Talk:New College of California

Untitled

There is nothing in the history section about the actual history of New College. Who founded New College and why? Also, the article doesn't have NPOV. New College has been rocked with controversy and there is no mention of it. That is going to change, in a neutral manner, of course :-)Berkeleysappho 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

-OK, I've added some history and a Controversy section. I footnoted everything I could. Perhaps I went overboard on the footnotes. However, given the seriousness of the subject matter, I feel it is important to document the facts, and only give the facts.

JPomeroy, why did you remove the history section? Why did you remove the part about the Green MBA Program moving? People looking for the Green MBA program will find this frustrating. Removing the embarassing history of the college is NOT maintaining a neutral point of view. The Controversy section is for the controversy, not the History.Berkeleysappho 08:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you the J Pomeroy who did the New College website? You do realize that it is against Wikipedia rules for a company to hire someone to do its Wikipedia page.Berkeleysappho 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Janet Pomeroy, you haven't responded, so I am restoring the inconvenient truths about New College. Berkeleysappho 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. It's hard to know where to begin here. I removed the following:

"Too many programs have been gutted and too many students and faculty have been alienated and pushed out of the school for various reasons. This is about students getting together to voice their concerns and work on creating a viable, strong and united (as we can be) school and community.

Students organize! Don’t you find it strange that there is no student organization? What should we do about this?

PS. If you have ideas for amendments to this description or would like to work as one of the list moderators, please say so."

These are my first wikipedia edits, and I freely admit to an interest: I am an instructor at the institution. As such, I proceed cautiously. Still, the removed content is so far afield of a NPOV as to leave no doubt in my mind as to the propriety of the edit. This article is the subject of recent, and obvious, changes calculated towards political ends transcendent of the Wikipedia mission. I welcome the insights of more experienced editors, but I think I've started in the right place.IanKelley 02:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither citation #2 nor citation #4 are accurate, in the sense that the linked citation does not say what the content of the article asserts. So, 1) Is there some source for the assertions? And, 2) Is there an argument that these statements are sufficiently NPOV as to warrant inclusion in the article? Since I'm new to this, I'll wait a bit for feedback before proceeding with edits. IanKelley 02:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ian. Welcome to Wikipedia! I changed the language in the paragraph with #2 and #4. The article now says that Leary and New College were asked to leave Santa Clara, and that Leary left New College without training his successor. These are facts. They are a part of history and affect New College to this day.

Regarding the groups and clubs--I took their descriptions from their web pages. They were much too long! The bias belongs to the students, not the article. I put quotes around the descriptions.

Much of the article isn't NPOV. Glowing descriptions of the programs and faculty--it reads like someone working for New College wrote it.

The only purpose of my edits is to put the full facts on Wikipedia, to make the article encyclopedic in keeping with Wikipedia's mission. I'm not here solely to edit New College. Perhaps you would like to try your hand at editing other articles, too. There are literally thousands of articles that need minor line edits, to start with. It's addictive!Berkeleysappho 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Berkeley. Thanks for the advice. Going with the literary maxim to "write what you know," I think I might stick around here awhile.

One thing I notice is that many of the recent edits seem slanted, not towards a "neutral" point of view, but towards an alternate one to the "party line" which perhaps previously dominated the page. I don't agree that matching bias with bias converts an article to a NPOV. Indeed, there is something inherently flawed with a claim like "the only purpose of my edits is to put the 'full facts' on Wikipedia," akin to the person who claims to be "objective" about this or that subject. The beginning point of intellectual rigor, IMO, is the recognition of one's own biases. This is why my opener acknowledged the potential unseen biases which inhere to my editing the article about an institution at which I instruct.

I do not know whether you share these views; I do know that your recent edits seem, to these eyes, to be heavily biased towards some particular agenda unknown to me. Perhaps this is merely an artifact of my own biases. I hope for the insights of other eyes.

One example might be the listing of "groups and clubs." As near as I can tell, six of the seven groups/clubs are of recent vintage, and were created by advocates of particular (and similar) student interests in relation to recent political events at the college. No mention is made by you of the many groups and clubs that have long predated your entries, whose work better (or at least equally) reflects both the spirit and the history of the institution. The LGBT caucus has been active for years on both the Valencia and the Fell street campus. Why no mention? The Law Journal has been in publication for years. Why no mention? What is "neutral" about a list of groups - a half-dozen chosen from thirty or more - which reflect your own political sympathies and interests?

