Jump to content

Talk:Public Ivy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Midwestern Ivy League" ?

Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:

Midwestern Ivy League

Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 03:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Photographs

All -- I feel that including photographs in this article can only lead to ill will. There's not enough room to include photos of every campus mentioned, so then we're left with trying to mediate which ones get included. Feelings are bound to be hurt. It's not as pretty, but I think all the photographs should just be deleted. Thoughts? · Katefan0(scribble) 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0... that solution would indeed be less aesthetically pleasing! But in response to your concerns, I think we should have photos of all 8 of the universities listed in Moll's 1985 book Pubilc Ivies. I've already put up 6 of the 8, but Miami University and the University of Texas at Austin (Hook 'em!) don't seem to have any usable photographs as of yet. I was able to find one in the Commons for Vermont, though there was none on the actual Wikipedia page.
The photos...
  • have 1 descriptive line and are set to 162px to avoid spillover in IE (160px was all it took for Firefox)
  • Preferably depict a notable campus landmark.
  • Are wide instead of tall, to make room for all 8 schools.
  • Are listed by school name in reverse alphabetical order, since the list on the page was arbitrarily alphabetized.
  • Are in color, not black and white.
–Uris 19:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: I had to remove a photograph of Miami University that was way too tall. Please see above about my reasoning. Cheers! –Uris 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have since replaced it with a "wide" image (that is also much crisper) that I found in the public domain at the EPA website. Now we just need a wide photo from the University of Texas and we're done with the 8 photos. If the photos go too far down the page, it will be easy to add a bit more to the article. Cheers! –Uris 23:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: I found a fair use photo for the University of Texas. Moll's original 8 now all have photos down the side! –Uris 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Why have the photos at all? There are links to all of the schools, which each apparently have photos. The title "Public Ivy" is an indisputably malleable term, denoting at least two sets of schools. If we are to include pictures, why only of the "original" PI's? I doubt they add much either way, though, and I would be for cutting. Rkevins82 - TALK 19:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Location, Location, Location

The UC campus is Berkeley. [1] & [2]. I'll bet the SUNY campus is Binghamton, but could be Stony Brook. [3] MARussellPESE 18:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, [1] and [2] are unreliable. They both are copies of old Wikipedia data. I am willing to bet it is Berkeley, but would just like confirmation. -James Howard (talk/web) 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
In the 1960s and 1970s if you referred to the University of California it meant the Berkeley campus only. Other campuses were referred to by their location UCLA, UC Davis, UC Riverside, US Santa Cruz etc. Times change and now you have to state the campus location. The UC System is headquartered in Oakland.

Big Ten Schools

Maybe this is just my opinion, but isn't Minnesota more of a Public Ivy than Penn State or Indiana? Consistently, it seems to have more top-notch faculty members than either of the other schools and is generally recognized as less of a "party school" (IU) or a "jock school" (PSU). 129.105.104.223 00:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A few things: 1. these ratings are dated, 2. these ratings do not appear to be based on a great deal of obective criteria, 3. Penn and Indiana are both very good schools, as is Minnesota. I'm not clear on what you mean by "jock school" or even "party school." The three have similar admission profiles, athletic programs, and college drinking cultures. My experience has been that students either overrate their school's reputation in one of the categories (if they approve) or overrate another school (if they disapprove).

This is the point of other editors - what separates a Penn State from a Rutgers, Wisconsin from Minnesota, Cal from UCLA. Rkevins82 00:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, has this one been up for deletion? I think the whole "x Ivies" categorization is, to be blunt, stupid. The Ivy League isn't the end-all be-all of American education that all other schools strive for. Why people continue to use terms like "small ivies" or "public ivies" is beyond me. Let me put it this way: if I were an engineering student, I would rather graduate from Illinois engineering or Michigan engineering than ANY Ivy League engineering program. Isn't it something of an insult to continually use such term? Arbitrary, pointless article. Sonofabird 20:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it has been up for deletion. It just rehashes the books and explicates a somewhat common term, no matter how useless. Rkevins82 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue with the side pictures in Firefox 1.5 on my computer. I made this edit correct the problem, since reverted by an anonymous user. On my version, the section edit links appear next to their section headings, as appropriate. On the preceding and succeding versions of the page (current version as of this post), all the section edit links are clumped together at the bottom of the page, with "See also"'s underscore running through the links.

There is a little bit of discussion mirrored on my talk page and Rkevins82's talk pages about this.

I'm not trying to make an edit which breaks the appearance on everyone else's browser. Can other people take a glance and tell me if it looks right or not?

To note, the problem isn't reproducible without editing the page and breaking WP:POINT, because section edit links do not appear in archived versions or previews. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Academic Comparisons"

The academic comparisons section risks becoming a collegiate statistics sniping contest if this page is going to be used to highlight the individual achievements of public colleges in the United States. Is this page really going to endeavor to list every single outstanding department in every good public school in America? If not (and it shouldn't), the academic comparisons section really should only contain commentary that applies to most or all of the "Public Ivies" (so, for instance "UVA has a really good law school" should be on UVA's page, not this one). - JDoorjam 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This page keeps attempting to slowly add obscure statistics that make the "Public Ivies" seem as though they equal or surpass the Ivies in various areas, usually by leaning on UVA, Cal, and the University of Michigan. But the fact is that most of the "Public Ivies" are not and will never be seriously considered peer institutions to the Ivy League, period. If you're going to make a general statement comparing the Ivies to the "Public Ivies," that's prettymuch the only one you can make. You really can't generally claim that they "outpace Ivy grad schools," because the Ivies have some of the best grad programs in the country, too. Are there some public schools with good grad programs? Of course! Do all of these public schools have grad programs that out-do those of the Ivies? Absolutely not. If you want to make puffy statements about these schools, find some individual stats and list them on THEIR PAGES. But if you can't make a general (and accurate) statement about the entire collective of "Public Ivies," then leave it off the page. The attempted glorification through twisting of statistics on this page is rather ridiculous. JDoorjam 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Do not remove relevant, factual references. The statistics are relevant and factual. That alone is enough to include them here. –Uris 19:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Factual, yes. Relevant, no. Not unless you're comparing ALL or even MOST of the "Public Ivies" to all or most of the actual Ivy League. Otherwise you'll end up mired in delightful statistics about 38 different schools on this page. JDoorjam 20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
50.001% would be "MOST" as you so emphatically put it, so I'm assuming you have no problem with 50.000% of the Public Ivies that were so-named when the 1993 Guide came out. With 1/2 of the original 8 Public Ivies having lower acceptance rates than one or more Ivies in that year, it is certainly relevant and thus the information should and will stay on the page unless you can pry it out of my cold, dead hands (but, you know, whatever). –Uris 21:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Which ones? And which Ivies? JDoorjam 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
UVa, UNC, Berkeley, and W&M all had lower acceptance rates than Penn. Some were lower than other Ivies... but of course you said this shouldn't be about the individual schools. So that's as far as this conversation should go. It's enough that 50% were higher than at least one, since this is the Public Ivies page (50% lower) and not the Ivy League page (12.5% to 37.5% higher). –Uris 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Humor me. I want to know the breakdown so we can reach some sort of finalized wording we all can live with. JDoorjam 21:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You are bothered about the wording? How would you like to change it? You need no more information to know that what I have worded is factual. –Uris 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I hadn't seen your wording yet. To be honest, I'm really just curious what the breakdown was. I agree: your wording is concise, factual, and informative. I'd add "good job!" but fear that, given the, erm, passion of the discussion so far, you'd think I was trying to patronize you, which I'm not. I'm still not clear on why you insist on mentioning that Cornell has publicly funded units, unless you wanted to start a new section explaining how "Public Ivies" is a bit of a misnomer because of it, but I think that's probably been argued to a stand-still.

Cornell's public affiliation

You also keep claiming that Cornell is "100% private". That is wrong. Cornell may not want to advertise their partially public status, but they obviously charge less in tuition to New York State residents in their schools of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Human Ecology, and Industrial and Labor Relations.[4] That would be illegal if those parts of Cornell were private as you falsely claim. –Uris 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Illegal? What are you talking about? They're a land-grant institution and they receive funding from the New York State. They're not the only private land-grant institution. "Not want to advertise." Why wouldn't they? It'd be a great statistic for them to say they consistently are the highest-ranked public school. Receiving funding from the state does not a public university make. JDoorjam 19:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
MIT was founded as a land-grant institution...
The three colleges for which Cornell receives state funding are "contract colleges," which are run through a contract with the state of New York. To paraphrase User:Nohat, it is akin to a contractor working on a public road, or a consultant working for the federal government. They do work for the government but they are still employees of private companies. JDoorjam 20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a source? Jim Apple 20:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
For what? That the contract colleges are contracted with the state of New York? BTW, your justification for submission is not entirely correct (Cornell has always been funded by the state, yes, but was created privately), and can also be applied to another land grant institution, the Massachussetts Institute of Technology. Does Wiki count as a source? Go check out statutory college (a page my quill has never touched, for the record.) Please tell me what's inaccurate about that page, or let's change the wording to reflect Cornell's fully private status. JDoorjam 20:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a good source, but if that information is correct, it convinces me. Of course, the NY state code external link is broken. Jim Apple 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
That link was interesting. It proves that Cornell includes degree-granting units of the State University of New York. "Public" or "private" may be pure semantics, so let's be specific. –Uris 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The statutory colleges are partners of the State University of New York, but they are wholly controlled by Cornell's Board of Trustees (which, by Cornell's 1865 Charter, includes the Governor of New York as an ex officio member). What the sentence about being degree-granting units of SUNY means is that all statutory colleges grant degrees (with standards of admission and completion of academic programs determined wholly by the rules of the institution) and that these colleges, which predate SUNY, are affiliated with SUNY (as they have been since 1948). In other words, the state funds that go to the statutory colleges are a piece of the SUNY operating budget (hence they are administratively a part of SUNY), and SUNY gets a say, but ultimately has no control. btm 08:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out this misleading sentence on the statutory college page. I changed it over there. I'm proposing a new wording on this page; feel free to discuss here. btm 08:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Since the point of the entire article is that there are public schools that have the juh neh say qua of the Ivy League, and we've now established Cornell is 100% private,and the whole point is to make a strong juxtaposition (Ivies: private; "Public Ivies": public but Ivy-like), and this article is not Quirky things about public-private relationships in colleges and universities in the Northeast, and the content at the top simply reworded the footnote at the bottom without mentioning Cornell, I consolidated it at the bottom. I also made the language even more technically correct: there is only one SUNY-affiliated school at Cornell; the rest are colleges. JDoorjam 13:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Humorously put. I agree; the lead section (and in particular lead sentence) should an overview of the "Public Ivies" and doesn't need to include clarifying facts about the nature of Cornell's relationship with the state. The footnote should suffice, as it may be interesting to some — however, that is really what wikilinks are for. (BTW, I believe it's je ne sais quois =). ~
For those who are interested in this whole Cornell-NYS relationship thing, you can read about the rulings of the courts when one of the statutory colleges was sued under New York's Freedom of Information Law, which applies only to state agencies [5]. btm 21:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
But the NY Court of Appeals held in Holden v Cornell, that Cornell's Board of Trustees was subject to the New York State Open Meetings Law. The Cornell statutory colleges are subject to visitation by the New York Board of Regents, and are subject to the SUNY budgetary process and the New York State legislature's appropriation process. Also, the last time I counted, there were four statutory colleges at Cornell: Ag, Hum Ec, Vet, and ILR. 66.173.140.100 (talk)

A new design idea

What would y'all think about getting some photos of some of the Ivies that look similar to those photos we already have of the Public Ivies? Instead of eight shots down the side, we could have, say, three sets of pairs of photos demonstrating visually the similarity in aesthetics. JDoorjam 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetic comparisons

And here, for some reason, I thought at least the aesthetics section would be non-controversial! (I thought we could all agree with "everybody's pretty", eh?) My concern with the "U.Va. should come first because it's a World Heritage Site" logic is that, as you state, it's the only college campus that's been given such a designation... so it's not much of a comparison, is it? I mean, it's neither something that stands out as contrasting all or most (my favorite phrase, I know) of the Public Ivies from the Ivy League, nor does it bring them all together... it seems to simply be a flattering thing to mention about the University of Virginia. Is there an explanation as to how the World Heritage site designation makes U.Va. more Ivy-like, especially considering the other world heritage sites are mostly non-Ivy-like national parks like Yosemite and Yellowstone, or the Statue of Liberty? -- JDoorjam

