This is an archive of past discussions about University of Pennsylvania. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Penn is internationally known as one of the world's most prestigious universities".....ohhkay there, Tiger. for a moment there I thought I was on the "University of Cambridge" page. someone needs to cut back on their extreme hyperbolic tendencies!!
It is one of the most prestigious universities in the world - US News and World Report recently ranked it the third best university in America, after Princeton, Harvard, and Yale.
I second that Penn is of the most prestigious universities in the world.
Which school would be considered more prestigious, Penn or Brown?
(I am aware of what the US News and World Report rankings are, but I want to know what everyone's personal opinion is).
I'd say Penn, but honestly, you're not going to go wrong going to an Ivy League School.
I did undergraduate work at Yale and my Ph.D. at Penn. In terms of academic quality, Penn really does have it all over Brown, in part owing to its many top-ranked graduate and professional schools. The presence of major law, medical, and business schools contributes immeasurably to the quality of the intellectual experience overall. Brown can't compete.68.72.94.110 (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Would some one care to tell me how Penn has the largest budget (endowment ~4 billion with ~20 thousand students) in the Ivies when Harvard is at an endowment of ~22 billion, Yale at ~12 billion, and Princeton at ~10 billion? I just want to make sure that the claim is true (and if it's another problem with semantics, would someone please re-phrase it). Thanks.
It's true. UPenn: 4.25 billion (Fiscal Year 2005). Harvard: $2.8 billion (FY2005). And so on. You see, the endowment comes largely from donations, much of which comes from alumni. Harvard-Princeton-Yale tend to really clean up because they are small and have the most name recognition, and at the same time the wealthiest alumni as well as attracting the biggest outside donors. The budget, on the other hand, comes largely from things like tuition, investment income such as real estate, and a smaller portion from endowment proceeds (this portion is larger at schools with outsize endowments like Princeton). Penn is larger in terms of number of students than any Ivy other than Cornell (which is lower on the totem pole than Penn). It has a large hospital system attached (although I think this was spun off in administration a few years ago), owns a big chunk of Philadelphia, and is the largest private employer in Pennsylvania. It's budget, therefore, is biggest in the Ivy League. NTK20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
oldest university in the United States?
".... However it is the fourth-oldest college and oldest university in the United States..."
As said in the article Penn is "the oldest university in the United States". But you can read in the article about "Harvard University" that this university is founded in 1636 in contrast to Penn which is according to the article established in 1740.
It's mostly a semantic issue. Harvard College was the US's first institution of higher learning (Penn was fourth), though Penn was indeed the first to adopt the multi-discipline university model when its medical school opened in 1765 (and the first to actually have the word 'University' in its name). See [2] for example. -Ergative 21:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Although Penn may have been the first to offer any higher degree, it was not the first to offer Doctorate degrees, which to many is the mark of being a "true" university. Johns Hopkins was in fact the first to offer Doctoral degrees, and was also the first to conform to the research-style model that is typical of modern universities. While I don't mean to disparage Penn (I actually work there) I do think this needs to be mentioned somehow in the article, lest the claim seem misleading. --Wclark03:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought Yale was the first university to offer a Ph.D. Yale claims to have granted the first in 1861, before Johns Hopkins was founded. [3]. btmtalk19:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Btm's latest edit, but have tinkered it myself. If we're going to have the silly "first university" claim the easiest thing to do is source the claim and succinctly state the actual basis for the claim. If people think it's how too long, it could be moved to the History section.
I'm no historian, but I think the American university as we know it was largely a product of the decades following the Civil War. I don't think we'd recognize any institution in the 1700s as being much like a "university," just as I seriously doubt we'd recognize whatever Penn's medical school was teaching as "medicine." (Didn't medical school as we know it originate with, um, William Osler, i.e. wasn't it, too, a product of the post-Civil-War environment?)
Penn is one of several venerable universities and trying to adjudicate which is "truly" the oldest university is an exercise in boosterism and hairsplitting. Notice the tricky wording Penn's claim: 1779, the Pennsylvania state legislature conferred a new corporate charter upon the College of Philadelphia, renaming it the "University of the State of Pennsylvania" (in 1791 still another new charter granted Penn its current name). No other American institution of higher learning was named "University" before Penn." I'm not sure what he has in mind here, but obviously there is some other institution that could lay claim to "Oldest university in continuous operation under the same name."
I moved the "First University" paragraph to the History section. In its current form, it doesn't fit in at all with the rest of the opening section. But I'll probably alter it and move it back at some point.
Also, it's not really our job to define "university" or decide where lay the beginnings of the modern university. Leave that to historians, who have already done so and widely acknowledged Penn to be the first university, both in name and status. (nobody disputes the name part, btw) This is an encyclopedia not a Ph.D. dissertation; we cite other sources, not inject our own opinions into the articles. Personally I think we should just say it was the first university and link to the citation so people can decide for themselves, or add a section in the "criticism and controversy" section about other Universities who also claim to be the first. There's no need to restate Lloyd's argument in this article.
-Bindingtheory17:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
As Dpbsmith intimates in his discussion above, Penn probably did not become what we would now call a university until the rapid growth in higher education that was experienced after the Civil War. While it's not hard to find sources that call Penn the first university, and in fact it's not even hard to find a book about it, there are plenty of other sources making the same claim about Harvard University and the College of William and Mary[4]. I think that the claim is fair and should be included in the article (I like it in the History section, but understand the desire to see it in the lead), but the wording used to justify the claim is rather awkward, and it requires an explanation. It's not our place to inject opinion into the article; we also should not omit the fact that it doesn't seem to be universally accepted. I will try to find a quotation from an appropriate authority that supports the claim, but I would really like to see one that doesn't emanate from upenn.edu or a history written about Penn (unless we explicitly say that it comes from a Penn historian). btmtalk19:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording again. Unfortunately Lloyd doesn't care to spell out Penn's position in comparison to the claims of rivals (e.g. Wclark's point about the distinction between "having a medical school" and "awarding a doctorate"). But that wording "No other American institution of higher learning was named 'University' before Penn" is oddly nuanced and I want to reproduce it exactly as given.
First, we shouldn't say "Penn was the first U.S. institution of higher learning to be called a 'University'" without citing a source. At the moment, that source would be Lloyd. Second, the two statements
No other American institution of higher learning was named "University" before Penn"
and
Penn was the first American institution of higher learning to be named a "University"
are not quite equivalent, and I have no idea what Lloyd had in mind when he chose the weaselly wording. Certainly, in advertising, in a case where there is no provable difference in, say, battery durability, the FTC would allow company X to advertise "no other battery lasts longer than X" and also allow company Y to advertise "no other battery lasts longer than Y." At one time, in fact, the FTC's position was that under such circumstances both companies could say their battery was "best," on the theory that if they were the same, they were both "the best."
Absolutely the safest and fairest thing to do here is avoid judgements of our own and tell the story of Penn's superlative seniority as a university by quoting sources. (Oxford and Cambridge, eat your hearts out...) Dpbsmith(talk)19:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I wouldn't have a quarrel with the lead paragraph saying something like "Penn calls itself 'America's first university'" somewhere. Dpbsmith(talk)19:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm really interested in Lloyd's response. I've been researching this topic for a while now and would love to know what he says on the topic. I've never seen anyone claim that Harvard was America's first university. (its oldest, perhaps? it is older than all the others, of course, but it wasn't a university til later. Harvard dates their own university status to 1780, placing them after both Penn and William and Mary: "The first medical instruction given to Harvard students in 1781 and the founding of the Medical School in 1782 made it a university in fact as well as name."[5]) William and Mary also claims to be the first university, but uses a different definition than Penn. I've corresponded with their university archivist who told me that "a course of graduate studies was the requisite for the status of university." (William and Mary traces back their university status to 1779, "the first year of our law school and simultaneously our medicine and chemistry chair was still filled."