Your claim that your ONLY interest is to make the article more "encyclopedic" strains credulity in light of the content of your edits which seem, to put it charitably, focused in a particular direction. Your perception that New College has been "rocked with controversy" is your own; it may be shared by the members of the groups whom you selectively mention, but it is by no means a universally-held opinion. Many of your edits - and I will be working my way through the article in a more detailed fashion - pretty clearly reflect an agenda. I think more is required of NPOV than a mere smiley-faced tip of the hat to the concept of neutrality, but I will continue to consider these notions while giving you a chance to respond to these concerns, if you wish.IanKelley 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking it from the top: The second sentence of the "history" section, stating that "Father Leary...[was asked] to take the program away for unspecified reasons" is not borne out by the citation, which states the reasons - that the trustees of Santa Clara university "did not support New College's being at their school." That is a direct quote from your citation. Your replacement of that statement with "asked him to take the program away for unspecified reasons" is not only a misstatement of the very source material you cite, it seems an obvious attempt to conflate the Spokane affair with the experience at Santa Clara University. Beyond the obvious bias, suffice to say that the statement is not borne out by the source that it cites.

Next: "Faculty and Administrators were allowed to date, and even sleep with students, a policy which continues to this day." Beyond the grammar issues, the source of your citation does not suggest that this is a "policy" of New College; indeed, to the degree that your source cites a policy, it is a prohibition against any conflict of interest caused by fraternization between employees and students. Why doesn't the article read "New College has an anti-fraternization policy which forbids conflict of interest between employees and students in their social relationships," or something like that? It would be truer to the material which you yourself cite, but would lack the spin suggested by your implication of "policy."

Next: "Father Leary left New College for unspecified reasons." What is your source for this information? It seems another attempt to conflate the "unspecified reasons" of Spokane with those of New College. If you've got information unknown to the rest of us, by all means share it; otherwise, it is just low-level character assassination of a dead man. What, precisely, do the words "for unspecified reasons" add to the equation other than innuendo? What do they teach the reader beyond that fact that the founder of the institution left in 1977?

Hmm, I'm up to "notable alumni." Well, my neutrality might rightly be questioned there, so I'll give it a rest for awhile.IanKelley 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian, I added the groups I am familiar with. Please add the other groups. I don't know their contact info. or URLs. Ian from the Clarion added the Clarion himself. I included information about the Valencia St. campus and Sausalito in History. Do you know when Fell St. was purchased?

The New College fraternization policy allows administrators, faculty and staff to date and sleep with students, which involves an inherent power inequality. How can there NOT be a conflict of interest when the president dates a student? The fraternization policy needs to be stated clearly. New College is unusual in allowing faculty and admin. to sleep with students.

My source for the "unspecified reasons" for Leary leaving New College is Hamilton and other faculty who were there at the time. No one knows why he left. If they do, they aren't saying. It was the same with every college Leary worked at. "Did not support the program being at their school" isn't a reason. Why didn't they support having the program at their school? However, I won't object to changing this language.

I don't think it's possible to assassinate the character of someone the Catholic Church admits was a pedophile priest and abuser of young men. There's no need to gild the lily and there's no need to say anything more about Leary's character than his own Church did.

It might be helpful to you to go to the page history link and view the various changes the New College page has gone through. People keep trying to edit out parts of New College's history. Portions of the page have been flagged as advertising. I personally liked the part that was removed as advertising. New College is part of an important movement in education which should be mentioned. It isn't advertising, in my opinion.Berkeleysappho 02:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Back from a couple hours adding links and fixing poor grammar in the first half of the article. The Law Journal shows up under "New College Today." There's a literary magazine too, that should have its contact info., also Metaformia, the women's spirituality journal, although that isn't a student publication. Maybe publications need their own section?