Point taken about World Heritage, I have removed it. However, you yourself admitted that Dartmouth had not built the similar buildings until much later than U.Va. did, yet you say that "predate" is undocumented? You seem to not believe yourself. Also the quote by the New York Times is a comparison between U.Va.'s campus and all others in the country including those of the Ivy League. Did you expect them to say "a better campus plan than any of those in the Ivy League" instead of comparing its aesthetics to all others, such as Stanford, as well? –Uris 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This isn't U.Va's page. If you want to put that on U.Va's page, please do -- it seems factual and relevant (and I'm sure it's already there). But yes, if you're going to put it on this page, then that's exactly what I expect: a direct comparison between the "Public Ivies" and the Ivy League. Just because it has to do with U.Va., and is factually true, does not mean it belongs here. JDoorjam 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It was a relevant comparison between U.Va. and the Ivy League. Between the "Public Ivies" and the Ivy League, no. The whole section was only about U.Va. and W&M which is why, sadly, I did delete it. I don't think the other Public Ivies are comparable in those ways to UVa and W&M due to the limited history of the other states. In the days these universities were being founded, New England and Virginia were much more prominent than what is now the rest of the country. Uris 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Then perhaps that section should say that some are similar and some are dissimilar. My point remains the same: that the New York Times thinks U.Va. has an excellent layout really doesn't have much to do with its similarity to the Ivy League. But, IMHO, I think that this section might be worth bringing back at some point if it can say "these are similar, these are not." JDoorjam 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps..... it seems like it would be an unusual section though? Uris 17:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cornell

Cornell? What's Cornell doing here? Cornell is an honest-to-gosh member of the Ivy League, nothing public about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was founded in part as a state land-grant institution and seems at least partly public. But because it's in the Ivy League, you're certainly right, it can't be a Public Ivy.

Faulkner?

13:08, 11 August 2005 208.254.206.41 inserted the sentence saying that the term was

coined by the writer William Faulkner to describe the University of Virginia, where he served as Writer-In-Residence from 1957-1962.

I can't find a source for it. Googling on "William Faulkner" "Public Ivy" turns up dozens of Web hits... but most of them seem to be derived from Wikipedia, or don't themselves give a source.

Anyone have a source? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Public Ivies do not exist as a group

This is an article about the public ivies... those other schools may be ranked by US News as the top public schools but that doesn't belong on this article

I will certainly grant that "Public Ivies" is a term that has been used in a published book, and therefore is not undeserving of mention. However, the "Public Ivies" do not exist as a group, in the same way that Ivy League schools do (The Ivy League after all is an organized athletic conference). To compare public schools to the ivies, and characterize them as similar to certain Ivy schools is fine, but to present Public Ivies as either a commonly used term or as though it were a set group is misleading. And given the diverse nature of the various Ivy campuses (urban, rural, large population, small, varied graduate schools, undergraduate schools, affiliates etc) comparisons between these Public schools and specific Ivies should be reserved for their individual article pages. I would suggest limiting the detail of this page to summarizing the content of those books that specifically mention the term "Public Ivies," so as to avoid boosterism and a "runaway" article. IvyLeagueGrunt 02:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, the term isn't misleading in the least. While you may think you're serving some elitist purpose by "protecting" the Ivy branding, the term public ivy" is actually a tremendous (and perhaps undeserved) compliment to Ivy-League Schools. As you point out, Ivies differ in various ways; you do not mention that one of those variables is quality. Some ivy-league schools benefit from, well, merely being in the same athletic conference as others. At the same time, the term "Ivy" has come to connote high-quality education. To be sure, everyone knows the only Ivy League schools are those in the Ivy League. The whole point of this article, then, is that some public schools are considered the peers of Ivy League schoos, which, painting with a broad brush, are considered superior. It is to your snobby benefit to promote use of the term. It confers a patina on Ivy League schools that isn't uniformly deserved. unsigned comment by 71.137.234.129

  • The public "Ivies" are only considered by most people to be comparable to the Ivy League Schools in terms of academics. The only thing worse than having a class structure in the United States is having one but pretending that we do not have one. People who attend the University of Michigan can receive a fine education, but are much less likely to be be listed in the Social Register than people who attend Harvard. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Clearly I went to a public school - I don't even know what the Social Register is. Rkevins82 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
See The Straight Dope and, of course, Social Register. Let's put it another way. In this great land of ours, anyone—even a graduate of the University of Michigan—can become President of the United States. However, the odds are noticeably better for graduates of Harvard or Yale. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparable only in terms of "academics?" The prestige conferred on Ivy League schools comes from their academics (not, you'll be shocked to discover, their athletics), so I'm not sure what this means. Also, regarding the odds of becoming President or "making it big": Many studies have concluded that individuals who had the choice between Ivy League schools and state institutions (or private schools with scholarships) and chose the latter ended up doing just as well as their Ivy League counterparts. The individuals who graduate from Ivy League schools do better because of who they are, not necessarily what the institution is.

The talk page is for discussions about the article, not criticisms of its subject matter. Dave 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Dmlandfair|Dave] I think it's borderline but on-topic because it relates to what ought to be in the article. Anon, the prestige conferred by Ivy League schools comes, or traditionally came, from the selectivity they exercised in their admissions which was not based solely on academic merit but on judgements of "lineage," social standing, etc. I agree with the "who" factor, but the prestige of the Ivies depends on part on "who" attends. The prevalance of Ivy Leaguers in the Social Register and in the White House is not completely explained by the academic excellence of the Ivies. It's all very unpleasant (to me), and I believe the "social" factor in Ivy League selection is less important than it was some decades ago, but it still exists. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons to the Ivy League as an Athletic League

There must be an unbiased way of pointing out the incongruity of a school like the University of Virginia claiming to be a Public Ivy and granting athletic scholarships at the same time. Admittedly, the "Public Ivy" ethos (if one exists) does not ban scholarships, but the Ivy League generally does, and it is, after all, officially an athletic league at heart.

In the ongoing discussion of how to phrase this, the article has acquired a few statements to the effect that "Ivy League sports programs and in Division I-AA and don't generate much television revenue; some Public Ivies are in big leagues and depend on such revenue and therefore give their players scholarships." Doubtless that's the way the world works (isn't it like responding "But the sex is given in return for money!" to a charge of prostitution?), but it's missing the point: the Ivy League is staking out an educational policy position when it restricts the emphasis on athletics, a position that many of the Public Ivies (presumably for very good reasons) decline to adopt even as they are being commended in this article for imitating all of the other aspects of the league (except the price, of course).

The "public ivies" do not imitate or resemble the Ivy League schools in all aspects. The only respect in which they are said to be comparable is: 1) academic quality, and 2) "collegiate experience." I rather question even the latter. I can't personally speak to the "collegiate experience" at Moll's original list of eight;—I can believe the College of William and Mary might be very Ivy-like—but the undergraduate experience at a place like the University of Wisconsin or the University of Colorado is not very Ivy-like. There is a fine education to be had at these schools, but a student needs to be proactive to get it, and students frequently sink and drown without anybody noticing, much less pitching them a life preserver.
By the way, I was digging up some stuff on Harvard president Charles W. Eliot, who pretty much turned Harvard into a modern university (and set the model for other universities), and, boy, did he ever hate football. He tried (unsuccessfully) to abolish it altogether at Harvard. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
See University of Chicago if you like Charles Eliot's animosity toward football. Rkevins82 08:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done some work on this section; IMO, it's worth mentioning the difference (as the Ivy League is itself technically only an athletic conference), but not over-emphasizing it. The Ivy analogy can only go so far, as large public universities have a different mission. VT hawkeyetalk to me 17:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Social prestige

The Ivy League, particularly Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and the "little Ivies," have or had a special and privileged relationship to the U. S. power structure. This can be shown objectively by the overrepresentation of graduates of these schools in the Social Register.

Cause and effect are not clear, but certainly during, say, 1920 to 1970, these schools' "selectivity" in admissions included many factors other than academic merit, such as "lineage." Graduation from these schools is or was considered a stamp of social approval as well as certification of academic accomplishment.

The "Public Ivies" admissions is meritocratic, and graduation from a"public Ivy" does not convey the same kind of social prestige.

All of this is ugly and not clearly spoken of, because in the United States we are reluctant to speak openly of the class structure that exists here.

I'm working on trying to find good, neutral sources documenting the social differences between universities. I don't have them lined up yet, but they exist.

Meanwhile, "Ivy" implies that the school indeed shares some characteristics with the schools of the Ivy League. In the case of the "little Ivies," this includes social prestige. In the case of the public Ivies (with the possible exception of William and Mary?) it does not.

Three Presidents attended "little Ivies." Jefferson, Monroe and Tyler attended William and Mary, but there have been none since. Aside from that, I believe Gerald Ford, who attended the University of Michigan, is the only President to have graduated from a "public Ivy." [6] Given the huge disproportion between the total enrollment of the "little Ivies" and the "public Ivies" that, I think, speaks fairly clearly to the situation. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

-It should be noted that President James K. Polk was a graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill [7]SuMadre 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, I think "offer a superior education, but at a public/state institution" is a fairly reasonable statement of what is claimed of "public Ivies." I'm afraid I have not yet gone to the trouble of getting a copy of Moll's original book to see exactly how he phrased it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

JBHE Report

The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education has released a report entitled Comparing Black Enrollments at the Public Ivies which should probably be incorporated into this article -- if nothing else, it says the Moll list referred only to U.C. Berkeley, but that there are four other U.C.s that should be on the list, as should Georgia Tech. Thoughts on integration? JDoorjam 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I decided to Wikipedia:Be bold. I think that's a find. It gives the quote from Moll... I've been procrastinating on getting a copy of the book just to find out what he really said. It confirms Moll and the 2001 book by the Greenes as reasonable authorities for the term. And it gives a flattering description of the schools, but one which, IMHO, taken together with Moll's quote establishes that what the public Ivies share with the Ivy League is academic rigor, not social prestige.
Of course... given current trends... these days the cost of attending a "public Ivy" is climbing rapidly. It is tautological to say that public universities provide education at "a public school price" but that certainly doesn't mean what it meant when Moll said it. And let's not even talk about the effects of "enrollment management." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

UVM's take on itself

It's interesting to do a Google site search on the University of Vermont, "public+ivy"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 site:www.uvm.edu "public ivy" . Scanning the hits reveals numerous references to the university's "Public Ivy era," with the clear implication that that era is in the past. DId the Greenes or anyone else pronounce the University of Vermont to have lost its "public Ivy" status? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here, a university office comments on "UVM's poor image: The reputation of UVM as a party school affects the university at all levels; it is more difficult to attract students and dollars because people no longer consider the institution the public ivy it once was." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetization

The two schools of thought on this, that I can tell, seem to rotate around whether to consider the words "University of" or "College of" when alphabetizing, or whether to eschew these and get straight to the "Virginia"s and "William and Mary"s. I, for one, am a fan of ignoring the "College/University of" language, but given the number of times this has flopped back and forth recently, are there other thoughts on this? (Given the conflict with which this page was rife for a while, it's nice that the editing process has calmed down to this being the main bone of contention....) JDoorjam 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree on skipping to "Virginia"... Rkevins82 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The 2005 Times Almanac with Information Please alphabetizes by entire name, i.e. all the "University Of's" collate together near the bottom; e.g.
IDAHO
Albertson College of Idaho
Boise State University
Idaho State University
Lewis-Clark State College
Northwest Nazarene University
University of Idaho
University of Phoenix-Idaho Campus
I personally don't care, but if you want to alphabetize them the other way I think you should permute the name, "Virginia, University of." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
When I added the missing schools from the book, I ordered them in the same order as the book. In the book they appear as follows:
University of Arizona
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Diego
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Connecticut
University of Delaware
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Indiana University Bloomington
University of Iowa
University of Maryland College Park
Miami University (Oxford, Ohio)
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Michigan State University
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
State University of New York at Binghampton
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Ohio State University (Columbus)
Pennsylvania State University (University Park) 
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (New Brunswick)
University of Texas at Austin
University of Virginia
University of Washington
College of William and Mary
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Note each is basically alphabetized by "keyword", there is no "The" on OSU, and all the California schools are listed seperately. Psyx 16:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally, i like the idea of alphabetizing by the actual name of the institution (ie. "University of..." comes toward the end of the alphabetical list). The list above is not in alphabetical order, even if the "keywords" in the names are. If you are going to alphabetize by keyword, which is not such a bad idea even if it's not my personal favorite, then the names should be reordered so that the list is alphabetical, that is: "Iowa, University of" and William and Mary, College of" because when you look at the list as it is, it looks fairly arbitrary and random, and the idea is to make it readable. (Dpbsmith, sorry! i had to look!) -Bindingtheory 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The list should look alphabetized. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think age factors in

Recently added:

The phrase "Public Ivy" is also used to refer to the age of an institution. At the time of the signing of Declaration of Independence, only nine colleges were in existence: Harvard University, Yale University, Princeton University, Dartmouth College, Columbia University, Brown University, University of Pennsylvania, College of William and Mary, and Rutgers University. The last two, now public institutions, are as a result commonly referred to as "Public Ivies."