I want to clarify what I would and would not like to see in the lead paragraph. I think that Penn's status here is worth putting in the lead. In fact, I would encourage putting a proper wording of the claim in the lead, as it is a defining characteristic for Penn and an important milestone in American higher education. However it should be succinct and clear. I like that statement: "Penn calls itself 'America's first university.'" What I would really like to keep out is a carefully (weaselly) worded sentence that finds a way to make the claim seem both definitive and indisputable. btmtalk21:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a reply from Mark Frazier Lloyd, in which he says:
Penn's rivals for "first American university" are chiefly Harvard and William and Mary. Harvard claims to be America's oldest university, when, in fact, it is America's oldest college. Harvard did not become a university until 1780, a year later than Penn. William and Mary also claims to be America's oldest university, but, in fact, the state legislature of Pennsylvania named Penn a university one week earlier than the state legislature of Virginia conferred the same title upon William and Mary.
The first institution in the U.S. to award an M.D. was Penn, in 1768.
I do not know the first institution in the U.S. to award the modern research degree, Ph.D., but it was a late development, at or after the American Civil War.
Unfortunately he doesn't give exact dates or sources, but if it's true that Penn received that name one week earlier than William and Mary, well, gosh... that's like one twin insisting that he's the "older brother" of the other because his head appeared first. We should try to pin the exact dates down, and that should be added to the history section... possibly as a footnote. Dpbsmith(talk)00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I sent him a follow-up email and obviously went back to the well once too often, as his reply was curt. He said that he does not want to be quoted, so do not cite any of the above in the article, please. Dpbsmith(talk)16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that the date he's comparing to William and Mary's is the date it was named a university, not the earlier, "de facto" date. I'm not sure why he did that. Penn still claims to have become a University in 1765, 4 years before Wm and Mary does. Even using William and Mary's definition of "graduate studies," Penn's granting an M.D. in 1768 qualifies. From a historian's point of view, all these universities pretty much appeared at the same time, but claims of "first" this and "first" that are all about nitpicking over dates, whether a week or four years. -Bindingtheory02:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a book called Harvard, the First American University. As is usually the case with these types of claims, in particular when it comes to the de facto claim, this is all really a matter of semantics. What defines what a university is? When an institutions begins to call itself a university does it become one? Does the faculty need to be differentiated into different schools or colleges? Does the institution need to grant graduate degrees in order to be a university? Need they be doctorate degrees or even Ph.D.s? I find this all very interesting (and fun), but it is an academic exercise at best. One that is probably of more interest to the universities themselves and their alumni, students, etc., than to U.S. historians. I don't think that one would argue the modern American university was born when Penn established its medical school, but, again, it was an important milestone along the way. However, usually if a questioner were to pose the question "What is the first American university?" the answer to their intended question is probably Harvard. With a semantically correct interpretation of that question, the answer is (a possibly qualified) Penn; exactly whether and how it should be qualified is not yet clear to me.
Lloyd's response was very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to ask, Dpbsmith. Unfortunately, it doesn't illuminate us with much more than we already knew. But, I believe I answered who awarded the first Ph.D. above (Yale). Yet, one thing that strikes me is that well-established institutions of higher education in the U.S. (conservative as they are) generally make changes rather incrementally, and this has been the case since 1636. Penn's transition here may or may not have been incremental (and this may also just be an academic exercise), but it will take a number of independent (from each other and from the major players in this drama — i.e., the universities in question) sources to convince me that Penn should indisputably be given rights to its claim needing no further explanation of semantic interpretation. btmtalk06:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
A way to handle this would be assemble a list of (hopefully) objective facts, without trying to settle the semantic issue of what counts as "being a university"; e.g. William and Mary was chartered under this name on thus-and-such a date, Penn established a medical school on thus-and-such a date, Yale awarded a Ph. D. on thus-and-such a date. In each case the items would be what is thought to be "the first" such item but would not actually claim even that much. This would be a "list of facts that have been used to support claims of being 'the first university.'" Then, for each university for which a "first university" claim is made, the lead section would say "X claims to be the first university" and a footnote would include the list of facts. I believe there would be less than a dozen such facts and that it would be more appropriate to simply put the list in an article footnote than to make it a standalone article which would attract overcasual editing.
I think the most interesting fact is not whether Penn, William and Mary, and Harvard won the race to be officially named a university, but the fact that it was so nearly a dead heat. Given the slowness of communications, I don't think William and Mary would have been a direct reaction to Penn. I wonder exactly what was "in the air" at the time? Dpbsmith(talk)11:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it was a "dead heat" is certainly interesting. However, I sort of suspect that this is, in some sense, all a red herring. Harvard was originally called a college because it reminded its founders more of an individual college at Oxford or Cambridge than a full-fledged university. However, even during the time of this "race," the American universities probably didn't yet much resemble the large European universities, so I think that it was a concurrent expansion of the universities' scope as well as a significant shift toward favoring the term "university" for the major insitutions of higher education within the United States. And the latter must have played a significant role in the more widespread use of the term, giving a likely explanation as to why it was a dead heat. btmtalk21:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Duh. (Slapping self on forehead). I think I know what was in the air and why it was close to a dead heat. I just needed to read [6] and think a bit. What was in the air was some little thing that happened in 1776. Obviously... the state legislatures wanted to sweep away all those royal charters and replace them with freshly-minted U. S. charters. And (in the case of Penn) with new, non-loyalist governance. I don't know why the word "university" would have been the preferred choice of language, though. Dpbsmith(talk)13:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Given the intricacies of this topic, I don't think we're qualified (even if we could actually come to a consensus) to decide which was the first university. Plus I can't believe that a two word phrase is taking up this much discussion (although I've been greatly enjoying it) Anyway, I just created a new page, First university in the United States, specifically to lay out the facts and let people make up their own minds, and I thought we could link to it. I'll do that now from the History section of the Penn article. See what you think, change as you see fit, etc. -Bindingtheory00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Although Penn may claim to be the "First University in the United States", there was no "United States" when either it or Harvard, Yale & William and Mary Colleges were founded. It is certainly not the "First University in America." The first in North America was the Royal University of Mexico, now the National Autonomous University of Mexico, chartered by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V in 1551 and opened in 1553. The first university on the American continent was the University of San Marcos in Lima, chartered by Charles V a few months earlier in 1551 and opened a few days earlier in 1553. If having a medical school is critical, its Faculty of Medicine opened in 1573. But the first university in the Americas was the University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, now the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, which was originally a Dominican seminary but received a charter from Pope Paul III to become a university in 1538. NRPanikker (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If the US did not exist as a nation when Penn became a university, it would still be a university when the US was founded, and if the first in the colonies, then still the first in the new nation. While "America" is typically seen as synonymous with "The United States", as opposed to "The Americas" which typically refers to the two continents of North and South, I can see how there could be confusion. Without touching on the issue of whether the claim of "First University" is legitimate, I find "First University in the United States" to be an acceptable phrasing. Ar-wiki (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the meaning of the word "America" is irrelevant. Penn calls itself "America's First University," and that's easily verified. Second, the meaning of the word "America" is ambiguous, and its use to refer to the United States is not incorrect. In the American(!) Heritage Dictionary, the definition of "America" is:
“
A·mer·i·ca 1. The United States. 2. also the A·mer·i·cas(-kz) The landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.