I changed some of the language you objected to. It would be fine with me if other Wikipedia editors stopped in and looked at the page, experienced Wikipedians with no interest in New College. I am mostly a Wiki gnome.Berkeleysappho 04:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes. I continue to feel that the article needs considerable editorial insight so as to conform to wiki standards, both for POV issues from the one side and advertising issues from the other. Since we are both alums of the institution - and since I teach there - there may be issues in vested interests which cloud our respective editorial judgment. There probably are for me, anyway. I apologize if I took a tone in my last post which failed to assume your good faith. This article should probably be flagged in some fashion so as to bring on board the disinterested editors you reference, and I can perhaps be of greater service in drumming up source material and citation consistent with the wiki policies in these areas. You have been at this somewhat longer than I - how do you propose we proceed?IanKelley 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to flag the article at this point. There are other ways to get more experienced editors. As I said, I'm mainly a gnome, someone who does minor edits for fun. You should see some of the hot and heavy battles on talk pages--like the feminism article. I am too tired to do much right now. You might want to start a user page and talk page for yourself if you have a minute. Have a great weekend.Berkeleysappho 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed the reference to the bar pass rate - listed here as "5%" - for lack of citation, as well as inaccuracy. Where did this number come from? The California Bar site suggests a pass rate for first time takers as between 13% and 25%, depending on the year, for the past five years or so. I know from participating in law school accreditations (beyond New College) that "total" pass rates, i.e. the number of graduates who go on to eventually pass the exam regardless of number of times taken) is a relevant statistic for accreditation purposes; indeed, I believe that different schools fudge their "pass rate" by conflating this statistic with the "first time pass rate," which is of course inevitably lower. Fairly extensive statistics are readily available online; I presume the California Bar itself to be the appropriate source for this information. To the degree that this information is relevant to readers of the article, however, I think it needs to be accurately defined and cited.IanKelley 02:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Instructors at the Law School. I'm told you teach there, so you would know the pass rate. I also know that prospective students want this information. It's a fascinating subject. Wikipedia needs an article on it. You could write it--slowly converting to Wikipedianism!Berkeleysappho 12:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/admissions/Statistics/JULY2006STATS.pdf The pass rate for first timers and repeaters was 13% in July, 2006, placing New College near the bottom of the list. That's a lot better than 5% though.Berkeleysappho 06:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone calling himself or herself Newcollege101 just vandalized the site. Took out the Controversy section and large chunks elsewhere. Also Judy Grahn. Did she suddenly resign? She's still on the official New College website and she's possibly the most prominent faculty member!

It's one thing to add content or make changes; it's another thing to unilaterally remove entire sections. This person did it in such a way that it is very difficult to restore the deleted sections. Again, this is someone with no profile, talk page, or history. Only here to mess up the page, in my opinion.Berkeleysappho 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me there should be a link or disambiguation thingy or something regarding the New College of California lawschool, that is the page at:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College_of_California_School_of_Law Right now there are no hyperlinks between the pages. I'm sorry, I'm not a wiki expert so I don't know how to do that without messing it up (be glad I didn't :-) I do realize the whole thing is in flux at the moment, but still, folks should be able to find what information there is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.228.184 (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Done.Berkeleysappho 08:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cornford's edits

Has the New College hired Adam Cornford to go out and "Spin" their situation? Unfortunately the money could be better spent on the quality of education and staff at that college. Another illustration of the skewed priorities of the college? Is it proper for one in the employ of the college to edit wiki pages?

Absolutely not. It's an inherent conflict of interest. The fact that Mr. Cornford has been hired to do this does not invalidate Wikipedia procedure or policy.

Mr. Cornford, if you're reading this talk page, be aware that your edits may be violating WP:COI due to the fact that you have been hired by an organization to perform them. All of your edits may very well be reverted. I remind you, this is an encyclopedia, not a medium for spin or advertising. --GoodDamon 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes at New College

It is hard to keep up with all the changes at New College. I've done my best. Berkeleysappho (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

==

Things are changing almost by the day at New College. I'm wondering whether it is in line with Wikipedia's encyclopedia mission to even try to keep up with all the frequent changes. If we remove things that no longer apply, and goodness there are so many and more each day, then eventually we lose the history and the article will be unable to describe what a great place New College was before it somehow "lost the recipe".

That's why there is a "History" section. An encyclopedia article about a college that is still in existence should reflect its current state. The article on Oxford, for example, has to include up-to-date information as well as its glory days as an all-male establishment, with bachelor professors only. Berkeleysappho (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New College Edits Page AGAIN!

According to Wikiscanner, the recent edits of the "blasphemous" section on rape were committed by someone using a New College IP. This same IP has edited several times in the past, to remove information. These people have no shame.Berkeleysappho (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A complaint has been submitted to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Editors of this article are invited to join the discussion of possible COI editing of New College of California. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent news

New College of California's future looks grim has some really important information that needs to be added to the article by an editor. Thanks!User:calbear22 (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately some person, most recently with an IP of 76.191.188.190, and formerly using the school administration's computers continues to vandalize the page deleting sections and trying to make it hard to undo his or her actions. We simply depend on readers being sophisticated enough to read the history and so understand that this person is, for whatever reason, just trying to destroy/hide information. Fixing the pages does little good when they are trashed a day later. The article New College of California's future looks grim does not report anything much new, it's been known and posted for weeks and months what a mess the College is in. Holly.