However, the source citation supposedly supporting this is Rutgers: Public Ivy of National Distinction.

Yet, Rutgers own (self-promoting) article opens:

What It Means to Be a Public Ivy: Rutgers has recently been listed, along with such institutions as Berkeley, the University of Virginia, and William & Mary, in The Public Ivies, a volume in the Greenes' Guides to Educational Planning Series. The term "Public Ivy," introduced by college admissions officer Richard Moll in a 1985 book, is meant to identify a distinct class of public universities offering educational opportunities similar to those found at schools like Columbia, Harvard, Brown, and Dartmouth, but at a much lower cost.

This is in complete accord with what our article already says. It accepts Greenes' Guides as the current defining authority, it mentions Moll, and it gives Moll's definition: "Public Ivy" = Ivy-League-like educational opportunity at lower cost.

It then goes on with a second paragraph "Although many 'Public Ivies' are, historically speaking, of relatively recent date -- Berkeley, for example, was founded in 1868 and the University of North Carolina in 1795 -- a few are much older. Rutgers belongs to this group." In other words, Rutgers is not saying that being a "public Ivy" has anything to do with age. It is boasting about being a public Ivy that happens to be venerable in addition to being old. An extra added attraction, above and beyond its "public Ivy" status.

If someone can point to evidence that the Greenes or Moll considered institutional age to be an important factor in deciding whether an institution qualified as a "public ivy," that could reasonably go in the article... with a source citation. But I don't think they did.

Digression: Most of the "public Ivies" are, in fact, very roughly the same age: dating from a wave of such foundings that occurred after the Civil War, between 1870 and 1890, connected with the Morrill Act and with a new American conception of the "university" as nonsectarian and career-oriented... often with founders drawn from the ranks of businessmen rather than scholars.

Not only do many public Ivies belong to this wave:; so do Stanford, MIT, and the University of Chicago—and the Ivy League school, Cornell. It's true that the Ivy League is called the "Ancient Eight," but that's extension of the older phrase "Ancient Three" for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton; Cornell is an Ivy League school that is conspicuously not "ancient."

Anyway, Rutgers and William and Mary are notable for their age, but I don't think age factors in at all into the definition of what it means to be a "public Ivy..." any more than it is is requirement for belonging to the Ivy League itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Academic comparison with Ivy League

I'm reinserting, in slightly modified form, the recently removed statement to the effect that the Public Ivies "generally rank below those of the Ivy League." The statement now reads:

Five of the top public universities rank among the top 30 national universities in the U.S. News & World Report rankings for 2006. Public universities have accomplished significant achievements, especially in their graduate-level and research programs. U. S. News ranks Berkeley's mechancal engineering program higher than that of any Ivy[8]; all three of the top-ranked pharmacy programs (UCSF, University of Texas—Austin, and UNC-Chapel Hill) are at public universities[9]. Still, as colleges, U. S. News generally gives them a ranking below those of the Ivy League. For example, in 2006, the highest-ranked "public Ivy" ranked 20th, while the lowest-ranked member of the Ivy League ranked 15th.[10] Nevertheless, the refusal of both the Ivies and the "Public Ivies" to publish standardized test results, such as LSAT, MCAT, GMAT and GRE scores, for their students makes objective academic comparisons difficult. [1]

I think this is valid because the phrase "public Ivies" implies a comparison to the Ivy League (as do the phrases in the opening paragraph about "an Ivy League collegiate experience at a public school price" and "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor."

I changed "many" to "several" in the phrase "many of the top public universities rank among the top 30 national universities" because, by my count, in the 2006 list, I see UNC, Michigan, UCLA, UVA, and Berkeley. I don't think four (Moll's list) or five (Greene's) quite qualify as "many."

But I'm bothered anyway, because I'm not sure why the dividing line was set at "top 30." "Top 10," and "Top 20" seem like natural breaks. "Top 30" does not. Had the dividing line been set at "top 20," only Berkeley would have make the cut. I have to wonder whether 30 was picked in order to bring in several others.

I'm also bothered by the vague comment about public universities having "accomplished significant achievements, especially in their graduate-level and research programs." I'm leaving this in (and giving some sourced particular examples), just as I'm leaving (but particularizing) the "top 30" comment, but they both seem to me to be an attempt to put a positive "spin" on things.

In any event, on the current U. S. News list, the "public Ivies" as a group does not even overlap the schools of the Ivy League. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Martens, J. “For the Ease of Masters” Barron's 26 August 2002

Not "prestige."

The public Ivies are said to provide a collegiate experience and quality of education comparable to the Ivy League. They are not comparable to the Ivy League in social prestige. Despite some degree of egalitarianism in the United States, there is still a social pecking order, and the George W. Bushes of the world go to Harvard and Yale, not to the University of Wisconsin. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're approximately 24% right. While it's true that many unthinking people confer more prestige on a graduate of an actual Ivy (as opposed to, say, MIT -- ha!), it's not true that the George W. Bushes of the world go to Harvard and Yale. Yes, THE George W. Bush did, but plenty of other powerful people were educated elsewhere. Take, say, Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton. He did go to Yale Law; he also went to Georgetown for undergrad. Turned out all right for him. unsigned comment by 71.137.234.129

He also went to Oxford, which one could argue is more like a "public ivy" than most on the list.... I don't recall anyone, for obvious reasons, calling Georgetown or MIT a Public Ivy, and as you point out, Clinton went to Yale, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. JDoorjam 13:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You proved my obvious point even more: The George W. Bushes of the word do not necessarily go to Ivy League schools. The point is that Clinton isn't strictly Ivy League; many others are not either. Note that the above comment, the one that prompted my response, said that "the Geroge W. Bushes of the world go to Harvard and Yale...." The implication was that they go to Ivies. My point was that that is the case less often than indicated. Thank you, though, for helping me to make my point by pointing out that Georgetown and MIT are not Ivies, something at which I had not even hinted.

An MIT degree does not confer much if any social prestige on its holder. This is probably because MIT admissions have always been pretty much meritocratic. You'll notice, too, that no MIT graduates have reached the White House (although Carter attended Georgia Tech). The presence of "MIT" on a resume certainly opens some doors, above and beyond the actual academic achievement of the candidate, but they are not the same doors that are opened by Williams or Yale. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? The original statement was that public ivies don't hold the same *prestige* as the real ivies, and you arguing back that there are successful people who didn't go to an ivy. No shit, but that doesn't counter anything the original poster said. It's a subjective statement so perhaps there is no point in arguing it here anyway. Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~). Rm999 00:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Notion about prestige should be removed. That is education eliticism, which is way too rampaged in Wikipedia. This is a discussion about Public Ivy as defined by the author. --Mcks 17:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"New Ivies"

Maybe it's time for a page on what seems intended as a replacement for the "Public Ivy" idea, the "New Ivy" (I guess it includes both public and private...) New Ivies --Editing 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • One recent news article doesn't make a new category notable or worth throwing away an established category. The New Ivy article recently put up might deserve an AfD as a result. —ExplorerCDT 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about ready to remove all the pictures

...for reasons articulated above by Katefan0. This portion of the article has always been unstable and contentious. Everyone seems to want to add their fave, and reorder them so that their fave is at the top. The pictures are mostly taken from and available at the articles for the individual schools.

If a picture of every school mentioned were included, there would be a serious download-speed issue for dialup users.

If we can't agree to keep the pictures limited to pictures of Moll's original eight, then I think we should remove the pictures altogether. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we not agree to that? We did a while ago; let's do a straw poll here. This might end conflict, but is a rather Pyrrhic victory. (FWIW, support limiting photos to Moll's 8.) JDoorjam Talk 05:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

  • There should be eight small thumbnails in the article depicting representative scenes at Moll's eight original "Public Ivies," and they should appear in alphabetical order.
  1. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is sensible and we've proven it works. JDoorjam Talk 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. agreed--Jiang 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. This was a much better looking article with the photos. SuMadre 07:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Of Course. These are after all the original 'Public Ivies'. YankeeGal 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Make Other Proposals Here:

  • There should not currently be photos on the article depicting "Public Ivies" as they add little to the article, attract vandalism, and slow-down page loading.
  1. Exclude Rkevins82 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. --Dmgz 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. --128.208.83.87 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Photos will cause other schools not part of the original Moll-8 to say "me too" and promote vandalism, edit wars, etc. ergo, Oppose. —ExplorerCDT 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Exclude. Both Moll and Green are legitimate Public Ivies. No distinction should ever be made. 202.156.6.54 04:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. No photos. This is drawing false equivalence with the Ivy League article, which this article should not try to do. The Ivy League is an official atheletic league, and this article is about a colloquialism that has been used by different folks at different times for different academic institutions. This is not to denegrate the institutions listed as Public Ivies, but this article should not try to be done in parallel with the Ivy League article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "flagship" language, Geneseo picture

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

Many public ivies are also so-called "flagship institutions" or "flagship universities" of a state, due to the perception of them being the best public university in a particular state.

because it is uncited and pure opinion. I have also removed the picture of Geneseo from the article because the custom has been to only put photos of Moll's list because adding more or all of the colleges would simply clutter the article. An arbitrary line had to be drawn somewhere, and I think the decision to only have those eight schools pictured was a good one. JDoorjam Talk 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Rkevins82 04:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

google +"public ivy" +flagship. there's two lists. simply because "clutter" is not a good reason to leave out a list of equal stature. good layout can overcome this.

Re pictures: It's not reasonable to have pictures of every school in this article. At some point, download speeds for dialup users becomes an issue. All of these schools have their own articles, and the image of the Grainger Library can be seen at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Re "flagship." The dictionary definition is:
1. A ship that carries a fleet or squadron commander and bears the commander's flag. 2. The chief one of a related group: the flagship of a newspaper chain; the flagship of a line of reference books.
In the case of a university, the term has a well-defined meaning. It refers to the university in a multi-university system where the administrative headquarters for the entire system are located. It has nothing to do with academic quality. Public universities are often part of multi-university system. Flagship campuses are usually the oldest, biggest, and often academically the best campuses in the system. Therefore, it is not surprising that some universities that are considered "public ivies" are also the flagship campuses of a system, but the two concepts are completely unrelated.
The University of California, Berkeley is both the flagship campus of the University of California system, and also a "public ivy."
The University of Massachusetts Amherst is the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts system, but it is not a public ivy, because although it is a good school with a number of excellent departments, it does not rise to public ivy stature.
The College of William and Mary is certainly a "public ivy," arguably the iviest of them all, but it is not a flagship campus because it is not part of a multi-university system; it is not "William and Mary-Williamsburg," and there is no "William and Mary-Lexington," "William and Mary-Alexandria" or anything like that.
Harvard University, the most esteemed of the Ivy League schools, is not a flagship university either, for the same reason.
Re consensus. You need to make your case here and get consensus from the other editors of this page before you make your changes. Frankly, if we can't get a stable consensus on guidelines for including pictures I'm going to be tempted to just remove them all. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
P. S. The title of Richard Moll's 1985 book was given incorrectly; I don't know how long this was true. He did not use the word "flagship." The Greene and Greene book does use this word, but, what can I say? They simply are incorrect. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sept. 21

Many public ivies are also so-called "flagship institutions" or "flagship universities" of a state, due to the perception of them being the best public university in a particular state.

was added by 128.174.180.2 with no edit comment or discussion here. I've removed it again, per the above. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I've found a source which says:

It was in the context of this massive expansion, then, that the term "flagship" came to be used to refer to the original campus of the system, the campus from which branches were developed or other institutions attached. The metaphor obviously had a naval origin; each fleet has a flagship, the largest battleship or aircraft carrier from which the admiral directs the movements of the entire fleet. [11]

A recent edit comment challenged my statement that the "flagship" is the campus where the administration headquarters is located, noting that the University of California system has Berkeley as its "flagship," but administrative headquarters in Oakland. This is correct. I was wrong. I think this is an unusual case. I note that the University of California does not have any branch educational campus at Oakland--there is no students that attend "University of California, Oakland."

