics of the college that are unique and defining. Would you mind rewording the information so it has less of a biased tone? Aureliusxv (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've (finally) re-written it to communicate the major points without sounding like an advertisement. I've also removed some redundancies and re-organized bits of the section. Let me know if you think there are still any problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Another user just flagged this section as an advertisement. I would appreciate it if that user commented here on what they would like to see changed, or made suggestions for how this section might be improved by others. Aderksen (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, since there's no explanation and I can't figure out what might be the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Law School Acceptance

I'm not sure the fact that 46% of applicants get in somewhere supports the contention that Grinnell is an academic powerhouse. I think the national rate is something like 50%, so you would certainly expect better from a school that fancies itself a top LAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.180.50 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Grinnell College Scavenger Hunt

Recently created - I merged it in under the social activities section but was reverted by article creator - doesn't need a standalone article in my opinion. Any comments? Exxolon (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this deserves an independent article either. I mean, WP: Notability? I'm fine with leaving it as a one-line mention under the social activities, but find the "longstanding tradition" line contentious. I'm a recent alum, and I don't ever recall hearing about anyone organizing a campuswide scavenger hunt. It strikes me as dangerously self-promotionall... Aderksen (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni

I think Walter Koenig, who portrayed Pavel Andreievich Chekov deserves to be on this list. If someone is creating a section on architecture, please consider: Buildings by César Pelli (listedhttp://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cesar_Pelli): 1. 2001: Bucksbaum Center for the Arts at Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa; 2. 2001: Athletic and Fitness Center at Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa; 3. 2006: Joe Rosenfield '25 Center, Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa I wrote a similar note on the town page and suggested if the buildings are not included on the town of Grinnell page they should be listed in the college write up in my opinion. 99.49.233.1 (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Pam Neil - Grinnell College class of 1979

Walter Koenig is listed at List of Grinnell College alumni#Entertainment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Much of this article reads like...

An ad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well; what would you suggest editing or removing in order to improve it? Aderksen (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave the article another read-over, and maybe I'm being a bit too judgmental or too picky possibly? Or maybe it is just that time of the month again. :) There are many pluses for Grinnell. I know somebody who went there & he's a pretty sharp guy. The pluses are generally well-sourced (I did not check each source), so I suppose it's perfectly fine to say the positives when they're backed up. Overall it is a fairly decent article I think; perhaps could use more photos or maybe a photo gallery? Pageviews are fairly decent -- around 200, 220 (low in summer, may be higher in fall). If you need ideas about boosting pageviews let me know (I worked on the SEO articles at Wikipedia). If inclined, I copy-pasted some of the current text which seemed a bit advertise-y to my eyes, and you may wish to consider toning the language a bit if you feel inclined -- just a suggestion -- I won't interfere here. Just that it's a fairly decent article and a more encyclopedic tone may make Grinnell seem even more outstanding, know what I mean?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Grinnell's open curriculum encourages students to take initiative and to assume responsibility for their own courses of study.

Sounds like a brochure or something handed out to parents?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The academic program at Grinnell College emphasizes active learning and one-on-one interactions between faculty members and students. There are few large lecture classes. In sharp contrast to all public universities and many private universities in the United States, no classes, labs or other courses are taught by graduate students.

Ditto. The "in sharp contrast" may be pushing the OR equation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Grinnell's open curriculum encourages students to take initiative and to assume responsibility for their own courses of study.

Hmmmm.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The curriculum is rigorous and advanced,

As you know, in Wikipedia we can usually get away with adjectives if we have a source saying them -- here, it looks like the contributor saying it, and it has less oomph as a result.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In every division, students have opportunities to conduct original research and undertake advanced study through independent and interdisciplinary projects that foster intellectual discovery.

Brochure-y.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Grinnell’s commitment to the importance of off-campus study reflects the school’s emphasis on social and political awareness and the international nature of its campus.

Sounds like a mission statement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Grinnell College is strongly oriented towards students being enrolled full time in exactly eight consecutive semesters at the college,

Source on this? Sounds brochure-y again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Grinnell College is a highly selective liberal arts college. Historically, it has offered admission to less than half of applicants, and approximately one-third of accepted students typically enroll in the fall.

Note: according to the Common Data Set, slightly over 50% of applicants were offered admission for the 2011-12 school year. In previous years it may have been under 50%. See Grinnell Common Data Set FYI I did not check the common data sets for previous years.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Grinnell offers a significant amount of need-based and merit-based aid in comparison with peer institutions.

