Talk:Schulich School of Business

Archives

Archive 1 - Dec. 1, 2007

Citations

When you reference others' work, a citation needs to be added. Works that are unreferenced need to be cleaned up or removed. The rules are clear on this.Dtorgerson (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COYW, thank you for adding citations to your work. If you wouldn't mind, could you leave this section up on the discussion page for a little while so that new contributors will know that they need to cite other authors' work when they reference it.Dtorgerson (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People know about citations and it is all explained elsewhere in its appropriate spot. This is redundant, isn't it, CKatz?

It is worth writing that I did not add the citations in error. I thought that I had. Dtorgerson chose to add this oh-so-reasonable little section instead of simply adding the citations himself. That is not good teamwork. It is not as though he did not know how or where the pages were. It took me a few minutes to do once I had started... not much more time than he spent to add this to the discussion page. If Dtorgerson wants to play politics by pointing out my error instead of just fixing them, then I will play politics in drawing attention to that choice.

Oh! Here is another little something I found from Damon Torgerson: "I also added a reference to the ranking you posted." -Dtorgerson 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC). That was written to Cyril2006. Why did you just get on with adding a citation at that time? Why did you choose to give me your fulsome thanks and political little suggestion above? This whole pointless section dilutes discussion and starts us off on the road towards Archive #2. [In brief, I DID mind, Ckatz.] COYW (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COYW, don't get jealous. I've added citations to your work in the past, too. How about everyone just simply formats things correctly and then the entire discussion can be avoided.Dtorgerson (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schulich School of Business

Undergraduate Section

The description of the undergraduate section is very technical (e.g. 383 students admitted). Rather than update the description when the school admits 384 students, why not just provide an overview and reference the school's documentation (e.g., website) for the more technical details?Dtorgerson (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings

The rankings section was changed prior to resolution of the issue. Barring any discussion, the changes will be undone.Dtorgerson (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have formally tried to get outside opinions to manage our editing disagreement. Your intractable position is that the page should be changed your way until a "resolution to this issue". So, get outside mediation. Get third opinions. Do something positive, rather than edit, edit, edit. I have stated reasons why the page should have two headers in the rankings section. It has always been incumbent upon you to argue against me. Your points AND listening to mine would amount to discussion in my books. IMHO, you have shown yourself to be biased. Since I have told you repeatedly that I am weary of communicating with you, go get outside mediation. Why haven't you, Mr. Torgerson? Now I have done it for you. COYW (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for seeking outside opinions. I did not have a chance to see if anyone responded. Did anyone respond? I think that we both have somewhat intractable positions, which is what led to your seeking mediation. Had your position been tractable, there would have been no need for mediation. However, logic aside, now you have removed my work. Tit for tat. We do not seem to be further ahead other than you have now removed my work. One of us obviously sees this as moving ahead. Is there any way that you see us resolving this without going to outside mediation, which did not work (unless I missed the outside opinions before the page was archived)?

In an ideal situation, what would make you happy? How would you like to see this resolved? Could you present your perfect solution? Of course, you have to be a little realistic, I'm in good health and fairly careful when crossing the street.Dtorgerson (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What have I erased of yours? Tell the people who will be coming to see this page. They should judge if it is really tit-for-tat or more like wave-for-tide.

Funnily enough, what makes me happy is comments like you've made above about my wanting to see you hit by a bus. Just because it is personal with you does not mean it is personal with me. Your off-the-point responses below also reveal a lot. I want you to write more and more because you will reveal your bias. Now, tell everyone the details of your proposed edits. COYW (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly be serious? Mock outrage aside, you erased edits of mine all over the ranking(s) section(s): here's one and here's another. There are more but I really don't care that you made the changes. I made some mistakes in judgment when I first joined the community; it was wrong of me to change the article without discussing the changes first. You were correct to point out the mistake. Regardless, I hoped that we could just get past this and move to the more civilized approach advocated by you earlier where changes are discussed on the discussion page before they are made.Dtorgerson (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Rankings

How do you think historical rankings should be presented? I think a table presenting previous rankings would make a great addition. Discussion?Dtorgerson (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be great? I think dated information falls under the category of minutia and unbalances a page. Schools with tables are, not coincidentally, highly-ranked ones. Are they just showing off? Very few people care about a ranking from 15 year ago. The editors on those pages would do well to stop it, rebalance the pages, and better serve the readers.

The example table you once posted here was from a school with a string of #1 rankings (!). You often cite "leading" schools. You know most schools do not use that kind of table, yet you proffer being like the majority of pages as a reason to edit as you wish. Wouldn't a table be a little too "technical", as you have written above? You cannot have it both ways. COYW (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that tabular presentation of numerical data helps readers organize the data into information. Ideally, a graph would be best. It also allows for easier presentation of trends longer than three years whereupon readers can draw conclusions about a schools performance (positive or negative). Three years is a very short time in the life of an institution; a school rising quickly in a particular ranking over three years may not provide a realistic portrait of the institution. Removing prose also helps reduce positive or negative bias some authors are wont to include. However, I realize that while I may prefer numerical data presented in a graphical format, others may prefer such data presented in prose. What do you think?Dtorgerson (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do most other schools use a table? I will answer for you. No. Do you use the fact that most "standard-bearer" schools do not have what the Schulich page has a rationale for editing away my work. Yes, you do. Is that incongruous? Yes, it is.