But in any case it's clear that there's no particular connection between "public ivies" and "flagship campuses." Flagship campuses are the oldest, and tend to be the larger and more academically distinguished campuses in a state university system, so it's logical that those public ivies that are state universities tend to be the flagship campuses. But, as I noted above, William and Mary (and for that matter University of Virginia, UVM, and Miami of Ohio) are not "flagships" no matter how good they may be, because they are not part of a system with multiple campuses. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Deleting redundant lists"

Why do we have so many lists of Public Ivy? The list of Public Ivy listed in the Hidden Ivy is not only located in the Appendix but is also similar. I propose we delete it as it is just very confusing. 128.208.83.87 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this particular point. Personally, what I think is important is that we include only public ivies for which there is a reference... that is, a reasonably authorative published source that calls the school a "public ivy." It should not degenerate into a list of schools whom Wikipedia editors think deserve that title.
This is, thus, an article about "schools that have been called Public Ivies," and it's not unreasonable to have several lists.
The third list does serve two functions. It serves as a reference for a few other schools' being called "public ivies" that are not in the other lists. Boosters of those particular schools would probably not like to see it removed. More important, it shows that the concept of "public ivies" is pretty subjective and varies from authority to authority. But I don't think it adds much to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
On looking at this again, the Greene's second list from the appendix of "Hidden Ivies" does not add any schools. It does single out five University of California campuses by name, which the other lists don't. Also, if the book was quoted correctly (I don't have access to it and it doesn't appear to be searchable in a9 or Google Books) it appears that they omit Rutgers... which actually seems very odd to me.
It seemed to me that the right thing to do was mention the differences without either omitting the Greene's second list or giving it in full, so that's what I've done.
The Rutgers thing really bothers me... anyone who could check it would be doing the article a favor. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I own the book, Hidden Ivies (which is still in print and available for purchase if you want to check yourself) and Rutgers is not listed. I think that either we offer full lists from all of the books or summarize from all of the books in order to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Summary from each is probably best in terms of space, and in doing so you can note the differences between the two lists. For the moment I have restored the Hidden Ivies list, but you can take it off if you decide to summarize all of the lists. -Classicfilms 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I can probably get it by interlibrary loan. I shouldn't have said "I don't have access to it," I should have said "I haven't bothered."
I don't question what you say, I just wanted to be sure it wasn't a typo when you transcribed the list. I don't suppose they say why they added Rutgers?
(I somehow missed the rather obvious point that the Greenes' book "Hidden Ivies" is earlier than their books on the "Public Ivies." They didn't drop Rutgers, they added it). Dpbsmith (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed: Rutgers and W&M asked to join Ivy League

I am disputing the claim that Rutgers and W&M were asked to join the Ivy League but declined. William & Mary was a public university at the time, and had been for a long time. The Ivy League, in contrast, was purposefully made up of private schools. W&M also had never played Yale in football, had only played Princeton 1 time in 80 years of the sport, etc. It had no rivalry with any of these schools. While Rutgers did enjoy a football rivalry with Princeton at the time, Rutgers had just merged with the University of Newark and so was a very large university with branches in different geographic locations... it would be hard to see them being asked as well. I find it highly doubtful. Also, would not one writer in the Internet Age have written an article lamenting the fact that one of these schools did not accept the invitation? ExplorerCDT cited numerous rolls of microfilm as his "source", saying that if he had to list an article, it would be a list of over 500 and too lengthy. He has consistently avoided the question as to why he can't list just one or two articles with actual dates, that someone could easily verify. Until specific articles with specific dates can be listed and verified, I am disputing the accuracy of these claims. Wise 13:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use Ivy League (talk) to discuss this issue. Uris 13:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

University of California

With regard to the California schools being originial or new, I have no idea. I only saw the 2001 book. UCLA is definitely included in the new list and as far as I can tell "University of California" is on the original. At very least UCLA should be included in the updated list here. UCLA was added anonymously (08:37, 21 December 2005 71.137.227.23) at first to the original list. Psyx 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Irvine and Davis are mentioned in several books Public Ivies listings... Check out page 53 in Cool Colleges: For the Hyper-Intelligent, Self-Directed, Late Blooming, and Just Plain Different (ISBN 1580081509) and page 117 in The College Finder, Revised Edition (ISBN 0449003892).
Do the books refer to them as Public Ivies in a list, or does it say they are cool, geared toward the intelligent, or something else? Those can be added along with the other colleges those books identify as Public Ivies. However, I would like to note that University of California, Irvine and University of California, Davis are already included as members of the University of California System. Rkevins82 00:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"Moll's book considered the entire University of California system as one institution." http://www.answers.com/topic/public-ivy#wp-_note-2 Unsuspected 21:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Miami (of Ohio) University

Referring to revert of [3 November 2005], yes, there is another university associated with "Miami" - the University of Miami. Even though it's private, these schools are routinely confabulated which is why it's "Miami of Ohio" in virtually every press account. TV and newspaper accounts in Cleveland even refer to this institution as Miami (Ohio) or "Miami of Ohio."

I'm from Ohio and thought the Public Ivies article was referring to the football factory in Florida, which seemed strange. Miami alumni may hate the reference, but it saves a lot of confusion for the rest of us. Personally, I'd think that alumni would want to differentiate. MARussellPESE 20:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My comment should have made the issue clear. There is only one Miami University and the other is University of Miami. If clarification is necessary, the user can click the link...that's why it is a link. Newspaper accounts are also a bad example. Newspapers and television are cramped for space and saying "Miami (OH)" or "Miami (FL)" allows them to conserve the space that would be used by full names. Of course, you never see Cornell University listed as "Cornell of New York," either. Given that Cal and SUNY combine for three dozen schools, without clarification, I find it obtuse that Miami is singled out. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is very obtuse; but I think that's what encyclopedias are for. Not trying to step on toes here, but I do think that Miami University deserves to be distinguished clearly and not get confabulated with the football factory in Florida. I had no idea Miami University was on this kind of list. (Point against my own ignorance.)
No one's going to confabulate Cornell with anyone else; but which UC Campus does the book talk about? I doubt UC Davis or Irvine were (albeit fine institutions), but I don't know if it was Berkeley or UCLA, or both. (As an aside, "Cal" means UC Berkeley exclusively. Mom's a golden bear.) I think that that would be good to clarify, but I don't have the reference at hand.
"Moll's book considered the entire University of California system as one institution." http://www.answers.com/topic/public-ivy#wp-_note-2 Unsuspected 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is some way to clarify this that's acceptable, let's do it. The article does identify UNC Chapel Hill and UT Austin. Say: Miami University, Oxford, Ohio?
If we were really trying to be pedantic about this, we'd call out UM - Ann Arbor, Illinois - Urbana-Champaign, etc., but these schools aren't likely to get confused with another school like Miami. (Can you guess which one I mean?)
MARussellPESE 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The University of Washington, Seattle (a public university) and Washington University, St Louis (a private university) have the same problem. Writers either list them as I have done above or sometimes shorten them to Washington, Seattle and Washington, St Louis.--Highdesert 02:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I can forgive you not knowing Miami was on the list. The list is a joke. But that's beside the point. I do find the current form more than acceptable. It is informative, without being insulting. I'll add info on the rest of the schools tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. Aside on UNC and Texas...the full and correct names of those schools include the city name. Michigan does not, but I think Illinois does. -James Howard (talk/web) 00:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus is indeed the flagship campus...

A recent edit removed the statement that the University of Michigan is the flagship campus of the Michigan's state university system, on the grounds that "MSU and UM are co-equals concentrated differently." But "flagship" status has nothing to do with academic merits, and it is irrelevant that University of Michigan and Michigan State are "coequals." It is simply a statement of which campus is the oldest campus in the system, and the University of Michigan was founded in 1817 while Michigan State was founded in 1855. Michigan State, whatever its merits, is not the original campus from which the state university system grew.

It's like saying "Rhode Island is one of the thirteen original colonies and Texas is not." Texas may well be "coequal" with Rhode Island. Indeed, it may be bigger, better, wealthier, healthier, and more moral. Nevertheless, Texas is not one of the thirteen original colonies and never will be.

For example: (Google Book searches): Canada and the United States: Differences That Count by David M. Thomas says "States such as California, Michigan, and Texas operate entire 'systems,' with the original campus—say, the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor or the University of Texas in Austin—now serving as the 'flagship' and major research institution...."

Funding a College Education by Alice Drum, Richard Kneedler states "Every state has its flagship university or universities; that is, the principal state university (or universities). Then include the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor..." followed by a list which does not include MSU.

A University for the 21st Century by James J. Duderstadt refers to "the flagship UM-Ann Arbor campus..." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, MSU is not part of the University of Michigan System. Apologies if this has been brought to your attention before.... Tomwithanh 05:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorting out

For reference, here are the conference affiliations for each of the Public Ivies that play 1-A football...

Atlantic Coast Conference

Big East Conference

Big 10 Conference

Big 12 Conference

Mid-American Conference

Pac-10 Conference

Southeastern Conference

...And those that don't play 1-A football

CoolKatt number 99999 01:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment

As I noted on the "Little Ivies" discussion page, this is an almost completely arbitrary label. What, exactly, makes a public university an "Ivy"? What differentiates Penn State, Rutgers, SUNY or Vermont from the universities of Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and so on? The Ivy League -- which does not, of course, include Stanford, MIT, Duke, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Northwestern, Rice or any of the elite liberal arts colleges -- is an eight-school football conference, not a comprehensive group of the top schools in the United States.

Take the term for what it is worth and what it represents. Those other schools you name are top notch private universities. These public ivies are schools that provide a similar enriching academic experience and ambiance to the ivy league schools in the Northeast.

What it represents is completely wrong. Putting aside the merits of these schools and the Ivy League schools, these schools are not similar in ambience to Ivy schools. They feel quite different, as I know from personal experience. I'm quite flabbergasted that the people who created these lists feel otherwise. --C S 20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for every school on either list (Public Ivy or Ivy League), but I can tell you that of the two schools I have seen up close and spent time at, the University of Virginia and Dartmouth College are surprisingly similar, given that one is in New England and one in the South. They are mostly dis-similar in size and not much more. The ambiance is very similar at the two universities, from the Palladian architecture to the frat boys, and I could easily confuse the Tuck School of Business for something that belongs near the Rotunda, or the Thayer School for SEAS (both tiny engineering programs not well known). Not to mention, both of the schools' strengths are the liberal arts, and both sets of student bodies are "preppie" faux-outdoorsy types. And, U.S. News would seem to agree with me. –Uris 21:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate your feedback, and others have told me similar things about the University of Virginia. But I was thinking more along the lines of how the University of California (at Davis) compared to Cornell. They are so extremely dissimilar it's funny that anybody would claim the opposite. --C S 01:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Having Seen UVA and Dartmouth I'd disagree with CS. UVA is spread-out and people drive everywhere, including to their off-campus apartments (another big difference). UVA students seem to come mostly from Fairfax County or New Jersey and make the place feel definitely regional. There are so many undergrad degrees that UVA students can't call themselves by class years, they have to use codes like CLAES. UVA gives academic and athletic scholarships and plays in big-time televised sports (which locals cheer for even though they didn't go there). The feeling can be one of social division, sometimes reinforced by the institution (Lawnies, Jefferson Scholars, Echols etc.)
--Spongepantssquarebob2 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the apprehension with some of the "other" public ivies (by Greene) which I think tends to dilute the "true" public ivies (incidentally--public ivies included all the UC schools not just Berkeley--i.e. including UCLA and UCSD which are perenially ranked high in the US News rankings). So as to truly emphasize what's going on here (i.e. the public ivies by Greene vs. the "true" public ivies as they were originally named and to allow the real comparison), I will separate them if that's okay.