”
Yes, the word is ambiguous. Yes, everyone else in the hemisphere may find the first usage parochial... annoying... or downright offense. But it is a thoroughly established usage, and it's just as correct as referring to España as "Spain." Dpbsmith(talk)16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Clean up Alumni, etc?
Wonder if it might be a good idea to move the alumni, etc. listings to their own pages (ala Harvard). Keeping them as they are _might_ (and I'm only making a suggestion/observation here) be discouraging people from adding more about the university, as a whole, in fear of making the page too ponderous.
Also, maybe the majors should be placed somewhere else, done in a different manner, or removed all together? I know the majors are _about_ the university, and have a right to be here, but I'm just wondering if this page is better geared for narrative descriptions. Personally, I think narratives are more interesting than just lists of stuff.
Just food for thought..
There are quite a few editors that abhor that type of expansion and wish colleges would keep their alumni (or notable people) lists on their own page, like Penn, Princeton and Rutgers so adequately do. —ExplorerCDT 18:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
O.K.. but.. maybe there are a few/just as many that don't?
I hope not. Expansion for the sake of expansion ruined the article on Columbia, and eventually that has to be brought to bear. Let me take a look at the article over the week, and see what can be reconfigured (esp. with the Majors). The 32KB limit is only a guideline. Many of the more comprehensive University pages near 40-50KB...especially those with one or two notable peoples (alumni/faculty) list. Most colleges/universities have their notable peoples list within the article. But most colleges and universities never get bigger than one article. Columbia and MIT, in an reduction to the absurd, have about 20 each. There's nothing more special about Columbia than there is about any of the others and any college guide would only give them the same space as say St. Leo's College in Florida. Not everyone has to be like that community college in Cambridge, Mass. In the long run, sensible people try to keep it all on one page. —ExplorerCDT 13:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Sign your comments. Otherwise, many editors around here get ticked off. Just follow your contributions on talk pages with four tildas ~~~~ and WP will automatically sign your comments. —ExplorerCDT 13:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It might be worth a look. I wasn't trying to imply that Havard's page was the gold standard, just an idea. Dartmouth's page seems to be a better example of what I'm talkig about--good narrative with few lists. For example, does there even have to be a list of majors, at all? I don't have any connection to Penn, so I just made my comments as a detached observer. I think, at a minimum, the narratives here could be cleaned up somewhat. Madmaxmarchhare 04:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the list of majors can be condensed...like i did with Drew University. I didn't put a list of majors when I redid the Rutgers University article. I have no connection to Penn either, so I have no problem with doing away with the list of majors (it's not that important after all...most universities have a typical smattering of majors anyway). I agree with you though....the narratives need to be cleaned up here and at other colleges. There should be a project on cleaning up college pages. Most are filled with boosterism. Harvard, while you mentioned it as an idea, is a page that is wrought with debate over content (i.e. recent Harvard College vs. Harvard University discussion). In the end, better formatting and good writing means we can fit a lot onto the page without it coming across as too long. —ExplorerCDT 04:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry re: not signing. Madmaxmarchhare 04:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the alumni and faculty list should be moved to a new page or condensed down to just people who are really notable. I confess that when I first stumbled on this page, having found the lost list of people and major very unasthetic, I created the page List of University of Pennsylvania people. I copied the list to the page, but didn't move it. Again, I think it should be moved.
I, like you, think that university articles should be confined to one comprehensive pages with additional pages for in-depth sub-topics. However, that's in Perfect Wikipedia. In the real Wikipedia, loads of hardly-meaningful facts are added to articles. As the alumni/faculty lists on many article are chocked full of marginally-notable people and, in the case of this article, take up up to half of the length of the article, it's just asthetically favorable to either pare down the lists or move the list to another page and keep truly notable people on the main article. To see what I mean, see another article I've done some work on, Duke University. --Ttownfeen 22:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the comment about MIT's page(s), I think the writers / editors have cleaned up much of the POV etc. IF you read their discussions page you can see they have toned down much of the way they have cited their statistics (even though they could have just flat out claimed #1 for a lot of areas including nerdiness). Since this discussion is about ("cleaning up") I thought I'd mention that such could be an example to follow. --anizzon
"prestige" comment
Watchers of this page should see this poll about whether this page should contain a phrase like "widely considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world". Nohat 15:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am eliminating some of the flowery language about Penn's prestige. For example, it's false to say that it "consistently ranks in the top 5"-- it has only ranked in the top 5 for the latter half of Judith Rodin's tenure. Emiao
"Midwestern Ivy League" ?
Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:
yeah i was thinking the same thing myself.,not really sure though. Was thinking it might be a good idea to spin off the tradations section into a seperate article though? --Boothy443 | comhrá00:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the lingo section, but the list of majors has got to go. Traditions should stay.
I think it should just go. TriDi doesn't exist, JRo isn't the president anymore, and JewPenn is fairly offensive. The whole section is probably only of interest to Penn undergrads, who must already know the lingo (otherwise it wouldn't be lingo...). Shouldn't this page be aimed at people who aren't currently students here, or aim to provide historical information that current students might not already know such as the razing of Black Bottom or 60's protests against secret chemical weapon research ("Spice Rack" and "Summit)" http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0702/timeline.html? Flying fish20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I am deleting the lingo section. If there are objections please raise them here - we can bring it back if people feel it's important. almost all of the additions were been made by anons, though, so I doubt anyone will care. Flying fish16:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
gramatically incorrect
"The University of Pennsylvania is one of the nation's only private universities"
Pardon me for being the grammar police. But "only" cannot be used with "one of." Only implies one entity, as in "the only one." Read this.
I am gonna try to clean up the article a bit, several anons have have changed the text to make it read more like a promo then an Encyclopedia article. I am taking out redundant text, tigiting up others, and redoing someof the flow. I am also droping the list of majors, Any problems or sujestions feel frre to drop a not to discuss, or make the changes. --Boothy443 | trácht ar07:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Crime on Campus
Perhaps someone should write about the abundant amount of crime that has taken place on the Penn campus (which is much higher than other Philly campus' such as Temple and Drexel) and the city's attempt to remedy the situation.
UPenn - Getting Safer - In the past decade at Penn, overall crime has decreased by 31%. Robberies have decreased by 62%, thefts by 31%, Burglaries by 24%, and Assault by 23%. In addition, 2,500 outdoor light fixtures have been installed, and 8 public gardens and 450 trees have been planted. Penn, being one of only two Universities to receive the Clery Award for improvements in safety in 2003, has proven that it is committed to improving the streets of West Philadelphia and making the area safer for students and local residents alike. Here's a quote from a current student... “It’s very secure! There have been only two ‘violent’ crimes on campus that I know of all year. 10 years ago, that was unheard of. However, Penn has recently beefed up security to the point where I know my female friends have no problem walking home late at night from the library or anywhere else. You can always see a SpectaGuard after dark, and that’s comforting.” (from College Prowler's campus guides, University of Pennsylvania - Off the Record) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hla5 (talk • contribs)
I tend to agree with whoever wrote the above (please remember to sign your comments with four ~ marks.) Crime is not the problem at Penn that it once was, and i can't imagine the crime rates are any more significant than they are at any urban campus. If crime is a serious issue that significantly affects the campus more than would normally be expected, then add a section on crime, with current, accurate statistics, and add a citation. --Bindingtheory22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Water Buffalo Incident
I reduced the size of the section on the Water Buffalo Incident, keeping the essentials. It took up over 10% of the entire article on Penn (approx. 512 words out of 4337), which I don't think is fair or accurate. I gave it its own article (which it deserves, given the international attention it received at the time) using the original text of the section and linked to it from the section in the Penn article. Bindingtheory16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how relevant this incident is to today's world. It was a silly episode, and it happened over thirteen years and three administrations ago. Given the intro to this section (re Penn receiving commendations re it's free speech policies), I'm not sure why this issue continues to keep being pushed by a group of contributors to this article.
