Jump to content

Talk:Albert Einstein College of Medicine

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


Vague, outdated claims about academic program rankings and quality

[edit]

Summerdays1 is insisting that this article include the following sentence:

Einstein ranks 13th among top U.S. medical schools for graduate success in academic medicine and biomedical research (i.e., awards, publications, grants, and clinical trials), and its NIH funding per investigator consistently ranks among the highest in the nation (7th among US universities in 2019).[1][2][3][4]

There are several significant problems with this sentence. First, the claim that the college's "NIH funding per investigator consistently ranks among the highest in the nation" doesn't appear to be supported by the cited sources - a single year's ranking cannot support this claim. Second, that claim doesn't belong in a section about the college's academics (Summerdays1 is also insisting that the section be labeled "Programs," a label that is vague and not what is recommended by our advice for college and university articles). Third, the claim that the college "ranks 13th among top U.S. medical schools for graduate success in academic medicine and biomedical research (i.e., awards, publications, grants, and clinical trials)" is vague. When was this ranking assigned? ElKevbo (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13th is from the Academic Medicine article, dated 2015. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goldstein, Matthew J.; Lunn, Mitchell R.; Peng, Lily (May 2015). "Top 25 US Medical Schools by Normalized Composite Score". Academic Medicine. 90 (5): 603–608. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000646. PMID 25607941. S2CID 205437374.
  2. ^ Goldstein, Matthew J.; Lunn, Mitchell R.; Peng, Lily (May 2015). "What Makes a Top Research Medical School? A Call for a New Model to Evaluate Academic Physicians and Medical School Performance". Academic Medicine. 90 (5): 603–608. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000646. ISSN 1040-2446. PMID 25607941.
  3. ^ "Yeshiva University (Einstein)". U.S. News & World Report.
  4. ^ "Einstein Ranks 7th in NIH Awards Per Principal Investigator Among Top U.S. Medical Schools". Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Retrieved 2019-03-01.

Overly detailed and lengthy lede

[edit]

About three weeks ago, I removed many details from the lede of this article using the edit summary "→top: unnecessarily detailed for the lede." Earlier today, HAL333 reverted my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 1246936747 by ElKevbo (talk) Back to the status quo."

@HAL333: Why did you revert my edit with such an unhelpful edit summary? There is nothing sacred about the "status quo." The lede of this article is overly detailed and too long. The details that I removed simply don't belong in the lede: specific rankings of the college, median undergraduate GPA of matriculants, and median MCAT score (presumably of matriculants). This information is undue and not appropriate for the lede of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the article is not too long. The current status quo version falls within the realm of word count dictated by MOS:LEADLENGTH. This length does not violate any policy and it's unfounded to claim so. You cite WP:HIGHEREDREP, but you apparently have not read it. It does not forbid the mention of GPA, MCAT, or specific ranking. In fact, that discussion went so far as to specifically note that there was consensus against the exclusion of rankings. It's intentionally misrepresentative to claim otherwise. The onus is on you to make a policy-based argument against the current status quo lead, and you have failed to do so. ~ HAL333 03:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with the length of the lede but undue emphasis is given to rankings and test scored versus other details about the college. It makes the lede feel promotional, rather than encyclopedic. In addition, it is atypical to include details about the test scores, etc. in the lede of university articles. Therefore, I support the edits made by @ElKevbo. Rublamb (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Rublamb, how do you feel about the removal of class size and NIH funding, as was done in ElKevbo's revision. If the test scores/GPA were removed, is that sufficient? ~ HAL333 17:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would cut the entire 3rd paragraph. NIH is mentioned again the last paragraph in a way that is more informational. I don't think it is need in both places. Rublamb (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]