In my opinion, it's not the prestige but the education that counts. Since the public ivies are generally cheaper than the real ones, and at times give the same education, for those who are not the Clintons and Bush's of the world it is much more worth it. Unless you have the money to pay for Yale and the political career that would need such social prestige, then public ivies stand as the much wiser choice. --User:Ummakynes 15:29, 15 March 2006

I happen to agree with you. But the prestige counts for those to whom prestige is important. It isn't doing anyone a service to pretend that the United States is an egalitarian, classless society. There are people whose goal is to become one of the Clintons or Bushes of the world. Gerald Ford proves that it is possible for a University of Michigan graduate to become President, but nevertheless the odd favor the Yale graduate. (Me? I wouldn't want to be President, those grapes are sour, anyway). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Stony Brook?

I don't think Stony Brook is listed as a Public Ivy by any of those sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.66.135 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Vermont in the Greene book

The Greene book lists 30 Public Ivys, but we currently have 31 listed in this article. Looking at the book in Amazon's Look Inside! feature reveals that Vermont is listed on the cover but not in the table of contents. Either the cover or the table of contents is wrong. I feel Vermont should only be included in the article's list if an actual chapter/section exists for the school. Does anyone have a physical copy of the book? -Mabeenot (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Next time I'm in a bookstore I'll check. Problem could be cover is of one edition and inside is of another.--Lhakthong (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

Request to add the University of Michigan with a picture to the Public Ivy gallery.

See:

UniversityofMIchiganDiag

Thanks! Erasmus 2.0 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not inclined to add this image without a complete revisit of how images are used on the article. This is not an absolute "no" answer, but too many images will make the article cluttered. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Images, again?

I see the article now has a wonderful image of the UC Berkeley campus. I'll just say that in the past this was a problem--see note above--as every academic booster wanted the article to include an image of their campus. I don't see any problem with having the image unless it becomes a problem... but it did before and it probably will again, so let's keep an eye on it. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How about we limit the photos to those schools which were listed in the original eight and are also still listed in Greene's?--Lhakthong (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I second that. Original eight, in alphabetical order, before it gets out of hand. UC should be Berkeley, the original UC campus. Eight images should be more than enough. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Table

The table provided does an excellent job of comparing public Ivies against the national norm. Statistics used are important measures in undergraduate admissions and contribute greatly to the article. Similar tables can be found in other articles. The section the table is located in is entitled, "Institutional comparisons". This section of the article needs to be expanded upon anyways, and I'll do that when I have time.

The exceptional status of Public Ivies led me to include the table. Readers don't understand the quality of undergraduate education at these schools, and a simple list does no justice. Wikipidea is an encyclopedia. The table adds knowledge to the encyclopedia and to this article. I will be adding in other characteristics such as AAU status shortly. Please do not remove my table without a proper discussion. I spent quite some time on that table, and I have made many similar and successful tables on other articles on Wikipidea. Furthermore, this article has been rated "C" and will be expanded upon in general. The table was just part one. We need to do a better job of explaining how, when and why public ivies came about, the effects of the status on rankings and higher education politics and similar measures.

DMB112 (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. This table has multiple issues and its inclusion into the article introduces multiple problems. Your purpose to convey the schools' "exceptional status" is charged with WP:POV and WP:BOOSTER, not that I actually believe the table conveys the schools' "exceptionalism". This article is foremost about the term and the books that have labeled these schools with the term, not about the schools themselves, and it isn't a soapbox for these schools. In any case, a more appropriate and contextual comparison of statistics might be one that compares the public ivies to the actual Ivy League, although that could be seen as constituting WP:OR. That said, issues include...
  • The table is inappropriately selective, ignoring Moll's original public Ivies which is the original list that popularized the term in the first place.
  • The table is temporally incorrect. The status of the "Public Ivies" was designated at certain times (1985 and 2001 publication dates) and the data in the table does not reflect the institutions at the time of the their selection. Further, use of contemporary data in the table implies a permanence of these designations which is neither cited nor necessarily intended.
  • The choice of academic measures for comparison seems to be arbitrary, and IMO, one-dimensional, as is the inclusion of a comparison to a national average, particularly since the term "Public Ivy" is inherently about a comparisons to Ivy League schools themselves. Further, it is wrong to title the table a "ranking", or even to attempt to rank the schools, which is not done in the books, as this table might inappropriately suggest by its inclusion into the article. In the very least, if such comparison are to be included, the default sort should be alphabetized. The word "ranked" should be removed.
  • The academic measures used in the table suggest that they were components used for the selection of the public ivies by the authors of the books, which they were not, or that these metrics have greater weight when conveying public Ivy status. In other words, the inclusion of these metrics, in part, might be inappropriately defining the term. Adding AAU status or other components does not solve this, and in fact, would likely worsen the confusion for the reader since it likely had no influence on the schools' selection and constitutes a completely different association. I believe it is therefore misleading to the reader to include these "academic measures" thus potentially giving a reader the false impression that these metrics are important components of "Public Ivy" status (when the only actual component that mattered was the authors' opinions). Thus the table borders on WP:OR.
  • The table reports "Average SAT" score which is data that is not supported by the accompanying citation. SAT scores are reported by a middle 50th percentile range. We do not know the actual distribution. That mean SAT score is not necessarily the average of the 25th and 50th percentile cutoffs reported by the schools, as is incorrectly assumed by the scores reported in the table.
  • WP:OSE. Similar tables are in other articles, particularly those that appear on athletic conference articles, whose value there is questionable in the first place since most athletic conferences do not have an academic component (outside a few like the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC). Nonetheless, there is no formal association between these schools listed in these books as there are in athletic conferences.
  • Perhaps most importantly, the table shifts focus from the topic of the article (the term "Public Ivy" and books themselves), and places it on the selected institutions. Because of this, and because of its potential to confuse or inappropriately define the term "Public Ivy", the article seems better off without the table, IMO. If the table is to remain, some of the issues above need to be addressed so as not to mislead any readers. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
First off, I appreciate your comments. They are constructive.

This article entitled, "Public Ivy," is a poor one, and I'm sure you agree that we need to expand and improve the article. I don't see the table as violating any of the rules Wikipidea has imposed. You are right, the table entitled "ranking" throws off readers. The table isn't meant to show that University of Arizona has a weaker student body than Ohio State University. It's meant to show where public ivies stand relative to the national average. I have changed the title, and I have also included "Greene's guide" into the title. I used Greene's guide instead of the original eight because Greene's guide includes almost all of Moll's. Moll's list may have popularized the term, but since then, many institutions named in Greene's Guide officially use public ivy status by university administrators, scholars, newspapers, governments and businesses alike. Like college rankings, "public ivy" status has become a viable part of undergraduate selection and admissions. I will expand on this once I add onto the article itself. I have sources and references to prove this, both scholarly and print publications. Below are some of them;

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2013/04/30/consider-a-public-ivy-school-if-you-want-a-strong-affordable-education http://www.miamioh.edu/publicivy/ http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2013/04/making-a-public-ivy http://www.collegeatlas.org/public-ivy-league.html

The measures used in the table are valid. These same measures are quantitative ways to comparing institutional effectiveness between universities. You do have a good point. I will add in several more averages into the table. I would want to include public school national averages, ivy league averages and private school averages. Depending how detailed this article can become, we may also include information such as research and endowment. Of course, I'm keeping in mind the original use of the term "public ivy". However, there ought to be a section entitled "today:" because public ivy status has become significant. We could add in data from the time period of selection, maybe both tables. It would be a nice "before and after." One modern day comparison of public ivies to real ivies is the bolstering of financial support over time. Most public ivies have massive endowments & research expenditure, and all of them have endowments larger than the national average. Inclusion of a table would do well to prove the gradual increase of support to these institutions. Regarding AAU, all ivy league universities are AAU, the high correlation of public ivies reaching this status should be a noted metric. AAU status is very important in the world of academia. As I said, this article needs work in the first place. It's simply not a good article.

Regarding the citation, Collegeboard is the official source of information for students applying to universities. They are the maker of the SAT and run the AP program. I have the individual links for every single university on the list. I did not add them simply because I didn't have time. Collegeboard is a reliable source. The term public ivy involves the schools themselves. The table is relevant and important.

I had a similar debate with flagship university, and that debate resulted in a significant improvement of the article. Please give me time to flesh out the details of this article CrazyPaco. I think you'll find my addition to be more fitting once the actual term "public ivy" is properly explained, rather than a brief overview. This page gets many hits per day. It's important that Wikipideans improve this article for readers and for higher education in general.

IMO the table should stay. Let's first improve the article before deciding whether to keep or remove the table. Again, I appreciate your comments. You seem knowledgeable about the subject and the terms of use Wikipidea has imposed on its article.

Thanks again DMB112 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of CrazyPaco's concerns above. I applaud your initiative in creating this table but it's sadly misguided to shift the topic of this article and the product of your own original research. ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Good point, it does approach WP:SYNTH.--GrapedApe (talk)
None of you have provided rebuttals to my argument. I'm hoping to reach consensus. EDIT: I'm referring to you two GrapedApe and ElKevbo. I would like your opinions as well. DMB112 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I remain concerned about the items that are products of your own original work. In particular, doing things like averaging rankings or test scores assumes a lot about the quantitative and psychometric properties of those measures that I don't think Wikipedia editors should be independently making (nor should most people, IMHO). How about putting up a new draft of your table here or in user space so we can see exactly where it stands and what you're proposing? ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not suggesting adding the tables to this article again. I would just like your opinion ElKevbo. I'll move this conversation to your talk page. Please give me some time to write on there. It won't be immediately. DMB112 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Old untitled material

I'm not sure Rutgers should necessarily be on this list before the likes of, say, Ann Arbor or Chapel Hill. I'd like to see a little discussion about what schools would qualify for this distinction. (I don't disagree with the other three listed.) --BDD 01:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this page is that it's almost completely arbitrary which schools are listed. I'm sure nearly every major state university has been described as a "public Ivy" at some point; how is the University of Vermont any more or less "Ivy" than the universities of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine? The Ivy League -- which does not, of course, include Stanford, Duke, MIT, Chicago, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Caltech, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Emory, Tufts, or any of the elite liberal arts colleges -- is an eight-school football conference, not a comprehensive group of the top schools in the United States. If Miami University is a "public Ivy," does that make Lehigh, Syracuse, and Pepperdine "private Ivies"?


Take the term for what it is worth and what it represents. Those other schools you name are top notch private universities. These public ivies are schools that provide a similar enriching academic experience and ambiance to the ivy league schools in the Northeast.

A Pox on Wikipedia

Seriously, people, every damn university has this label attached to it. Every time I look up a friend's university, I am greeted with the declaration that their university is a 'Public Ivy', as if the term 'Ivy League' had some mystical quality to it, that you wish to impart on every university of any quality. Maybe instead universities should stand on their own merits. Maybe we should instead emphasize that the Ivy League is an athletic league comprising universities solely in the Northeastern United States. I don't think any of us would have much difficulty naming Berkeley a better university than Cornell. It is as if Wikipedia is infected by a pox, driven by Korean parents, trying to play up the quality of their children's universities by attaching the label of 'Ivy League' to it by citing an obscure book made important by the discursive pressure of an insecure public. Maybe we should delete these damn references from everything.

Signed, a graduate of Oxford University, an 'honorary Ivy', or simply a damn good university on its own merits.