It would have been better to discuss this here and gotten consensus before removing well-sourced material from the article. What's your objection to it, other than that it's unflattering to Penn? The fact that it is still remembered thirteen years later seems to me to speak to its importance, not to its unimportance. Dpbsmith(talk)15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
External Links
I arranged the external link section. I think it makes sense to separate the student/campus groups from other links ABOUT Penn. Obviously we can't list every group, but I added a link to Penn's own list of its student groups. I also made the name of that subsection of links "SELECTED student groups." I think it's a nice idea to link to a few repreentative or particularly important student groups (like the ones currently listed), but I'm not sure what criteria we should use to include or exclude groups from that list. Bindingtheory15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Criticism/Controversy
Renamed "Criticism" section to "Controversy," which better refects its nature and sounds less negative. Someone (me if nobody else does it soon) should write a VERY SHORT explanation of the effort of graduate students to organize and the university's reaction. Short is important because we don't want the controversy section--although certainly important--to dominate the article. Bindingtheory15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't the fact that it was capitalized. It was that the capital "C" wasn't a normal "C". It was the same height but squished narrower. Strangely, when I just went back to the page history so I could paste it here to show you, the weird "C" is gone in all previous versions of the page, too. Oh well. It's fixed now at any rate. Bindingtheory17:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop changing the "Established" date from 1740 to 1755, especially if you are going to do so without explanation. Penn is an interesting institution in that you could reasonably argue several dates for its beginning, but the institution itself uses 1740. If you want, put a footnote by the 1740 and explain what happened in 1755 that justifies the use of that date instead. -Bindingtheory16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
“In 1899, Penn’s Trustees adopted a resolution that established 1740 as the founding date, but good cases may be made for 1749, when Franklin first convened the Trustees, or 1751, when the first classes were taught, or 1755, when Penn obtained its collegiate charter."
In the same decade, under a provost trained in the retail world, Penn repositioned itself from an important local university to one with national pretensions. This was symbolized by the simple act of re-dating its founding from 1749 to 1740....
With the 1740 date, instead of being number five or even six in the line of American higher education, Penn was fourth, following only Harvard (1636), William and Mary (1693 first fundraising, 1700 first classes), and Yale (1701), and ahead of Princeton (neÈ the College of New Jersey, 1744), and Columbia (originally New York’s King’s College, whose first college classes were held in 1754, antedating Penn’s by a year). In 1899, to settle the issue once and for all, Penn’s board of trustees passed a resolution declaring that henceforth, 1740 would be the official date of the founding of the University “because that was the date of the earliest of the many trusts the University has taken upon itself. Dpbsmith(talk)18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That Pennsylvania Gazette article is great, by the way... and for my money, it all but calls the 1740 date phony. It also... and this is interesting... explains why Penn was so concerned about this:
[it] had the desired effect of placing Penn ahead of Princeton in academic processions that in turn represented, in highly schematized form, the pecking order of American higher education. (The year before, in 1895, elite universities banded together to establish a national system of academic regalia that asserted an age- and class-based hierarchy and was most obviously expressed by placement in academic processions.) Dpbsmith(talk)18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's in the article now. I've globbed the details together into a footnote where they won't intrude into the main article.
With regard to the taxobox or whatever we call them now... given the circumstances, in which Penn's own publication refers to the 1740 date as based on a "story" about the "ostensible" founding date of an institution whose connection to Penn is arguable but dubious... well, I think it would be obviously non-neutral to present 1740 without any qualification or explanation, and I think it would be obviously non-neutral not to mention it since it is the date Penn uses itself. So, I think the four candidate years mentioned by Penn's archivist should all appear in the taxobox. Dpbsmith(talk)18:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
P. S. Much the same sorts of issues arise with regard to other universities' "founding" dates. Harvard's 1636 seems to be pretty dicey, given that the "President and Fellows of Harvard College" was formed in 1650, but in Harvard's case it hardly matters. Why did they even bother to exaggerate, one wonders? You could handicap them by a couple of decades and they would still lead those academic processions the Penn Gazette talks about. There's at least one inscription in Memorial Hall that dates something as Annum Collegium Harvardensis or something like that, and I suppose once you do something like that you can't change your mind about when you were founded. Dpbsmith(talk)18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed the "established" date back to 1740 and left the footnote, as is done on the colonial colleges page. I also condensed the footnote but left the essential facts and arguments regarding the various possible years of "founding". (A disproportionate amount of this article is spent on the founding of the institution as it is, and all of the info in the footnote is already included in the main text of the article) And added the "Building Penn's Brand" Gazette article as an external link.-Bindingtheory21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right about most of those facts being in the article already. If I'd been more careful I'd have noticed that before adding the long footnote. I'm not too happy about the current balance. I didn't know the details until I read the "Building Penn's Brand" article, and now that I do, I think the 1740 date is pretty dodgy and represents too great a concession to Penn's point of view. I won't revert. I believe I'm going to add a description of the "Building Penn's Brand" article, though. Dpbsmith(talk)23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's me again. So... fourth-oldest. On the one hand, I think it's neutral to use each institution's own officially-claimed date of founding in stating its age rank ("fourth-oldest"). On the other hand, given that Penn, Princeton, and Columbia are so close, that Penn changed its official founding date from 1749 to 1740 in 1899, and that that change affected the rank order, I think a footnote is advisable. Dpbsmith(talk)13:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
School Motto
There are 3 different translations for vanae that I know of in Penn's motto "Leges sine moribus vanae": "in vain," "useless," and "empty. "in vain" wins the Google test. It's also how Penn used to translate it in the print publications I've read. They appear to have changed their official translation to "useless" now (although I need to look into that further) so maybe that's the better choice now that I look at it. [7] We should probably use the translation the school uses for its OWN MOTTO. I don't see any reasonable case to be made for using "empty". -Bindingtheory17:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry those are the only three translations that you know for the word vanus (which is the masculine singular nominative for the word, which appears in the feminine nominative plural because it is a predicate adjective). The word, in fact, means, empty, as in not containing anything, as in void, as in full of nothingness. You will not find "in vain" as a direct translation of this word, but only as a idiomatic equivalent. "Useless" is similarly an idiomatic equivalent.