Sounds a touch trying-too-hard?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just my cursory thinking. Overall a good article, and I'm only commenting on just a few sections on the wording; rest of the article is rather solid, so good job to everybody who worked on this one. I bet making the article more encyclopedic sounding would make Grinnell appear even better (more self-assured somehow, right?). Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of this is actually highlighting weirdnesses about Grinnell: You can take any class you want (subject to obvious pre-requisites, like knowing basic French before you attempt an advanced French class), with none of the "Chinese takeout menu" stuff that typical schools do ("Take two classes from column A and one from column B for your language distribution requirements. Then take one class from column C..."). They really do offer more financial aid than typical. You really will get kicked out if you're not on track for graduation four years after enrolling (with some exceptions for medical problems and if you get written permission in advance). The curriculum is rigorous and advanced: For example, all sections of introduction to physics are calculus-based, unlike what average universities do. The lowest level math class is calculus, and they do in two semesters of calculus what most public universities in the US spend three semesters on. It's #10 on this list of "most rigorous" schools.

The Common Data Set numbers aren't relevant, because the statement is about students who actually enrolled, not students who were offered admission. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you about Grinnell being an academically tough school. I guess what I'm saying is that the article reads often like a brochure, and this may have the effect of undercutting your believability here -- if too much of the whiff of brochure comes through, then readers may discount the entire article, that is, they may not believe you when you tell them about the academic rigor. That's what I'm trying to get at here -- a more neutral, fact-driven & sourced article would have more oomph.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Common Data Set numbers are directly relevant in confirming or disputing the statement Historically, it has offered admission to less than half of applicants, and approximately one-third of accepted students typically enroll in the fall. I rechecked the numbers; the most recent year the admission rate was 51%, but it looks like an aberration; the other years were under 50%, confirming the Wikipedia data. Here are the stats: For 2011-12 year, 2613 applied, 1330 accepted, meaning a rate of 51%; of these, 448 enrolled, for a yield of 34%. For 2011-2012 year, 2845 students applied, 1228 were accepted, meaning that 43% of applicants were offered admission. Of these, 415 enrolled (or 34%). For 2009-2010 year, 2391 applied, 1108 accepted, an acceptance rate of 34%; of these, 378 enrolled, for a yield of 34%. For 2008-2009, 3217 students applied, 1383 were offered admission, or 43%; of these, 464 enrolled (again 34%). The CDS numbers back up the claim.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Year Applied Accepted Rate Enrolled Rate

2011-12 2613 1330 51% 448 34%

2010-11 2845 1228 43% 415 34%

2009-10 3291 1108 34% 378 34%

2008-09 3217 1383 43% 464 34%

01:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation not really needed

There's been a {{fact}} tag on this phrase "Despite the growing trend of U.S. students taking five or more years to finish an undergraduate degree..." since 2008. I'm not sure what prompted it, but I've removed it, because I don't think that supplying such a citation would actually be helpful to any reader. But if you're interested in the subject, then look at sources like these, and many more, which can easily be found with your favorite web search engine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a Jack Taylor article?

Given that a Bevo Francis article exists, should there now be a Jack Taylor article, given that he broke the NCAA scoring record previously held by Francis? Gmporr (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Article still sounds like an ad

I see that someone already noticed that the article seems advertisey in some respects, but that was more that a year ago, and it still hasn't been changed or really refuted. Therefore, I am going to remove the bits that seem problematic. Benboy00 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grinnell College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129062358/http://www.grinnell.edu/etal/green/index5.shtm to http://www.grinnell.edu/etal/green/index5.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead issue

Is this because of the promotional ranking sentence?--MattyMetalFan (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grinnell College. 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/20070323023343/http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/basketball/m_basketball_records_book/2007/2007_m_basketball_records.pdf to http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/basketball/m_basketball_records_book/2007/2007_m_basketball_records.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Cases for including Robert Noyce and Herbie Hancock in the notable alumni section

On July 4th 2017, AntiVan limited the notable alumni section to just six people. It is unclear why this limit was imposed, but its imposition caused the removal of two of the most notable alumni from the list: Robert Noyce and Herbie Hancock. If the notable alumni section on the main Grinnell College page is to list only six people, then those six people should be the six who have had the greatest influence in making the world what it is today; doing so helps communicate the College's own notability succinctly (a valuable quality, because, given that notability is the test for whether a Wikipedia article should exist, it follows that each article should include content that maximizes its apparent notability).