Zweifel (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't blame the messenger for the message. There obviously is a lot of controversy about ambiguous status symbols in the US, which lacks some of the officially-recognized credentials of the UK (e.g. OBE, KBE, FRS, KG, RA, CH, FBA, etc. etc.). Accept the fact that the old established order is giving way to a situation of flux, including new heterarchies of credentials and honors from China, India, Russia, Brazil, and Internet citizens at large. Wikipedia doesn't decide or arbitrate any of this, and is only trying to document this ever-changing world. If you don't like watching sausage being made, get out of the kitchen (and you don't have to order it from the menu). Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Public Ivy from college and university article leads?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In the course of an admirably civil discussion, no compelling case has been made for the widespread use of this tag. A case has been made for including it on some articles, on a case by case basis, where it is especially relevant. That would be a matter of reasonable discussion between friends and, in the event of any individual dispute, should be settled by consensus on their individual talk pages, to establish the depth of individual support or opposition. In general, the view that this tag is loosely and over-broadly applied without reference to good sources to substantiate its relevance and signifcance, is well established, and the view that it should not be in the lede of most (if any) articles seems to my reading to have broadest support; that would apply by extension to any other especially prominent location. Addition in the body, with good sourcing, may well find consensus on many articles. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside the bizarre opinionated (and slightly racist) rant above, I think it's time to remove the mention of "public ivy" from the lead of all college and university articles. It is not a defining or essential characteristic of any institution and it's POV for Wikipedia editors to force this factoid into such a prominent place in articles when there is no corroboration that this fact is indeed significant. Such evidence of significance, of course, would have to come from sources that aren't directly controlled by the subjects of these articles or those associated directly with the books in which this term was first published. Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's just a loose term, with no public agreement on which universities are included, then we shouldn't include it in the leads of articles. A short mention in the body of the article may be appropriate if there's a good source, preferably more than one. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Judith, there are only two sources of which I'm aware: the two books on point that were responsible for popularizing the term. All other sources are derivative. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
There are incontrovertible sources in the two books published on this subject so my objection is not that the term doesn't exist or is poorly defined in any way. My objection is that it's not a term that's widely used by anyone not already in the business of promoting specific colleges or universities that are included in those books. So my argument boils down to this: In the absence of significant, independent sources that establish the importance and noteworthiness of this designation, it's undue weight and perhaps even a violation of our neutral point of view policy to give this specific fact prominent weight in an article. It may belong in the body of the article but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Kevbo, I will try to avoid a counter-rant. To put it concisely, mention of "Public Ivy" recognition is a subjective reputational counter-balance to the purportedly "objective" numerical rankings. At worst, the "Public Ivy" status is an over-emphasis of harmless puffery; when over-played, it looks pretentious in a silly way for the institution. At best, it deserves a one-sentence mention in the lead, together with real credentials such as membership in the American Association of Universities, USNWR rankings, etc. What I have observed are (a) those editors who want to delete it because their alma mater was not recognized, and (b) those whose alma mater was recognized and wants to over-emphasize it. On balance, maybe it deserves to be buried in the main body text, but I'm not sure how you mandate that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I am seeing if we can find a common consensus to avoid both of those scenarios and all others and bring this into line with our appropriate policies. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In light of the fact that only a few editors have weighed in, I am opening a request for comments to seek wider input. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for excluding this designation from the articles of the colleges and universities named in this book? ElKevbo (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I vote for this designation to be excluded from these articles since this designation is meaningless. For example, Georgia Tech is included in the "Public Ivy" template as one of the "worthy runners-up," but GT aspires to be the "MIT of the South," not the "Princeton of the South." The Ivy League schools provide more prestigious college degrees but they actually provide inferior engineering education compared to these two schools. Also, based on the Ivy League article, the term Ivy League has connotations of social elitism, which is not a main focus or aspiration of most public universities. - Mistercontributer (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If multiple reliable sources deem a school as "Public Ivy" then it should be included in the body of the page. I do not agree with its inclusion in the lead section as it lacks notability to be placed there. The argument of whether or not a school wants to be called "Public Ivy" is irrelevant. The term "Public Ivy" can be seen through both lenses with both a positive and negative connotation, depending on the reader. I support its inclusion, obviously backed with reliable sources, in the body of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I was using GT as an example to demonstrate the absurdity of the designation of "worthy runner up" to "Public Ivy" colleges which have been subjectively determined to be public equivalents of Ivy League schools which have been objectively ranked lower than the college determined to be a "worthy runner up." In other words, these designations are meaningless and should not be included in these articles. -Mistercontributer (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this information is suitable for the body of articles. I narrowly crafted this RfC to focus on whether the information should be included in the lead of articles. ElKevbo (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - These are classifications by reputable college authors in reference to the quality of public institutions. I view this suggestion as an attempt to further provide separation from 'Ivy League' and those not 'in the Ivy League'. Will there also be RFC removing references from private institutions? or For example, references to the Black Ivy League? As per the point of an encyclopedia, why wouldn't references to a popular university classification schema be included. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the books are reliable sources for this information but what evidence exists that this is sufficiently important for the lead of articles? As per the point of this encyclopedia, we do not include every piece of information that is available and we only include information in proportion to its weight in reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, commonsense, to make a rule only applicable to certain types of 'Ivy' universities is also POV. Will you treat each of the other 'Ivy' Classifications equally? Or are you interested in only applying this to a pointed, specific category? You state these are reliable sources. To what extent do you presume to know the weight of the reference for the entire category? Is it not possible that certain universities have closely identified with the culture or classification of Public Ivy in reference to the quality of/approach to education (example: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). A better method of achieving your aims would be to edit those lines which are verifiable puffery. Otherwise I would apply good faith by applying a two pronged test the reference: 1. is concise and 2. NPOV. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Please answer the question: What evidence exists that this is sufficiently important for the lead of articles? ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Social, cultural, and educational importance related to the identity of the university. Asking an open ended, abstract question will receive the same type of answer. Why is the locus of Ivy League important to the Ivy Leauge? What evidence exists to suggest that the Black Ivies are sufficiently important to be in the lead for certain HBCU institutions? These are rhetorical questions, because they are a piece of the sociocultural identity. There is an even specialty ranking put on by http://www.uscollegeranking.org/national-university/2013-2014-top-public-ivy-college-university-rankings.html#axzz3Pz1Sir8l Now that I have answered your prime question, answer mine. I have offered a suggestion for an alternative approach. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.uscollegeranking.org/ doesn't appear to be a very good source. I don't see much evidence there that the (unnamed) editor(s) have any relevant qualifications or experience or that the website meets any of our criteria for reliability.
I don't think you've presented a reasonable answer to my question - because if there was sufficient evidence then I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place - but in the spirit of good faith I'll answer yours. I have no idea what you're asking when you ask about the "locus of Ivy League." If you're returning to your boorish accusation above that I'm engaged in some sort of editing conspiracy against all non-Ivy League institutions then then I'll simply ignore further questions along those lines. Your second question seems to ask if (I believe that) we should remove Black Ivy League from the lead of those institutions. If so then I haven't looked into it much so I'm not really prepared to offer an opinion. But I imagine that my answer would be "yes" since it seems unlikely that the term is any more notable than "Public Ivy."
I don't know what "alternative approach" you've offered but the burden of proof is almost always on the editor(s) who believe that material should be added or maintained in an article. So again I ask: What (credible) evidence do you have that this term is important enough to include in the lead of these articles? What reliable sources can you cite that establishes this term as being critical to readers' understanding of these institutions? ElKevbo (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You've asked a question which requires original research. I'm going to have to go find an article that's thesis is basically gee being an 'public ivy is important'. That's not only silly it's not common sense. Just because you ask a question doesn't mean "the answer" doesn't already exist. My point in reference to locus was the culture of the colleges. Being that you cite that you have worked on the NSSE, I think you are deflecting the point.
I suggest that Wikipedia should treat these categories equally. If you remove Public Ivy, then do so also with Ivy League, and Black Ivy from the introductory paragraphs. No favoritism under NPOV. This was the point of my questions. Not "some sort of editing conspiracy against all non-Ivy League institutions". For your information Black Ivy has a specific connotation of meaning the highest, most well regarded of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. It is of significant importance as a part of history (E.G. the internal struggle and advancement of higher education in the African American community in the United States). You can read this for yourself on the Black Ivy page or you can just be dismissive.
You can choose to ignore my suggestion also, that's fine iron over it. Let me ask does the RFC require, said 'proof' to your question? No. It is based on consensus not on Verifiability alone. Each university that cites one of these classifications has their own source within the article. I have no reason to look through each of the articles. Further just common sense here, if I search Google Public Ivy, there are over 165,000,000 results. It's in popular culture. It's also frequently mentioned in college admissions websites. For example:
  • The Bot sent me. Yes, remove the designation Public Ivy. But do not remove Ivy League from the schools that actually are Ivy League schools. The use of "Public Ivy" is something one writer made up to sell his books to anxious parents of high school students applying to colleges. The actual Ivy League was created by the colleges in that league for sports purposes. So no, you can't remove that designation from the articles about the real Ivy colleges. But you can remove Public Ivy from the public schools since it's a totally made up BS term by a guy pushing his books. Public schools have their own identifiers such as Big 10, Pac 10, etc. These are sports identifiers agreed to by the colleges and universities involved. As for the quality of the education, the quality of a department like Biology or engineering is dependent upon the size of that department which is dependent on it's funding. The funding all depends on the number of students that the department can attract. Which means, if a department can't attract students, it's probably because it's got mediocre profs. Every school has that problem. Every one. There's nothing elitist about the Ivy League. It's the opinions about the Ivy League that are elitist. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. For the record, the "elitist" comment above was based on information included within the Ivy League article. If that information is not accurate then that section of the article needs to be revised. I am not surprised the term "Public Ivy" is included within college admissions websites. I am also not surprised there are so many Google search results for "Public Ivy" since "these uses of 'Ivy' are intended to promote the other schools by comparing them to the Ivy League," again per the Ivy League article. Neither of these points justify including this terminology in the lead section of these articles, which does seem problematic. -Mistercontributer (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The users above are confusing college sports teams with colleges. The Ivy League existed before the sports league did. So, no, there is no correlation between the two. The connotation of being a private institution in the Ivy League was made up purely for promotional purposes as well. So, that arguement has no bearing in this discussion either. The fact that both of the posters above then go on to compare opinions versus facts is a part of the problem with regard to the actual [college]s. Additionally, I in reading through this I think (talk) was refering to the heading only. Not the entire article, is that correct? In sum, these classifications/titles are both promotional and for that matter should be treated equally. I oppose across the board changes or defacto rule making. Every article should be allowed to include context specific information that is based on notability and verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.160 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You are correct: I am only asking about the inclusion of this term in the lead of articles. I am not proposing that the term be removed from the body of articles nor am I asking about any other term, including Ivy League. If other editors believe that other terms should be removed from the lead of articles then those discussions should be held separate from this one. ElKevbo (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of the users who have commented so far seem to agree that colleges are using Public Ivy terminology for promotional purposes, which does present problems. Should Wikipedia take part in that? This seems to be the underlying question. The proposal "to remove the mention of Public Ivy from the lead of all college and university articles" would not be "de facto rule making" if the implementation of that proposal would resolve NPOV related issues. Mistercontributer (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The terms "public ivy" and "ivy league" have pages in the encyclopedia, because they have been deemed "notable" terms (not that that is a permanent designation by any means). The term "public ivy" arose from the specific books mentioned by others and were not made up by the editors of Wikipedia. Ad hominem arguments regarding the intent of the origination of the terms are not relevant to the fact that the terms exist are are notable enough for a page on wikipedia. An article about any college that has been designated as either term can make the claim they are such so long as the claim is verifiable by a third-party source, per wikipedia guidelines. I do not believe this is an issue of NPOV, because there is no contention around whether or not a college has or has not been designated as a public ivy. It either has, or it has not, and it is up to the editors of individual articles to ascertain the veracity of those claims and to ensure the claims are made in a manner that does not confuse the reader as to who or what body gave it that designation. The decision to include information in a lead (and, by extension, whether or not the term is critical to the reader's understanding of the article) is also up to the editors of the individual pages, and so long as the claims in the lead abide by WP guidelines, they may stand. Individual claims on specific university pages that are potentially puffery should be handled on a case-by-case basis. I oppose any blanket decision.Lhakthong (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You may be correct with regards to your strict interpretation of the "rules," which other users have previously cited above, but sometimes we should "ignore all rules" when the application of the rules result in blatant promotional and misleading information. The "Public Ivy" designation stems from some guy trying to sell a book, not from any official "body" as you seem to imply above, so it is a bogus term, and should be treated as such within these articles. Another option would be to include a disclaimer within these articles such as the following so the reader would have a more clear understanding: "X college has been designated to be a "Public Ivy" since it has been determined to be equal to Ivy League schools (based on some guy trying to sell a book)." Mistercontributer (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How about restricting it to the eight colleges initially named as such, and describe it explicitly? e.g., "Foo University was named one of the original Public Ivies in the 1985 book of the same name by Richard Moll." I agree with the general idea that the term has become too widespread to be very meaningful, its meaning now more akin to "This is a good public university", but I think the initial book and the coinage are notable enough to mention in a lede. Of course, I think it's fine to mention a "Public Ivy" distinction elsewhere in a university article, but again, it should be made clear who said it first. We shouldn't pretend "Public Ivy" is an external truth rather than a construction.
(Potential COI disclosure: I have degrees from two of the original Public Ivies.) --BDD (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course I'd prefer we remove the material from the lead of all of the articles in question but that's a fair compromise that moves us in the right direction. ElKevbo (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite late to this discussion but I think that the above proposal makes sense and is workable. JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So..is there consensus in terms of ElKevbo's proposal?108.171.131.160 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not reading a complete consensus for my original proposal but the compromise that is proposed by BDD to restrict this information to the lead of only the original eight Public Ivy institutions is reasonable and workable. I'd like to give this a few more days to see if there's further discussion before moving ahead with that idea. ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I can live with it. At least this compromise would limit the number of articles promoting colleges as "Public Ivies" in the lead section of the articles. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Removals