Schulich has risen a lot in the past fifteen years, but has recently reached a plateau. A reader who wants ranking information is likely to be a potential student (i.e., customer) of the school. Right? Agreed?! And it looks much, much better for Schulich to have a longer-term graph or table, doesn't it? Marketing-wise, showing the steep rise of a few years ago sure can help Schulich today. That aside, Dtorgerson, you do not put information up from just a few weeks ago! That Globe & Mail info is still begging to be added. So, add it. Is it a coincidence that you don't add relatively bad news, but are quick to champion, all the good ranking numbers that Schulich gets? My answer is no. Now we are in the school application period, too! This is high season for clicks on Wikipedia university pages

I see bias at work just as surely as something that looks, smells and tastes of cheese is cheese. --OMG. I forgot Velveeta. OK. You walk, talk and act like a duck, Damon Torgerson, admit it or not. You ought to be thankful that the likes of Cyril come edit the page. You look relatively even-handed compared with his cheerleading efforts. COYW (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COYW, you're looking for conspiracy where none exists. I am not familiar with either the Macleans nor Globe & Mail ranking. Both publications are excellent but I do read either regularly. By all means, put the rankings in the article. No one benefits from an article that lacks transparency. So, back to the question I asked: how do you feel that historical rankings should be presented?Dtorgerson (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness of the Macleans Magazine and Globe & Mail Rankings

Hey COYW: you can't add the Maclean's rank which you only put up to create a negative bias against Schulich for the simple reason that that survey is about York U proper not the Schulich School of Business. I would think that would be fairly obvious so I have to wonder why you tried to put it up twice. Cyril. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril2006 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well played, Cyril2006, but all of Schulich is York University. Part of York is Schulich. Schulich undergrad and grad students attend York University. Before Mr. Schulich gave money to the school of business, it was all called York University. Schulich uses the infrastructure of York. Clear enough? Sure, Schulich has taken on some student services by itself, and acts independently (ex., raising funds) but it cannot separate itself. Just because the Quebec provincial government calls itself the "National Assembly" does not make Quebec any less part of Canada. The expression "drugs and alcohol" is similarly wrong. Anyhow, I will leave the set theory and Venn diagrammes to others. All the ranking information Wikipedia pages have is purposeful. Because people can act self-interested ALL the rankings ought to be presented.

Anyhow, Cyril, the information you saw fit to edit away had 'York University' clearly written to indicate it as for the entire institution. It was written in the appropriate section, too. Those rankings have a section called "Leaders of Tomorrow" and you can be sure that the Schulich School of Business students were considered for that. Let the readers find that info and tease out whatever else they like from this Macleans work. COYW (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...i don't know what your psychological problems are nor do i care...do other business schools with their own pages have rankings that are based on the entire university or just rankings for the business school itself? if you want to put a maclean's ranking for York U then put in on the York U page. I sympathize with whatever concern you personally have for the competition and reputation among business schools but do it right. I welcome a mediation from senior wikipedians who act as mediators/arbitrators if you think it necessary. Cheers, Cyril. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril2006 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

York>Schulich School of Business. You want to exclude some rankings about the former. Schulich School of Business> SSoB's MBA programme. You would have ranking info about both the former and the latter. If it is unfair, somehow, to show the ranking of York (including the SSoB), then it is also unfair to the undergraduates when the MBA programme gets some ranking number attached to it. All the same, if we are going to delineate information for individual departments, then we ought to separate the rankings as much as possible? Good point!

Isn't the Macleans info marked clearly enough for you in our "related/other" rankings section? What do you make of the "Leaders of Tomorrow" part of that Macleans ranking? Should just that info be added or is it not related enough? If you think something should be added to the York page, but not to the Schulich page, then I want to see you do it. Delineate info as you wish, Cyril, just ADD the info. The Globe & Mail rankings also await your treatment. Yet, your edit record indicates to me that you won't do a thing. If York's "Leaders of tomorow" had ranked better, the SSoB dean himself would be cheerleading and drumming the fact up on the Schulich homepage. Would you add it here? Anyhow, that is Mr Horvath's job. What is your story, Cyril? No, don't bother answering that.

