Talk:University of Michigan/Archive 3

message: These links concerning quantum fabrication and quantum searching might be worth mentioning and/or adding to the main page (comments about technology) or to the engineering page as this is fairly non-trivial stuff. Especially the fabrication: many other groups are working on entanglement (stuff similar to the second link), but actual packaging will be very tough, and this seems like a major step forward:
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r121205b
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r120105b
66.65.76.15 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum well Research

message: I think the paragraph format currently used in the article is basically unreadable. It is not organized alphabetically or by topic, so is kind of confuisng to me. After a quick check of Harvard University, Ohio State University, University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Los Angeles, I see it is uncommon to list them on the same page - usually they have a separate page and only links. Maybe we should follow that format? --Habap 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are good reasons. 1) Listing individual names inspires vandalism and arguments over whom to list, 2) the specific information already exists in another article (the list), 3) it's not an advertisement for the University, it is an encyclopedia entry, 4) it should follow the same format as other university articles and 5) most of us have to look up adumbrations (sketchy outlines). --Habap 20:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I had checked the four I listed above and University of Southern California, all of which followed this format. I assumed that it was a standard. I do think it is a more appropriate form, but stand corrected on the breadth of it's use. --Habap 21:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think that's pretty good. Though are there any famous failures or bad guys for NPOV? :) - Taxman Talk 23:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ted Kaczynski and Jack Kevorkian should suffice. Lovelac7 01:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni List

message: There are a bunch of UM facilities that are not in Ann Arbor. Various health facilites can probably handled in the UM Health System article, but there are places like the Fresh Air Camp, Biological Station, George Reserve and I'm sure others. There's not room for any detail, but are any of these places worth mentioning (in an "off campus" subsections maybe)? —rodii 17:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-campus facilities 

message: -Some mention should be made of U of M's excellent debate team, one of the oldest in the nation and of most high repute. It is also widely known in the academic debate world as a major summer debate institute/facility which has produced most of the best high school debaters in the country. I should know as I went to the Michigan debate camp when I was in high school debate.
-User: Afghan Historian
::While you're probably right on most accounts I do not think it is something that should be in the article. For one, the article does not focus on such groups. Secondly, even when the article does focus on extracurriculars it does so in a very limited manner (see "Groups and Activities"). Maybe a seperate page is warranted about the topic, but there are thousands of extracurricular programs at UM and once one is warranted all are warranted. Finally, I also will note that they do not play a big role on campus, while other groups which get a mention (BAMN, Greek Life, Newspapers) are very active around campus (whether or not you want them to be). See Inter-Collegiate policy debate. NRK 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate Team

message: Someone was nice enough to edit "graduate" to read "undergraduate" with respect to the fact that rankings are believed to be in the top ten.
In fact, the sentence was correct as it was before the edit. From a link provided at the bottom of the wikipedia article for the engineering school, here is UM's self-reported ranking. Anyone who can provide a citation in refutation of these rankings should include the citation. If such a citation can be provided, the person who provides it should feel free to edit in the sentence back to read "undergraduate" rather than "graduate". Edits of this sort should be based on something empirical, not on caprice. Until then, here are the rankings, and "graduate" is the proper word to use in the referenced place in the profile on the main page:
School of Engineering rankings
2005 2005 
Graduate Undergraduate 
Aerospace Engineering 5 3 
Biomedical Engineering 12 8 
Chemical Engineering 12 10 
Civil Engineering 8 8 
Computer Engineering 6 6 
Electrical Engineering 6 5 
Environmental Engineering 8 2* 
Engineering Physics N/A 6* 
Industrial and Operations Engineering 2 2 
Materials Science and Engineering 8 3 
Mechanical Engineering 4 3 
Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences 2 4 
Overall 6 6 
Note: U.S. News does not rate Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences or Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. Rankings are published annually, graduate in the spring and undergraduate in the fall.
*Area of concentration
Other Top 10 Schools at Michigan
College of Pharmacy 
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy 
Law School 
Medical School 
School of Education 
School of Information  
School of Music 
School of Nursing 
School of Public Health 
School of Social Work 
Stephen M. Ross School of Business 
Wikipedia link in main article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_College_of_Engineering
Link on UM website:
http://www.engin.umich.edu/about/rankings.html
66.65.76.15 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rankings