I've removed the material from the lead of the institutions that were only included in the 2001 book. I'll let this sit for a while to see if this stirs up any significant objection or activity before moving on to the articles of the institutions in the 1985 book. ElKevbo (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Having heard no objection, I've removed this material from the lead of articles whose subjects are in the 1985 book. ElKevbo (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You are wonderful. Zweifel (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Images

Anyone else think there are too many images on the page? Seems a bit overwhelming. I was going to remove a couple of them but wanted to see what others thought before doing so. Maybe we can align some of them to the left side of the page for balance. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Greene's Guides and Virginia

Greene's Guides divides the country up into regions, and lists schools within each region. Virginia is included in the Mid-Atlantic region. Of course Virginia is considered by many (most?) as a "southern state", but it is also properly included as one of the Mid-Atlantic states, and - apparently - Greene elected to characterize it as such. An IP editor has been changing the article text to conform with his / her own views of the issue, thereby misstating what Greene's Guides says. These persistent edits have crossed the line from misunderstanding to disruption (I've raised the issue repeatedly on the IP's Talk page) and I am reverting accordingly. JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Here, for clarity, is a source describing the content of the Guide and how the book sorts the various schools into different regions: https://ink.niche.com/public-ivies-bigger-better/ JohnInDC (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of U.S. News World & Report's "Up And Coming Universities"

One of our colleagues is insisting that this article include a section about U.S. News World & Report's "Up And Coming Universities." I contend that it's off topic in this article because it doesn't even mention "Public Ivy." Other thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about the named schools specifically identified in a particular book, published more than 30 years ago; as well as a followup 15 or so years later expanding on the same "Public Ivy" idea. That's what the article is about: "Public Ivys" - not "diamonds in the rough", or whatever broad theme would include the proposed addition, or indeed any of the other (literally) dozens of ways that various publications and self-described educational services have devised to rank different kinds of schools of higher education. JohnInDC (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The page isn't ONLY about the books though. It mentions in the very first paragraph how "Public Ivies are considered, according to The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, to be capable of "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races."[2]." In the opening paragraph, nowhere does it mention that the article is only about books. It mentions how Public Ivys are described to be public institutions that compete with ivy leagues in academics or provide the same quality of education

What I wrote about is relevant to that. Admittedly, I could have worded the section a little better, and the title should be changed from "Up And Coming Universities" to something more appropriate. However, I believe that what was said was very relevant. Schools like UMBC and Purdue do definitely fit the description of "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races." Schools like UMBC and Purdue Definitely compete with the Ivys, especially in terms of minority success. UMBC graduates the highest number of African-American STEM students (who then go on to obtain STEM PhDs) of any non HBCU. It has been even noted by scholarly written articles and the school itself, which you can read about here http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-18153-008 and here http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-18153-008. Just recently, an African-American female student from UMBC has been awarded with the Rhodes Scholarship, as well. She is the first African-American to receive the honor from Maryland.

I agree that ranking publications have some subjectivity to them. However, schools like UMBC, USCarolina, Purdue, and George Mason University have been ranked alongside ivys in multiple publications, indicating that they are public universities with similar qualities of ivys. And I believe that the books used in this article to determine what are public ivys are even more subjective than any of the publications I have mentioned. Honestly, it is a joke that the University of Arizona is considered a "public ivy," but that a school such as Purdue, which is certainly far more academically rigorous than University of Arizona is not. That alone shows you how subjective and outdated the information in this article is. We don't even know what measures the people who published the Greenes Guide used, or what relevance the people who published it had, so how are we even sure that it has any credibility at all. Anyone can publish a book claiming that certain universities are public ivys, but that doesn't say anything about their credibility. Greenes Guide also clearly seems to have a bias on flagship universities only, which probably explains why University of Arizona made their list. I personally think that now that is 17 years since that book (with god knows what credibility) has been published, it is fair enough for me to post about other schools and give credit to other public institutions that have been recognized for having qualities similar to ivys in terms of academics and are very successful for minority students despite not being an HBCU.

Furthermore, I made sure that I cited statistics or respectable and fairly recent publications for every point I made, so what I said definitely has credibility backing it up.

The only thing that I think kinda offshoots what I said is that the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and University of Maryland, College Park were still considered the same institution but different campuses not too long before the book in 2000 was published, meaning that UMBC could have possibly been already counted anyways. But since they are considered two different institutions in modern day, I still think it should be recognized.

Therefore, I propose something like this to take place of what I originally said. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-18153-008

Other Public Universities that fit the qualifications of a "Public Ivy"

Some public Universities meet the description of "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races," but were not officially recognized for it by the books mentioned in this article. This may be due to the fact that they were overlooked due to being non flagship universities or due to being relatively new universities (since the books are fairly old). These public universities even outcompete some of the formally recognized "public ivys" academically.

U.S. News World & Report once featured a list of "Up And Coming Universities," which featured a list of schools that were rapidly academically swifting to the top ranks. Recently, the list was replaced with "The Most Innovative Schools." Both lists featured the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), a fairly new public university located in Catonsville, Maryland, a suburb of Baltimore. UMBC was ranked as the #1 Up And Coming University for 6 years in a row [1], and is currently ranked as the 7th most Innovative school in the country [2]. While UMBC is not officially recognized as a "public ivy," (largely due to its young age and only fairly recent gaining of national attention), UMBC has been ranked alongside ivy league universities and elite universities in the Up And Coming List and Most Innovative Schools list. UMBC's professors are also ranked as 13th best for undergraduate teaching in the entire country by U.S. News & World Report, too[3]. Additonally, UMBC's freshman class profile shows that the average GPA of its freshman class is higher than the average freshman GPA of some of the officially recognized "public ivys,"[4] such as the Univeristy of Arizona[5], UConn[6], the University of Vermont [7], Michigan State University[8], the University of Washington[9], and the University of Colorado Boulder[10]. The same is true for SAT scores, as well.


Other public Universities similar to UMBC in this aspect are: - Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana - George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia - The University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina, - The University of California, Riverside - The University of California, Merced - The University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio.[11].

Ciliatedflower (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is about the specific "Public Ivies" identified by these two authors. The name of the article comes from the two books; the schools that are listed in the article are those named in those two books; and the link you describe as being not about the two books expressly cites to and proceeds from them. This article is about those schools, and not about some other schools that are or can be arguably likened to Public Ivies based on one's own interpretation of creatively-titled rankings issued by one or another magazine or self-proclaimed ranking firm. You may disagree with these authors' conclusions, or regard them as hopelessly out of date (I think the whole concept is hopelessly out of date TBH) but these are the schools that that these authors identified - so they're in. That is my first objection to the addition, already raised above: It's off-topic. My second objection is that the conclusions in it are OPINION, SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The cited articles don't say, "... and these schools, by virtue of being Innovative, may be considered to provide the same quality of education as the Ivy League schools" or "... are also Public Ivies". They state a particular metric ("Up and Coming"; "Innovative") and then rank based on that. That's what they rank, and, while those rankings are certainly laudatory, there's no connection between them and any designation as a new "Public Ivy". That's your conclusion, not theirs. My third objection is that the focus on UMBC seems a bit - well, skewed. It's 7th in the "Innovative" list, and, while first in the "Up and Coming", there are 13 others on that list. What about them? And then there are the other lists that USNR produces, like "Top Public Schools" (Purdue, #18, but not a Public Ivy; Clemson #23 but not a Public Ivy nor noted in your addition; UMBC #83 (!) but mentioned prominently). I suspect that with a little mixing and matching one could find a dozen or more schools that are very good ones, with good Undergraduate Teaching rankings (Rice #3, Georgia State #8) and high incoming SAT scores that would run with or surpass UMBC; yet your addition goes on at length about that one school. So - this isn't the place, the third party sources don't say what you ascribe to them, the criteria you appear to employ are subjective, and even applying them, UMBC is disproportionately highlighted. JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Again, the opening paragraph of the article does not indicate that the idea of "public ivy" is confined to the two books, it just suggests that Public Ivy league schools meet certain criteria. The introduction of the article doesn't support your claims that the concept of a public ivy is tied to the two books, and supports the notion that "public ivy" is simply a concept.
As to your other concerns, many of the others on the list are Private Universities, and most of the sources I used were statistics rather than rankings (such as GPA and ACT scores). I only used rankings for certain topics. I can also provide statistics that show that a much larger percentage of UMBC graduates end up attending top 10 PhD programs, including at many real ivy league schools, compared to several of the official "public ivy leagues," if needed. The reason I focus on UMBC a lot is because it is the example I am most familiar with. It is also the only school out of the ones I mentioned that churns out a large percentage of minority students (notably African-American) that end up in STEM PhD programs, and is considered to be leading non HBCU institution for Afram students. Since UMBC has a very high average freshman GPA and higher SAT/ACT scores compared to many of the listed schools, and has a much much higher success rate for African-American students than Purdue University and the others do, and has undergraduate professors that are rated 13th best in the country, that satisfies the concept of "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races," (which was mentioned in the introduction of the article) in every single way. UMBC is the first institution that sent African-American students PhD programs at certain ivy league schools such as the University of Pennsylvania (which you can read about herehttps://meyerhoff.umbc.edu/about/history/). When I used rankings, I only used very specific rakings that clearly stated their methodology, not bland and subjective rankings such as "best universities." Otherwise, all my sources were purely statistics and not rankings.
I am open to including other schools such as Georgia State and Rice University, and if you know information on them, I highly welcome you to write about that in my section. If you have information showing that any schools are strong academically, produce successful minority graduates, and have highly regarded faculty, I welcome you to include that in the section. The two of us can make the section better together in the talk section and then publish it. My intention is not to only have the focus on UMBC, but UMBC is simply the one I know the most about. However, I know that certain other schools, such as Purdue, UMass Amherst, USCarolina, UCincinnati, etc, also meet some or all of the requirements.
Just because my section has some flaws doesn't mean that the concept is totally worthless of a mention. I've never seen a perfect Wikipedia article. Almost all have room for improvement. With the publication of my section, I believe that other people who are knowledgeable of the other institutions will be able to openly share credible information about what makes their institution a "public ivy."
If we went by your standards, then even the "worthy runner upers" should be removed from the article as well, since it is not mentioned that they are considered public ivys either.
User:Ciliatedflower (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you may misunderstand what Wikipedia articles represent, and the policies that underlie the philosophy here. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is really only a compilation, an editorial distillation, of information that has already been published and put out into the public by (typically many) reliable third party sources. At Wikipedia, the articles merely restate what has already been established by others. It's not a place for editors to express their opinions, or weave materials together to reach new conclusions, or to put forth theories of how things might work, or "share information" - really, it's just a massive Restatement machine of things that are already well established. (Please go back and read the policies I linked to above.) In this case, the reliably sourced article is about "Public Ivy" universities. Indeed the very first sentence of the article defines the subject of the article by reference to the Moll book. There's really no getting around the fact that that is, in fact, what the article is about - those particular schools, as first defined and described by Moll. Later, "Greene's Guides" drew upon and expanded upon the identical subject, using the same terminology, and added to the notion with his "worthy runners up" category. That material is included here because it's 1) published by a reliable third party source (indeed was the subject of an entire new book) and is 2) directly, verbatim, on point. What you're proposing to add is both different, and not sourced to a reliable third party source. They are different because they are not "Public Ivys" (or more accurately, there's no 3d party reliable source that has identified them as such). Rather they are merely some subset of schools that you believe are like Public Ivys in some fashion, schools which you have identified, based on certain selected rankings by USNR, and comparison to Public Ivys along some subset of statistical measures. That's all. Your conclusions about how these schools may, or may not, stack up against these Public Ivys is entirely beside the point of the encyclopedia. Your views are "original research", and "synthesis" and "opinion" - none of which is properly included here. I really encourage you to go back and read some of the introductory material about how the encyclopedia is constructed so that you'll be able to better appreciate how what you want to include here is really, in the end, simply not includable. JohnInDC (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with John. ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your point now. However, don't you think it's important to mention the subjectivity of the designation of "public ivys" to some degree? By at least mentioning that the books could be outdated and use unknown measures, also noting that many other public universities may academically outcompete some of the formally recognized "public ivys"? Maybe something like this