In other words, while I agree that the official translation, as it seems to exist in this case, should be used, and I accept that argument, I think a "reasonable case" could be made for a different translation -- I have some "reasonable" experience translating Latin "reasonably," so I'm wondering what expertise in Classics you bring to bear to cite this as unreasonable and caseless. Amherst528221:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take it so personally. I wasn't trying to offend you. We all just want Wikipedia to be the best it can. I am just saying (and you've stated that you agree) is that this is a school motto, and as such we should translate it in the way that the school does and in a way that has significance to its readers, not in a literal fashion. We rarely read word-for-word literal translations of any work in a foreign language. Word order and meaning are adjusted so that the work actually means something to the people who read it in translation. Idiomatic equivalents are necessary to understand any foreign language. If a German is "blau," it means he's drunk, whereas if an American is "blue" it means he's sad. And in that example, a literal translation not only loses meaning, but changes it entirely. Who cares what anything means on word-by-word basis? It's the meaning of a phrase as a whole that matters. A law that is "empty" means nothing to us, even if it did to the Romans. So although you could make a reasonable (and in fact very strong) case for translating "vanae" as empty in a vaccuum (no pun intended), you really can't do it in the context it's in here. -Bindingtheory22:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't the most straightforward wording be "laws without morals are vanity?" as in the Book of Ecclesiastes, "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." AHD4's definition of vanity is "3. Lack of usefulness, worth, or effect; worthlessness," which is what is meant here. Dpbsmith(talk)00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Bindingtheory: Thank you for the lesson on dynamic equivalence versus direct correspondence approaches to translation. How did I manage to make it through graduate school without mentors as knowledgeable as you?Amherst528200:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Amherst5282, personal knowledge is only relevant to the degree that it enables you to muster good, verifiable, WP:CITE sources in support of your views. Wikipedia does not and cannot depend on the authority of its contributors. Your user page could give your name, address, CV, and images of your diplomas, but it still would not give you the right to dictate content simply by asserting your superior personal knowledge. Dpbsmith(talk)00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. I will alter my user page to remove the offending items, Dpbsmith, as you have pointed out they are out of place. I'm not clear on how I "dictated content," as I stated that I accepted the reversion as reasonable deference to a university's own press releases, but I will cease doing so. The "hostility" is actually just surprise: I altered one word of one sentence, and as a result was then told I don't know how to translate Latin and received a lecture in the subject (not a "well my opninion is," discussion -- a lecture in Classical languages); when I explained my reasoning but accepted the reversion and left it at that, I was then told I don't understand the process of translation in general, and was schooled in that (not, "my persepctive is" but a kindly explanation as of an expert to an eighth grader); and then I was told I should keep my mouth shut unless I'm prepared to footnote and source dictionary definitions and was sliced for "dictating content" for -- not challenging the elimination of my edit??. OK. I've learned my Wikipedia lesson.Amherst528201:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the motto again. I actually rather liked the translation "Learning without character is in vain," (although I can't speak for the accuracy of the translation. Amherst5282: if you're still reading this page, is it a fair translation?) and although it certainly seems more relevant to a University, it's not the way that Penn translates it, and i think we need to use their official translation, which is currently "Laws without morals are useless." -Bindingtheory22:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I take it that this latest reference to me was meant to be ironic and sarcastic. As I said, I've learned my Wikipedia lesson. I'll restrict myself to correcting/commenting on the Latin translations of graduate students on real paper, rather than offering poor thoughts online to those already fluent in Latin. Believe me, you've convinced me...the needles are not necessary.Amherst528223:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Amherst5282, I was not being ironic or sarcastic. You are the only person I know of with a good knowledge of Latin, so I was just asking if you thought the above was a fair and accurate translation of the phrase. I'd still like to know your opinion. -Bindingtheory04:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The original seal adopted in 1755 bore the abbreviated inscription Sine Moribus Vanae, and succeeding seals bore either this version or no motto at all. In less official usage the motto was evidently rendered as Leges sine Moribus vanae, as in a bookplate of the library employed before 1829. Near the end of the nineteenth century, a wag translated the motto on the seal as "loose women without morals," which so distressed the Trustees that when the seal was rather radically redesigned in 1899 the word Literae was inserted so that the motto read Literae sine Moribus vanae.
I've been a Drexel student for 6 years (currently a grad student) and I've never heard of this tradition. If there is no source for this, it should be removed. The closest source I've been able to find on Google is a site here that says in 1956:
March 19 - snowball fight
After about 25 complaints from people pelted by snowballs at 36th and Locust Streets, twelve policemen raided the intersection. When some of the students ran into the Delta Tau Delta fraternity, police followed and rounded up 24 students, including the photographic editor of the Daily Pennsylvanian student newspaper. They were released with a warning from the judge.
I'd hardly say that having a fight with innocent bystanders once in 1956 constitutes a "tradition." So if there are no objections I'll remove this as hearsay. mbecker22:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tracked this change to an anon IP who also added this "fact" to the Drexel article. I'll remove it from there too unless I can find a source. mbecker22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Academic processions and Penn-Princeton rivalry
I'm sure others have noticed that someone keeps changing "1740"/"fourth oldest" to "1749"/"fifth oldest." I've tried to deal with this in footnotes, and I recently added a similar footnote to the Princeton article, for symmetry's sake. I've also found a nicely-nuanced Princeton statement [8]:
Colonial colleges uses 1749 and places Penn fifth. It was footnoted before and I've expanded the footnote.
I don't think it makes sense to talk about coming to any particular conclusion. I strongly feel that if only one year is to be cited in the lead paragraph and infobox, there is no neutral way to choose any date other than the year claimed by each university. If the year needs to be qualified beyond a footnote, OK, but Wikipedia cannot sit in judgement. Dpbsmith(talk)15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Admissions Selectivity and Rankings
I disagree with 68.162.67.233 with the decision to remove this section because "this kind of neurotic comparisons would not appear in any real encyclopedia," and I replaced the section at least until we can discuss it here first. (someone should prolly do the same with Yale and Princeton because I'm off to bed soon)
You've got to ask yourself what someone who looks up Penn (or any other university) in wikipedia might be looking for, and I think that includes selectivity and rankings. Granted, the text could be edited some, but ask any college applicant: selectivity and rankings matter to them. I agree with the argument that the rankings suffer from a degree of subjectivity, but at the same time there's no denying that some universities are "better" than others. As long as the information is factual and verifiable, why not include it? -Bindingtheory05:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Why would anyone would go to Wikipedia to get a biassed, selective, cherry-picked assortment of dubious factoids, when they could buy a copy of U. S. News and get complete, neutral presentation of the same dubious factoids neatly arrayed in tables for easy comparison? Dpbsmith(talk)15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia or some promotion stunt? I agree: go prune yale and princeton. I started already. We all need to do more to make wikipedia more objective and less subject to boosterism. This page read like Penn's admissions office should have paid a fee :) -68.162.67.233
I think editing the information would have been a better choice than deleting the section entirely. (for example, the explicit comparison by name to several other universities should probably be removed, and the overall section is simply too long). How does stating college ranking and selectivity statistics qualify as "boosterism" or not obective? Also, I was suggesting people UNdo the deletions you made to Princeton and Yale. Someone has already done so for Yale. -Bindingtheory06:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The whole ranking section reeked of neurotic insecurity. In any case, the information would not be found in an bound encyclopedia. As far as what the readers like to read, I am sure most guys would also like nude photos of women. But we would not put them into the encyclopedia. If the readers want rankings, go to the source site (usnews, whatever).
As far as other schools, that's a tougher one. Especially with the speed at which yale puts back its propaganda. I sympathize, as I went to Penn. Maybe I can get my sons and their friends to keep watch, and just outlast the boosters. I will give it more thought. -68.162.67.233
Having been to Penn, then, you'll know that the whole institution occasionally reeks of neurotic insecurity. Penn has long had an inferiority complex. :) I still think the rankings and selectivity information belong in the article, although i'm too tired to put them back now, so maybe someone will do it for me. Wikipedia contains tons of things that would never appear in a print encyclopedia (i mean, have you SEEN some of the articles in this thing????); that's part of what makes it so great. -Bindingtheory06:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
First off this is not a bound encylopedia, and even if it were i seriously doubt that your objections would be given much creedience, as i can see a bound encylopedia adding in the information about the schools ranking in the idea of establishing it's acidemic reputation and considering that coming from sources are independent of the university. This is also no more bosterism then what is seen on the articles of other universites of similar reputation, including one that you have allreday defaced today, University of Chicago. Personaly i wouldnt take any of these objections from this usere seriously anyway, as this seems to be a usere who has, based on the mo, removed this infromation from theis article as well as several other articles under several ip socks and user accounts. As for the section, a change in tone might be warented, as well as droping the section of the leading schools in arts and sciences. But the wholesale removal on the current basis, is unacceptable. --Boothy443 | trácht ar06:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
68.162.67.233, academic boosterism is a perennial problem with Wikipedia. I'm not sure I know why.