So why should Robert Noyce and Herbie Hancock be considered among the six most notable Grinnell College alumni?

Although not a household name, the case for Robert Noyce is easily made: nicknamed "the Mayor of Silicon Valley", he co-founded Intel and invented the silicon integrated circuit (without which devices such as the personal computer and smartphone would not exist), and he is credited with the idea of disposable electronics. I find it difficult to dispute that Noyce changed the course of history, and therefore I believe he should be included among the six alumni in the list, which would help demonstrate Grinnell's notability.

For people who are not music aficionados, the reasons may not be obvious for why Herbie Hancock is one of the six most important alumni of Grinnell. He is an extraordinarily influential and greatly accomplished jazz musician and composer: a winner of fourteen Grammy awards and one Academy award; a member of the Miles Davis Quintet; and a pioneer of post-bop, jazz fusion, jazz-funk, electro-funk, and hip-hop. His album Head Hunters is widely considered among the best albums ever recorded (jazz or otherwise), and has been sampled by such artists as Tupac Shakur and Madonna. His hit single "Rockit" exposed mainstream audiences to scratching, popularizing the technique and inspiring a generation of hip-hop musicians. Clearly, Hancock's work helped make popular music what it is today, and thus I believe his presence among the six notable alumni would further establish the notability of the College.

Who currently on the list should Noyce and Hancock replace? As of July 19th 2017, there are seven people listed, so three must be removed to allow for the inclusion of Noyce and Hancock, and to bring the number to AntiVan's arbitrary limit of six. I think Harry Hopkins should certainly remain on the list, because he was an architect of the New Deal. I also think Kumail Nanjiani should stay, because he is objectively awesome. I believe better cases can be made for the importance of Gary Cooper and Joseph Welch than for Katayama Sen, James Norman Hall and Dana W. Bartlett. Therefore, I suggest Katayama, Hall and Bartlett be replaced, their significance being considerably smaller compared to Noyce and Hancock.

Another problem caused by AntiVan's limiting the notable alumni section to only six people is that the list now lacks gender diversity, which is obviously problematic. To help fix that problem, here are some people who could be included: Hallie Flanagan, director of the Federal Theatre Project; Mary Sue Coleman, former president of the University of Michigan and current president of the Association of American Universities; Louise Noun, badass feminist and former president of the Iowa ACLU; Dana Ulery, pioneering computer scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and former Chief Scientist of Computational and Information Sciences at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory; and poet Amy Clampitt, Guggenheim Fellow and MacArthur "Genius Grant" recipient. Of course, these are just a few of the possibilities.

I look forward to reading what others think about this issue of who should and who should not be included among the six notable alumni on the Grinnell College page. I also hope there will be discussion as to whether the page should continue with AntiVan's limit. Many other college and university pages have not had this limit placed on their notable alumni sections, so why Grinnell?

—71.195.51.102 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a stand-alone list of alumni the included list should be a relatively short list of very notable alumni, but restricting it to a maximum of six seems very arbitrary and overly restrictive to me. The issue was discussed in 2007 and it seems that at that time six was chosen as the list size Talk:Grinnell_College/Archive_1#notable_alumni. Meters (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

AntiVan's trimming of the list to the first six entries [12] with no prior discussion of which to keep seems less than appropriate. At the very least I would have expected a talk page summary of the action to open discussion. An edit summary saying "Make a case on the talk page for your favorite" is not sufficient notice or the same as opening a discussion. Meters (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we concretize Grinnell's "tradition of social responsibility?"

Social activism is a significant component of Grinnell's campus culture and it is mentioned in the lead section yet not quite expanded. Could we have a brief list of examples representing Grinnell students' commitments to fostering social justice? The examples that came up to my mind are urging Board of Trustees to divert from fossil fuel industries and volunteering in teaching in prisons. We can have this under social activities and organizations. -Yilin7456 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Those are both relatively recent events, and might not be the best examples. In the 1980s, students similarly demonstrated in favor of divesting from South Africa, but the trustees refused. In another incident, when George Drake was president, students demonstrated in favor of a same-sex student couple, and he invited them all to make appointments to talk to him about it. I understand that many of them lined up to make appointments. These are all "everyday" protests, that have happened at most colleges.