"Public Ivy" is a term coined by Richard Moll in his 1985 book Public Ivies: A Guide to America's Best Public Undergraduate Colleges and Universities to refer to US universities that are claimed to provide an Ivy League collegiate experience at a public school price.[1] Public Ivies are considered, according to The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, to be capable of "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races."[2] However, the listing of public ivys could be viewed as subjective or outdated by many, especially due to the fact that many other public universities may be academically on par or outcompete some or all of the formally recognized "Public Ivy" schools. Ciliatedflower (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for going back and looking at that stuff. With your suggestion though you have the same problem - it's editorial opinion, not sourced material. But consider too, the fact that the article is 1) short, 2) static, 3) cites in the first line a 32-year-old publication and 4) notes the author's 1959 qualifications all might lead the discerning reader to conclude without any prompting that the concept is one that is pretty well mired in the last century. If the article does nothing to puncture the "Public Ivy" conceit, it by the same token does nothing to promote it. It just says what the term is meant to encompass, identifies the schools that the two authors did, and moves on. Dispassionate, fully sourced, no fluff or opinion - really, a pretty good representative of what an article ought to be! JohnInDC (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"University of Maryland" versus "University of Maryland, College Park"

Not a big deal really, but it's turned into a slo-mo edit war, so which should it be? The former or the latter? The school's WP article is titled by the latter and the state university system uses it; but the College Park campus calls itself simply "The University of Maryland", and to my ears anyhow that seems like the COMMONNAME. (And it's a small thing, but the school's website is at umd.edu, not umdcp.edu.) Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It should be called the University of Maryland, College Park. The school just calls themselves "the University of Maryland," the same way all the UCs refer to themselves as "University of California," but are officially referred to differently. If it is simply called the "University of Maryland," in the article, then the location cannot be tied to College Park only, especially considering the fact that most of the professional schools of the University of Maryland, such as its medical school, law school, dental, pharmacy, etc. school are NOT even located in College Park, but on the Baltimore campus. Technically all the other UM campuses could start referring to themselves as the University of Maryland if they wanted to as well, but that wouldn't change their official names. It also depends on which campuses the Greenes Guide is referring to. Is it referring to only College Park, or is it including all the others, too? UMassAlum16 (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The article shows "College Park" in parentheses. Whether or not the other schools "could" refer to themselves as the "University of Maryland", they don't. A quick check of their websites shows that UMBC refers to itself as "UMBC", http://www.umbc.edu, UMES calls itself "University of Maryland Eastern Shore", https://www.umes.edu/home/, and so forth. The discussion in the end is about WP:COMMMONNAME. JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not true. All of the professional schools in Baltimore refer to themselves as "University of Maryland." I go to Maryland Pharmacy School and we just call ourselves University of Maryland even though we aren't on the College Park campus. Looking at University of Maryland, Baltmore's website domain also shows that their website says "umaryland.edu." Also, a lot of people not from the region surrounding the UMs will refer to UMBC as simply "the University of Maryland" as well, I saw this at UMass Amherst whenever people talked of UMBC. For example, buzzfeed once did an article on a UMBC student, but referred to UMBC as "University of Maryland." https://www.buzzfeed.com/remysmidt/i-believe-in-you?utm_term=.wb3zDwyXD#.cpde6qn36 Besides, in person, many people in Maryland refer to UMCP as simply "College Park," and don't say "University of Maryland." So even though University of Maryland refers to College Park a lot of the time, there are also enough examples for when other schools are also simply referred to as "University of Maryland," that many people maybe mislead when reading the article.UMassAlum16 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

1. The school is referenced as the "University of Maryland" in the book that this WP article is about, The Public Ivies: America’s Flagship Public Universities by Howard and Matthew Greene of Greene’s Guides.[12] The book clarifies the location as College Park, Maryland, as it is the state's flagship undergraduate campus, and the book is intended to help better inform high school students, parents, and admissions counselors by providing them with a list of public colleges and universities that compare to the Ivy League. As such, the book would not be referencing the professional schools campus in Baltimore.
2. In 1997, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation allowing the University of Maryland, College Park, to be known simply as the University of Maryland, recognizing the campus' role as the flagship institution of the University System of Maryland.[13] It stated that besides the flagship institution, The University of Maryland, Baltimore, is the only other school permitted to confer certain degrees from the "University of Maryland".[14]
3. The University of Maryland Strategic Partnership Act of 2016, effective as of October 1, 2016, set into law that the institutions formerly known as the University of Maryland, College Park and the University of Maryland, Baltimore are to be known as the "University of Maryland".[15] As such, UMBC, nor any other public school in Maryland, can legally call itself the University of Maryland, despite what laypeople not involved in higher education law say colloquially. UMCB is without a doubt a high quality university, but it was not the school that the authors were referencing when they wrote this book - if it had been, they would have made that point clear. Dr. Van Nostrand (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5813430
  2. ^ https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/innovative
  3. ^ https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching
  4. ^ http://undergraduate.umbc.edu/quicklinks/fast-facts.php
  5. ^ http://www.prepscholar.com/act/s/colleges/University-of-Arizona-ACT-scores-GPA
  6. ^ http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/UConn-SAT-scores-GPA
  7. ^ http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/University-of-Vermont-SAT-scores-GPA
  8. ^ http://www.prepscholar.com/act/s/colleges/Michigan-State-ACT-scores-GPA
  9. ^ http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/University-of-Washington-SAT-scores-GPA
  10. ^ http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/University-of-Colorado-Boulder-SAT-scores-GPA
  11. ^ https://www.bestvalueschools.com/up-and-coming-universities-best-roi/
  12. ^ Greene, Howard R.; Greene, Matthew W. (2001). The public ivies: America's flagship public universities (1st ed.). New York: Cliff Street Books. ISBN 978-0060934590.
  13. ^ http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/150430#Modern_history
  14. ^ http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/CommTFWorkgrp/1998-tf-funding-usm.pdf
  15. ^ http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=sb1052&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2016RS

New edition of Greene's Guides

Evidently there's a new edition (2016?) out, rating "63 of America's top liberal arts colleges and universities". Greene's new edition calls itself "The Hidden Ivies" and more than doubles its coverage from his original 30. This article is pretty specifically about the original "Public Ivies" described in 1985, not about extended lists of "top colleges"; and I'm concerned that by about the scope creep that would be entailed by itemizing and describing Greene's new list. That being said, I agree that it's a tough line to say that Greene's original book is okay but the new edition isn't, and for that reason I'm almost inclined to suggest removing Greene from the article altogether and just leave it with Moll and his original list. Thoughts please. JohnInDC (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the scope creep and the suggestion to limit this article to its original topic.
I'm inclined to just nominate this article for deletion; I don't think I've ever seen this phrase used not in a promotional or self-serving way (e.g., no independent sources) so I don't think one can make a real claim that the phrase or the book are genuinely notable. I worry that many editors would only see the number of sources that use the phrase without considering the quality of those sources so this would probably be a contentious discussion that would ultimately be a waste of time. ElKevbo (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to an AfD but I agree that it could be messy. I think that, if the article were to remain, it could be pared down to the original "Public Ivies" described by Moll, and put in the past tense - it's been 33 years; and then left alone. Later publications that leverage on, or amplify, or expand the concept in disparate, multiple ways could be, should be, omitted as in the end, beside the point. JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm of the view that if the new content is not undue, it should be incorporated in the separate article at Hidden Ivies. The private college Hidden Ivies are not the public university Public Ivies. The problem as I see it - is as ElKevbo describes: the focus has been on the implication of the subject matter rather then the book itself. The book itself may be notable under WP:NBOOK. The subject matter perhaps is now more similar to any of the numerous rankings systems developed today. Maybe we reach out to R. Kelchen to ask him to write something up in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Ack, I had no idea that whole other page was there. All the more reason to truncate this article - whatever Greene had to say about this subject, it's been superseded and is really a separate subject now. JohnInDC (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

New College of Florida

I updated the name of New College of Florida in the runner-up list. Its former name was New College of the University of South Florida, which is how it was listed.

It became an independent part of Florida's State University System and changed its name in 2001, so I think it's time.

I wrote this in the edit description box, but since that didn't show up here, I'm adding it in an excess of caution.

MitchS (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

I would like to have the file below (photo of Bascom hall) added to the list of pictures of campuses. Thank you!

Bascom Hall atop Bascom Hill at the heart of the campus

AnotherGypsy (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Which section would you like it to be added to? University of Wisconsin–Madison is listed in both major sections so the image would work in either image gallery. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Bascom Hall in Madison.JPG is a much better image IMO. I've added it to the latter section to get five pictures in each section. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Disputed: Reversion from/deletion of University of Mississippi

I dispute the following, taken from the history page:

"00:20, 4 January 2007 ExplorerCDT (Talk | contribs) (reverting. OleMiss ain't relevant, and there's nothing in the reference to substantiate OleMiss making a "bid for inclusion" to a group that doesn't exist formally.)"

The above, frankly, is a pile of horseshit. I was the person who mentioned Ole Miss. I alluded to the school's current advertising slogan ("One of America's Great Public Universities") and added a footnote cite and link to the school's website. The use of the slogan, therefore, is not in dispute. The claim that "OleMiss[sic] ain't relevant" manifests ignorance of the meaning of the word "relevant." I won't re-edit the article yet, but I think this reversion raises (or rather re-raises) the question whether this article is about the substantive pretention to Ivy League-level prestige or whether it's just about the the use of the word "Ivy". I would argue that the subject, to be articlae-worthy in the first place, must be the general idea of prestige for public universities; I would further argue that a necessary part of this must be the aspirations of public schools themselves. It seems that other parts of the article comports my view: the word "Ivy" is the only word distinguishing Ole Miss's slogan from Murray State's and SUNY-Geneseo's. ExplorerCDT in his infinite wisdom did not edit these out. The Ole Miss slogan, like the Murray and Geneseo slogans, expresses an aspiration towards Public Ivy-hood as a concept - something which, as the reverter himself states above, doesn't exist formally. (It bears noting here Ole Miss's colors are called "Harvard Red" and "Yale Blue," further proof of the school's longstanding aspiration or pretension to Ivy League status.) So, if in fact this Wiki is nothing more than a list of schools which have been referenced with the specific term "Ivy," I would submit that the entire article should be reduced to a simple list or else deleted as trivial. If on the other hand this wiki is about the pretense of public-academic prestige rather than name-dropping, must the article suffer the editing of fools like ExplorerCDT?

-Maalox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.243.9.242 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

Add “University of California, Riverside” under Green’s list. UC Riverside is considered a public Ivy and is denoted as such in the map located in the article under Green’s list; however, is not listed in the actual text list. AmericanLeft (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That list of 30 schools is specifically from the Greenes. I don't have the actual books themselves but UC Riverside does not appear to be part of that list as per this. Riverside is apparently part of Moll's original 1985 list though (again don't have the books), and our article lists Riverside in that section Cannolis (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_Ivy/Archive_1&oldid=1221489531"