Meanwhile, I try to prune and shape rather than excise wholesale. I try to keep the worst of it out of the lead section. I particularly like the section in Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism that says "do not bury the reader in facts." Penn is a really, really, really good school and a few facts will make that point adequately. (Conversely, there is no presentation of facts, no matter how strained, that will make Penn appear to be older than Yale, or more famous than Harvard).
(By the way, I continue to be completely baffled as to why "selectivity" is considered to be important. It seems like a vicious circle. A school can only admit so many students, so the more that apply, the more "selective" it appears to be, which for some reason attracts students, leading to a lower rate of acceptance, and...) Dpbsmith(talk)15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
gotta agree about selectivity, particularly if it's defined as the percentage of applicants that a college admits as students. That doesn't measure quality; it measures popularity. The more popular a school is, the more people who apply, and the more people who apply, the lower the percentage of applicants you need to accept to fill the incoming class. The other problem with this statistic is that its largely dependent on class size at a given institution. If there are two universities who have exactly the same number of applicants, but one has a class size of 1000 and the other has a class size of 5000, then the larger school is necessarily less selective since it will have to accept far more applicants to fill the incoming class. A more interesting (if not more useful) statistic might be to compare the number of students accepted to the number of students who actually attend. In other words, it measures how many EXTRA students a university has to accept in order to actually get the right number of students to attend, knowing that many accepted students will ultimately choose a different college. It still only measures popularity, but at least it's more accurate. -Bindingtheory16:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was simply caught in a big revert, but the statement below was changed to a unreferenced state with a different year and ranking. If this section belongs at all, it should be properly referenced.
In 2001, The Atlantic Monthly ranked it as the eleventh most selective college in the United States (factoring in average grades, SAT scores, students' high school rankings, and offer yields).[1]Ar-wiki01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Some outside the University use 1749" Who, exactly?
Maybe, but I'd like to see a source for this.
Britannica says flatly that Penn is "was founded in 1740 as a charity school. Largely through the efforts of Benjamin Franklin and other leading Philadelphians, it became an academy in 1751..." In other words, they implicitly accept the institutional continuity of the Whitefield school and the university.
The Columbia Encyclopedia takes a "just the facts" approach, saying "Planned in 1740 as a charity school, it opened in 1751 as an academy, largely through the efforts of Benjamin Franklin. In 1755 it received a college charter," without using the word "founded" or committing to a founding date..
Encarta says "Founded as the Charity School in 1740, the institution was reestablished as the Academy of Philadelphia in 1751 under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin. The academy’s name was changed in 1755 to the College of Pennsylvania, and the current name was adopted in 1779."
Here are some points.
these sources do not attempt to look behind Penn's official account of its own history.
Two of them use the word "founded in 1740" and qualify it with "as a charity school." All of them say "as a charity school" and using phrasing that raises at least a bit of doubt as to the nature of what happened in 1751 ("became an academy,") ("opened as an academy,") ("reestablished as the Academy).
None of them venture to say Penn was "founded" in any year other than 1740.
None of them even mentions 1749.
All of them simply stay away from Penn/Princeton question, saying nothing about whether Penn is fourth, fifth, or sixth-oldest.
I think there is plenty of reason to qualify Penn's founding date and explain it, in a footnote or otherwise.
I don't think there is any justification at all for substituting a different "founding" date than the one Penn chooses to use.
The anons who keep changing it are not giving any rationale for how Wikipedia should decide what date to use as the founding date in articles on universities. And I am skeptical whether there are any reliable sources that would state that Penn was "founded" in 1749 (which is very different from saying Penn was founded-asterisk, founded-footnote, found-with-qualifications in 1740). Dpbsmith(talk)22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
P. S. Well, the Britannica 11th edition does say 1749 in its article on Pennsylvania: "Other institutions for higher education are the University of Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia (1749)..." Its article on the University of Pennsylvania, however, is nuanced:
Benjamin Franklin in 1749 published a pamphlet, entitled Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pensilvania, which led to the formation of a board of twenty-four trustees, nineteen of whom, on the 13th of November 1749, met for organization and to promote the Publick Academy in the City of Philadelphia, and elected Benjamin Franklin president of the board, an office which he held until 1756. So closely was Franklin identified with the plan that Matthew Arnold called the institution the University of Franklin. On the 1st of February 1750 there was conveyed to this board of trustees the New Building on Fourth Street, near Arch, which had been erected in 1740 for a charity school, a use to which it had not been put and as a house of Publick Worship, in which George Whitefield had preached in November 1740; the original trustees (including Franklin) of the New Building and of its projected charity school date from 1740, and therefore the university attaches to its seal the words founded 1740.
Notice again that we have the words "founded 1740," though with the encyclopedia distancing itself from these statement, and a "just-the-facts" approach which lays out the narrative without contradicting the University's own account. Dpbsmith(talk)22:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that Dpbsmith has pretty much exhausted the information that's available online (and the page currently reflects much of that information), so there's not much left to uncover, but I'll note here what I found. Princeton has a humorous take by John Weeren on this matter here [9]. Some of Penn's early documents are avaiable here [10] (nothing earlier than 1749). There is also a book called University of Pennsylvania: The Campus Guide and of course there is the "Building Penn's Brand article. My reading of these and other online sources [11][12][13][14] indicates that the year 1740 is rather dubious, and is basically an attempt to make Penn appear older than Princeton. While an institution's founding year shouldn't much affect its standing or contributions to the world in present time (as long as the institution is more than a few decades old), there certainly seems to be a loose heirarchy (that goes beyond just who is oldest) associated with founding dates — especially among colleges from the colonial era. Regardless, Penn claims 1740 as its founding date and that is the date that should be used (at least in this article) with a qualifying footnote. However, I'm not sure if calling Penn the "fourth-oldest institution of higher education in the U.S." or something to that effect is supported by the facts.
Actually, I think Penn's decision to change its founding date to 1740 was an unfortunate one, as it obscures the link between the university and Benjamin Franklin's 1749 ideas on education. Penn would have probably been given more credit historically than it has otherwise gotten. That's history, I suppose. btmtalk07:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, and I see a problem for Penn here. Penn says Penn's heritage
In 1749 in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin presented his vision of a school in a pamphlet titled Proposals for the Education of Youth in Pensilvania. Unlike other American Colonial colleges, the new school would not focus on education for the clergy.
From 1740 to 1749, there was a church, built for George Whitefield, an evangelist preacher associated with The Great Awakening, who had unrealized intentions for running a school in the building. From 1749 on, there was Benjamin Franklin and a vision for a secular university.
Either Whitefield's church-and-planned-school and Franklin's secular university are the same institution or they aren't. If Penn wants to have been founded in 1740, then it was founded as a church by firebrand evangelist George Whitefield. If it wants to have been founded by Benjamin Franklin as a secular institution, then it better have been founded in 1749.