Some of the bigger events might have been a century ago, around the time that Harry Hopkins graduated. There was a course a few years back on the history of the college. One of the things the students discovered was that some decades ago, student projects included things like figuring out what happened to Iowa orphans, figuring out what should happen, and lobbying the state legislature to improve the situation. IMO that's a much more significant commitment to social justice than telling the trustees that they should invest money this way instead of that way.

Another huge event was basically the beginning of the student protest movement in the 1961, and a key step in banning open-air testing of nuclear weapons. The "Grinnell 14" played a significant role in that.[13] WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Beginning of the student peace movement

• ref #1: https://www.grinnell.edu/sites/default/files/documents/grinmagfall11.grinnell14.pdf - by Peter Coyote & Terry Bisson
• ref #2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Coyote_On_Grinnell_14.png
• ref #3: https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/01/01/131482/

--Alexander.stohr (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

I work for Grinnell College and there are several items in the article that have newer content available. It was brought to my attention (thanks ElKevbo) that updating them myself is strongly discouraged. Would you be willing to help? This is my first time suggesting edits this way. Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong or if there's more I'm supposed to do.

• Specific text to be added or removed:

Every year, the college awards the $50,000 Grinnell College Innovator for Social Justice Prize, which is split between the recipient and their organization.

• Reason for the change: The prize amount was changed.
• References supporting change:

Why even list the amount? It just creates a dated entry that must be updated. RickH86 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. It makes sense to me to remove it. Sarah at Grinnell (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Specific text to be added or removed:

Replace: The first phase of this construction process includes a comprehensive landscaping update, a new Admissions and Financial Aid building, and the Humanities and Social Sciences Complex (HSSC). This first phase will cost $140 million and is projected for completion in mid-2020.[35][36]

With: The first phase of this construction process, which included a comprehensive landscaping update, a new Admissions and Financial Aid building, and the Humanities and Social Sciences Complex (HSSC), was completed 2020. The second phase, currently in planning, is focused on a downtown student residential space.

• Reason for the change: Reference is out of date. Phase 1 was completed.
• References supporting change:

Done, though does this even belong in the Wikipedia entry RickH86 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I would trust your opinion. This certainly doesn't have the historic impact as the Cesar Pelli buildings.

• Specific text to be added or removed: Semester programs in the United States include those at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Newberry Library, National Theatre Institute, and Grinnell-in-Washington, D.C.
• Reason for the change: There's a citation needed request. See citation below.
• References supporting change:

 Done RFZYNSPY ^talk 05:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edited 23 June, 2021 and 27 July, 2021 Sarah at Grinnell (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to SEIG information

I work for Grinnell College and would like an editor to review and add this if deemed appropriate. Thanks for your help.

• Specific text to be added or removed:

Replace: Founded in November 2000, the student-run Student Endowment Investing Group (SEIG) group, Pioneer Capital Investments (PCI), actively invests over $100,000 of Grinnell College's endowment capital in the stock market public equities. The group's mission is to provide interested students with valuable experience for future careers in finance.

With: Founded in November 2000, the student-run group Pioneer Capital Investments (PCI) actively invests over $100,000 of Grinnell College's endowment capital in public equities. The group's mission is to provide interested students with valuable experience for future careers in finance.”

• Reason for the change: the group underwent a name change.
• References supporting change:

Sarah at Grinnell (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sarah at Grinnell, happy to help with this, however, it is Wikipedia best practices to source information with independent, third-party sources. Can you find a source for this name change that does not come directly from PCI? - Cmccarthy215 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

For clarity: It is best if there's a third-party source (local newspaper is good enough), but it's not strictly necessary. We're just trying to help the article be the best that it can be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The Scarlet & Black has an article that references the fact that Pioneer Capital Invenstements used to be [SEIG]. Will that work? Sarah at Grinnell (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done PK650 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Dual degree program

The 3-2 engineering programs at the 4 listed co-operating institutions provide a Grinnell degree with only 3 years at Grinnell, with listed requirements. Grinnell doesn't mention 'Dartmouth" anywhere: the only statement is that other institutions may be considered by negotiation. On the other hand, Dartmouth lists Grinnell as an institution they accept from -- but again without specific requirements. It's not clear what the nature of the special relationships is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.243.156 (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a point to this comment? Are you suggesting the Dartmouth program be removed? It's correctly cited from Dartmouth, regardless of whether the Grinnell website lists it. RickH86 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that Dartmouth is a reliable source for information about Grinnell degree requirements/ I don't agree with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.243.156 (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)