I want to draw everyone's attention to the fact the York (or any university!) Geography Department does not have its own page. ...but that should not stop the business school from having one, eh. I wonder why business schools have these individual pages. Why, Cyril? Geography departments rarely get ranked. Why not? Fair? Mr Schulich gave money to a medical school and a business school. Rich business people and companies show a lot of love to business schools, eh! Why?! Discuss these questions. COYW (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems yet another anonymous IP agrees with Cyril. That person, too, may add this info to the York page. The "just-because-nobody-else-does-it" argument would be better received by me if nobody else did progressive stuff on Wikipedia. When Schulich got its own page, where were all those conservative voices?! Anonymous IP or not, explain your blue pen, especially if you are not going to add the info to the York page. It does not matter whether I agree with you or not, because if I made these changes myself, I would get the edit shot down off the York because it is "something unprecedented". None of you can bring yourselves to do it because you are cheerleaders. What is in it for you besides pride?? COYW (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for me it certainly isn't a matter of pride, as I've no association with the school whatsoever. I can, however, recognize that the ranking doesn't belong here. Your contention that it has to remain unless someone adds it to York's entry isn't a valid argument. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settled. It goes up on the York page. My argument is not meant to be valid, as you write. I really want to show people up for the cheerleaders they are. Also, I want to avoid my good faith edits getting taken down by anon IPs and sockpuppets. I cannot show whom I suspect to be a sockpuppet, but I can show how these "fair and balanced" types run for cover when they are asked to do anything remotely negative about Schulich. So, now Macleans and Globe and Mail data goes up on the York page and Cyril will take it down. If not Cyril, then some anon IP. You watch, CKatz. Let's see what you recognise then.

Agreed, any ranking that doesn't rank the school explicitly should not go in the article.Dtorgerson (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I still wish to know what your view is about ranking data being on any page. Like I have written on your talkpage (since archived) we do not publish the results of the Pepsi Challenge, so why do we rank university programmes? Rankings exist for commercial purposes. COYW (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Of Interest

"[[1]]" The rules are clear here, Mr. Torgerson, unless you think that you are not promoting "your own interests". This important question remains unanswered by you: As the ranking of your school rises, do grads like you stand to gain? COYW (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the link. After careful review, I do not feel that I have in any way, broken the conflict of interest rules for wikipedia. I have been explicit in who I am; I am not an alumnus hiding behind an ip address or a cryptic wikipedia username. I have always, explicitly, argued to increase the quality of the article above all things. I have not once misrepresented myself or my work.

I am not sure what control you may feel I have over increasing, or for that matter decreasing, the institution's position in a particular ranking. I can assure you that I have none. If I were on a committee or board that was performing a ranking, I think you would have a very good reason for arguing conflict of interest and I would immediately remove myself from any discussion on rankings. However, I do not. Further, I have argued that rankings should not be arbitrarily separated precisely to remove special meaning from any ranking. For example, "Global" and "Other" introduces a hierarchy of rankings: one is prestigious, the other is...well, other. If I were advocating the school, I would have championed your separation. However, as there was never a clearly articulated precise definition of what separated one ranking (global) from another (other), the separation introduced bias and removed a neutral point of view. I continue to argue against biased presentation of rankings.

I did convey that presenting the article in the most neutral fashion rather than a biased one would benefit the school, to which you correctly argued that it benefited everyone. I absolutely agree with you on. My point was that although students often feel that advocating their school helps, it hurts in the long run. Since we both appear to agree that a neutral article benefits everyone (students, school, general wikipedia community, etc), I do not see where the conflict lies.Dtorgerson (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple question up there. A simple yes or no is still needed. Focus. COYW (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you think of rankings, an alumni will benefit from an increase in rankings. However, extending the argument further, any Canadian benefits when a Canadian institution climbs a ranking. Therefore, Canadian's should not edit the page. However, the point is moot. Simply because one may benefit does not mean that one cannot maintain a critical view. Your assumption that the only person that can maintain an objective outlook is one completely removed from a situation is nonsense. Further, the theory that you (or anyone) is objective because they are anonymous is also nonsense. For all anyone knows, you're an alumni or a disgruntled employee or a student at a "rival" school. Anonymity does not equate to a neutral point of view.

If you're looking for simple "you're either with us or against us" one word answers based on how you frame the debate, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Yes I am an alumni and there is potential for bias, which is explicitly why I opted for full disclosure. I do not care whether you remain anonymous or not. It's completely beside the point. However, your anonymity does not place you above bias.

To put it in very simple terms: prove that you do not benefit from a rise or fall in the school's ranking, or leave the argument alone. You're attempts to use my disclosure against me while you remain anonymous is mind boggling and logically inconsistent. This is not personal for me in the least but I can't help but think that it is personal for you. Based on your statements about the school (e.g., dirty facilities), I can't help but think we met while I attended the school and somehow offended you. If this is the case, let's talk about it. As you've tried to use my personal information against me time and time again, I know you know how to contact me. Please do, a simple conversation might clear a lot up.

Finally, please continue to challenge me on my inputs. It will make for a better article and it will force me to honestly reflect on the school. These are both good things.71.231.77.157 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]