Personally, if it were up to me, I'd rather be founded by Franklin and let the Princeton people march ahead of me in academic processions. It's not as if Princeton didn't have to eat Yale's dust anyway. Or Oxford weren't six centuries older than Harvard. And Bologna, let's not even mention the University of Bologna. But then, if I cared about such things I probably wouldn't have chosen to go to a school founded in 1861. (If you believe my school's claims, of course). Dpbsmith(talk)17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm sure that Penn realizes/admits that its claim as having been founded in 1740 and it's claim as having been founded by Ben Franklin are contradictory. When Penn talks about the ideals it introduced in line with Franklin's vision, it omits the founding year and carefully refers to 1749 as the year in which the university was conceived. But in 1899, the Trustees found a way to leapfrog Princeton in the academic processions, and now there is a delicate balancing act going on. Penn's contributions to higher education in the United States are more important than its founding year, anyway.
In actuality, MIT was founded in 1853 when Emma Savage Rogers briefly included sewing classes for girls along with the Bible studies she used to teach with Mary Baker Eddy in the basement of the Christian Science mother church. You see, William gave Emma six bucks for pin money, so they listed him as treasurer, making it really the same institution as MIT, and MIT really has every right to march seventy-third in academic processions. But the problem is, nobody could possibly care and therefore people have just been lazily using the charter date instead of really researching the issue. And Whirlwind was far more important than ENIAC. Dpbsmith(talk)12:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Louis Kahn
To my surprise, Lou Kahn, probably one of the most famous and arguably one of best American architects in the 20th Century, was not listed under Notable People. He was Paul Philippe Cret Professor of Architecture at Penn and has a major building on the campus. A Fellow in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) in 1953, he was made a member of the National Institute of Arts and Letters in 1964. He was awarded the Frank P. Brown Medal in 1964. In 1965 he was elected into the National Academy of Design as an Associate Academician. He was made a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1968 and awarded the AIA Gold Medal, the highest award given by the AIA, in 1971, and the Royal Gold Medal by the RIBA, in 1972. His archive is at Penn: https://www.design.upenn.edu/architectural-archives/louis-i-kahn-collection
ovA_165443 01:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Evolution from commuter school? Proposal to delete this section.
I am asking to delete the section that Penn was a "commuter school" until the 1950s, a statement that implies that for most of the university's history the student body came only from Philadelphia. First, the only citation to support this erroneous statement is a 1989 article from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Second, the assertion is clearly untrue. The medical school for much of the 19th century was the preeminent medical school in the United States and as such attracted students from almost every state in the nation. Penn was the choice for medical students from the Southern states at least until the 1870s. The medical students did not live in university housing but in boarding-houses close to the university; but that fact does not mean that Penn was a commuter school. Third, Penn did not evolve into a research university only in the 1950s! Penn was a leading research university from the antebellum period onwards in medicine and the sciences. It's misleading to assert that Penn evolved into a research university only in the 20th century. Is it ok with everyone if we delete this section?Sbaatz1 (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This issue has been addressed with the addition of text describing how the Medical School was a notable exception to the general rule about Penn's commuter student population. Always better to further develop a subject with complete information than to delete an entire subject/ Wa3frp (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
When I attended Penn in the 1960's there was a very large commuter population. There was even a Commuter Activities Board. Unless you were there, and at that time, I suggest that you work to find better references rather than delete the section. Wa3frp (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I also think it should be deleted. Having a very large commuter population does not make a school a "commuter school." There's hardly enough substantiation to justify keeping this section. In fact, I can't even locate any sources suggesting the school was considered a commuter school into the 1950s. Construction of the quad, home to a large undergraduate student population, began in the late 1800s, and freshmen were required to live in the dorm by 1930. [2] Columbia's first real dormitories were opened around the same time, and their Wikipedia page does not have a section devoted to discussing their previous status as a "commuter school." [3]Mrfeeny (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You really have to stop deleting information on Wikipedia! First of all, defending a position based on a negative is never a good approach. The fact that no one has taken the time to write about Columbia's commuter status has little effect on an article about the University of Pennsylvania and its commuter population. A simple two minute search uncovered this statement, "...Prior to 1940, Penn was a predominantly regional institution and a commuter school with many of her students, faculty and alumni residing in Philadelphia, but after the war, large numbers of students migrated to Universities under the GI Bill. Penn increased her national stature, but more importantly founded the idea that Penn should serve by helping the nation as a whole..."[4]
It seems to me that Mr James A Bessin presents the facts as he found them and that these facts speak for themselves. Wa3frp (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Again having a large commuter population does not necessarily warrant the title of "commuter school." If you think it is incredibly relevant to state that the school had a large commuter population, I think that is fine, but, again, on campus housing was required for freshmen in 1930[5], which I think is uncharacteristic of a "commuter school." The term "commuter school" has a negative connotation, and other urban schools of similar stature, which almost all started as commuter schools, do not have such a section.Mrfeeny (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It would be interesting to learn from you how long Freshman were required to live in campus housing. You state that this rule was implemented in 1930. My father, class of 1938, lived at home, approximately 30 minutes from campus, for all four years as an undergraduate. In doing some further research, I see that you selectively edited the sentence to support your argument but also veered sharply away from truth. The full sentence reads, "By 1931, freshmen were required to live in the Quadrangle unless they had official permission to live with their families or other relatives." This makes more sense given what I know from family history, specifically my father, who graduated in 1938.Wa3frp (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
As you correctly state, "...the term "commuter school" has a negative connotation..." Yes, that is true but this Wikipedia article is not a promotional piece for Penn. To amplify on this issue, please see the comments by Elyse Sudow in her Senior Thesis, Displacement Demonized?: Towards an Alternate Explanation for
Penn’s Poor Relationship with West Philadelphia, "...Penn joined the Ivy League at its founding in 1954, thereby associating itself with the nation’s premier universities. Though the Ivy League distinction brought Penn a certain amount of prestige, by the early 50’s Penn was in need of a major facelift. Penn had outgrown the expansion and building boom of 1880 to 1930. Not only were the buildings old and worn, but the student population had increased so that more facilities were necessary. At that time the University was a commuter school and failed to attract the best students from all over the country. By World War II, top students viewed Penn as their safety school, looking instead to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale as their first choice for admission. In order to attract top students, and increase the University’s national prestige as well as its endowment, an overhaul of the physical plant was necessary. The University saw a need to increase government-funded research, which would attract prominent faculty, and would in turn attract top students. Gaylord Harnwell was selected to the post of University President in 1953 and his administration carried out massive changes for the University of Pennsylvania and in the surrounding community..." [6]
While the Quad was started in 1895, the last three sections of the Quadrangle (Butcher, Speakman, and Class of 28) were not built until 1950s. As Penn Trustee stated, "...The bricks-and-mortar Capital Campaign of the Sixties (raising $102 million to exceed a $92 million goal) built the facilities that turned Penn from a commuter school to a residential one where stronger alumni loyalties could develop..." [7]
I made some edits to the section to enhance readability and remove unnecessary hyperbolic statements, since it appeared to have been hastily added and riddled with grammatical errors. I'd personally recommend changing the section to "evolution from regional university to national university," but in the spirit of compromise left it as is. I hope my changes are agreeable to you. Mrfeeny (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This section has evolved into a lengthy mess that is not clearly necessary or relevant. Edited for brevity and changed the title accordingly. I'm not sure
