Content deleted Content added
Line 79:
What should we do about these statistics? From what I see from other schools, no other UC lists these statistics at all. For example, the "UCR in the bottom twenty among its top 361 for "Teaching Assistants Teach Too Many Upper-Level Courses",[10] "Professors Get Low Marks [for Teaching]",[11] and "Professors Make Themselves Scarce".[12]." also apply to UCLA if you look it up online -- but the UCLA wiki doesn't mention it. Should we mention Princeton Review statistics at all?
Going by what other UC's are doing on their wiki, I would say not to. Listing a simple ranking a la US News & World Report should be sufficient. What do you guys think? [[User:Dandanxu|Dandan]] 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)▼
:I don't know, but I think it's odd that the Princeton Review for 2004 is used in one part of the article and one for 2006 used in another part of the article. –[[User:Tifego|<small>Tifego</small>]]<sup>[[User Talk:Tifego|(t)]]</sup><sub> 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)</sub>▼
Princeton Review statistics should be mentioned because PR is a widely-recognized and respected resource for college information and admissions. Just because the UCLA article doesn't mention the PR book, does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned in the UCR article. The UCLA article is NOT the gold standard by which we base university articles on wikipedia - therefore it is largely irrelevant what is written over there.[[User:UCRGrad|UCRGrad]] 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
▲Going by what other UC's are doing on their wiki, I would say not to. Listing a simple ranking a la US News & World Report should be sufficient. What do you guys think? [[User:Dandanxu|Dandan]] 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, using other UC articles as a benchmark is not valid because they are not the "gold standard" for how a university article should be written. The mere fact that US News reports detailed campus rankings and statistics demonstrates that these data are important. A well-written college article would include these statistics, and I would even suggest that the editors of the Cal, UCLA, etc. articles to include these data.[[User:UCRGrad|UCRGrad]] 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
▲:I don't know, but I think it's odd that the Princeton Review for 2004 is used in one part of the article and one for 2006 used in another part of the article. –[[User:Tifego|<small>Tifego</small>]]<sup>[[User Talk:Tifego|(t)]]</sup><sub> 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)</sub>
Dandan, please re-read what I wrote: "using other UC articles as a benchmark is not valid because they are not the "gold standard" for how a university article should be written." This is a point I want to emphasize. [[User:UCRGrad|UCRGrad]] 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
== Hate Crime Stats ==
| |||