what your agenda here is but having a lengthly discussion of how the University didn't have a lot of housing until the 1950s replete with quotations supporting your point doesn't seem incredibly relevant to the article, especially since that was par for the course for urban research universities at the time. Mrfeeny (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I vote to keep the article especially since the unregistered User (mrfeeny) previously misstated facts in order to drive a false conclusionWa3frp (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I did not misstate any facts. You said I selectively edited a quotation but I did not. I simply stated that freshmen were required to live in the quad. You provided additional context and made an unfounded accusation. I suggest you reread my previous statement. Mrfeeny (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Made additional changes, adding citations and discussing recent expansions of student housing and the new policy that will require on-campus residence for freshmen and sophomores in 2021. I would like to continue to develop this section as a general discussion of University expansion and move away from the fixation on the lack of on-campus housing in decades past. Mrfeeny (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to rename "Evolution from commuter school" section
I propose we rename this section to "Campus expansion and student housing." So far there's only been pushback about the "commuter school" section--the deletion of which was supported by two users (see above)--from one user who seems to be very adamant about keeping it. Wa3frp claims that his title better reflects the topic of the section. The topic of the section is campus expansions, including student housing. Wa3frp is fixated on making this section about Penn as a "commuter school." Please discuss here. Mrfeeny (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
This proposal is ill timed since I note that the changes that you suggest in your proposal have already been implemented. I thought that the process was to propose a change and then implement the proposed change should the change be agreed upon.Wa3frp (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I made the change because my title is a more neutral title that is better suited to be used on the main page until we receive input on the topic from other users. I'll note again that two users have already advocated for its deletion, and that there has been no pushback on my changes from anyone but Wa3frp. I'm happy to continue to discuss here. Mrfeeny (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I should note that I am not disputing that the sources in question use the term "commuter school" to refer to the University. Anyone who can read would agree that they do. However, these sources should be evaluated in their historical context, as they were made before the term had the connotations that it does today and at a time when peer schools (which do not have lengthy sections devoted to the topic) also could be referred to in this manner. My changes still cover the topic, but do so in a more factual manner suited to an informational page about a university on Wikipedia. Mrfeeny (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
As a result of ongoing discussion with Wa3frp, I've added content acknowledging that the commuter school label had been used to refer to the University in the past, while also ensuring to lay out facts that tend to cut against this label: (1) the regionally diverse population of the Medical School as early as the 1850s; (2) That on-campus housing was required by default in the 1930s; (3) That the school attracted students from most of the 50 states and abroad by the 1960s. That being said, I've also made sure to acknowledge that a large proportion of commuter students and students from the region continued to attend the school into the 1960s. I'm hoping to find data regarding how large this proportion actually was, rather than simply relying on the vague statements that the school was a "commuter school." If anyone can help out in this regard it would be much appreciated. Mrfeeny (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I feel that the current title of this section within the larger article is misstated. This section of the article was never meant to describe the myriad of changes to the campus nor the history of the changes to residential housing. The original section focused not on residential housing but on the transition the University undertook as it evolved from a commuter school and regional institution to the international residential University. Otherwise, it will be necessary, under the current subject's title to start with the original campus in Center City Philadelphia to West Philadelphia and all of the expansions since that date. (2) This moves drastically away from the intent of the original section of the article which was the shift from a local student population to a global student population. (3) The subject, as it is currently written, covers the Quad, Sergeant Hall, Kings Court, Hill College House, New College House and New College House West. The following residences that are missing include W.E.B DuBois College House, Fisher Hassenfeld College House, Gregory College House, Harnwell College House, Harrison College House, Riepe College House, Rodin College House, Stouffer College House and Ware College House. Add to that the residences that have come and gone.
I propose that the current subject be slimmed down to focus on the transition from a local student population to a global student population. This would remove the residence halls completely. After that, I propose that a new title for this subject be crafted. I would also like to mention that I appreciate Mrfeenys willingness to discuss and improve this section of the article. Wa3frp (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I have slimmed down the subject to focus on the transition from a local student population to a global student population and removed the incomplete details of student housing which could be an entirely new subject if someone is up for that research. Feel free to discuss here or directly edit the subject. The subject title is now "Evolution from Regional Institution to International Residential University" and that removes the word "commuter" which has been the subject to much debate.Wa3frp (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I completed WP:BEFORE in Newspapers.com, Newspaper Archive, and Google News. No significant coverage. Should be merge to the University of Pennsylvania article, library section. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
"Philadelphia" or "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania"?
Recent edits have changed this article's lead sentence back and forth to say that Penn is either in "Philadelphia" or in "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania". This is clearly is an issue on which well-meaning editors differ. I'll try to articulate here why I think we should omit the state name in the lead sentence.
To be clear, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be in the article at all. I'm just saying that it belongs in the infobox but not in the lead sentence. This is for the same reason that the Philadelphia article (in accordance with WP:USPLACE) is named simply "Philadelphia". It's also the reason that the state name is omitted, even in print, by publications that conform to the AP Stylebook. It's because readers can generally be trusted to know that Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania, if they know what "Pennsylvania" is in the first place.
The great strength of a wiki is that it lets background information be stored behind links, so that only relevant facts are displayed. We don't want to include every fact in every article, let alone every sentence; that puts the power of the wiki to waste. While it is true that Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania, it's also already widely known by readers of the University of Pennsylvania article. It's also stated in the lead sentence of the Philadelphia article, which is linked in this very sentence. And, as I mentioned, it's in the infobox.
The purpose of this article's lead sentence is to summarize the most essential facts about the University of Pennsylvania. "Philadelphia is in Pennsylvania" is not such a fact. TypoBoy (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I was about to say I concur, but then I realized User:Dosafrog has the better argument. The longstanding consensus is to include city and state in the lead paragraph for virtually all major American universities. So the correct approach is to initiate a RfC on the Wikipedia Manual of Style to see if there is a consensus in favor of changing away from that for universities located in major cities. I need to warn you that you are unlikely to sway current consensus because the quality of education is still very poor in many countries and some editors foolishly believe Wikipedia should cater to that lowest common denominator (a position I strongly disagree with). This is why the articles at San Jose, California and Georgia (U.S. state) are still at those titles even though those article subjects are by far the most important and most widely known subjects to hold those names. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that in order to be consistent with the logic that since it is obvious that the University of Pennsylvania is in Pennsylvania and that such “extraneous” information should be omitted because it is in the name, one would have to mutilate the ledes of basically every state college, such as UCLA or UT Austin, to merely “____ is a public research university.” which frankly isn’t every helpful at all as a lead sentence, even if it is patently obvious to any literate person that the University of California, Los Angeles is in Los Angeles, California and that the University of Texas at Austin is in Austin, Texas.Dosafrog (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
History/Intro Section Vandalism Reverts by GreaterPonce665 and ElKevbo
had clearly cleaned up history and intro for readability, including but not limited to history subsection titles--it is illogical and unreadable to read a 200-year-old history without subsection headings per Wikipedia standard. It further re-ordered intro of notable alums by seniority/notability/importance i.e. Presidents, governors, senators, etc. It is illogical to bury the lede.
Was reverted by GreaterPonce665, a non-native English speaker who doesn't even go to Penn who falsely claimed "not an improvement," and again by ElKevbo (sockpuppet?) who uses language like "bullshit reasons" against Wikipedia conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.83.19.146 (talk • contribs) 19:49, November 27, 2020 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because "editor is not a native English speaker" and "editor is not an alumnus of this university" are indeed bullshit reasons to revert edits. It's also difficult to understand the nature and scope of your edits when so many edits to many different sections are made at one time with no explanation in an edit summary or Talk page post. If you'd like to explain your edits or make them more slowly so they're easier to understand then I'd be happy to take another look at them. ElKevbo (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