message: Someone entered the following: "Marian Anderson, she was an opra singer". I find no evidence that: 1) she was an astronaut (as entered by our contributor); 2) that she was an "opra" singer; 3) that she was a UM graduate. It appears she was actually an opera singer, and received an honorary degree from UM. The article doesn't carry honorary degrees, and I'm not sure that it should. But someone (pehaps Pentawing) would care to take that under advisement?
66.65.76.15 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: alumni

message: Posted on UM web on 2/17/2006: ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Research expenditures by the University of Michigan reached $778 million in fiscal year 2004-2005, a 3.4 percent increase, and are headed for the $800 million mark in the current fiscal year ending June 30, Stephen Forrest, vice president for research, told the Board of Regents at its monthly meeting Friday.
I've updated the figure used in the article, but not the footnote.
66.65.76.15 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: research figure update

message: I've been enmeshed in this ongoing slow-motion revert war about the Unabomber. Someone (anon, typically in the 68.79.x.x address range) keeps taking him out of the list of notable alumni, and I have been rolling those edits back. But I surrender. I think he's actually one of the more notable UM alumni, and I don't like the idea that someone wants to whitewash UM by taking him out of the list (and I don't actually think he does any damage by being in it). But the anon or anons in question never speak up on the talk page, never write edit summaries, never respond to queries, and it doesn't seem to be an issue for anyone else, so I hereby drop it. But it bugs me. rodii 01:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend the other way around. If the anon never responds to inquiries, nor discusses their reasoning it is appropriate to revert them if you can back up your position, which of course in this case you can. I agree it should be in there. - Taxman Talk 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you're right in principle, but I have been feeling like maybe I'm insisting on it too much in the absence of a demonstrated consensus to keep it. So... can I get an amen or two? rodii 21:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I added Ted Kaczynski back into the list, though how one deals with the anons is another matter. PentawingTalk 19:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. rodii 21:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unabomber 

message: Worthy of an addition?
http://www.harvardindependent.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9862
College Antidote
Explaining the spring-break phenomenon.
3/23/2006
By By Sam Jacoby 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The planes leave with their cargoes pale and pallid, and a week later, touch back down with interiors aglow; brown and red and sun-baked, the spring-breakers return. It’s a rite of passage wrapped up in pop culture; it’s wet t-shirts and mass-promotion; it’s crossing a border and magically being over the drinking age. Spring break is an antidote for college — a release from a winter spent bent over laptops and problem sets, a vent for a semester of stress and overwork. Fair enough, but when did this week-long vacation start becoming such a need? When did school get so difficult that jetting off for postcard beaches and foreign beers become required? 
Brad Nelson of ICPT.com, a student booking agency, notes that the modern spring break did not even exist until the early ’50s, the invention of an ambitious swim coach at the University of Michigan: “He wanted to train early so he took the team down to Florida. Next year, a few girlfriends came down with them. That was about ‘53 or ‘54, and it just got bigger and bigger from there.” With the 1960 release of “Where the Boys Are,” a genre-birthing beach romp about a gaggle of college girls heading down to Florida, “…spring-break population quadrupled,” according to Nelson. Soon, tens of thousands of college students were swarming south, soaking up sun and stripping off tank tops along the way. Now, so ordained by the cultural arbiters at MTV and Girls Gone Wild, spring break is no longer optional. It is a part of the rite of college, an essential part of the experience. How well you do spring break is how well you do college.
66.65.76.15 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh... weird, interesting. My gut reaction is (a) skepticism: needs a better source than some booking agent; (b) this isn't really about University of Michigan as much as it is about Spring break. But it's an interesting piece of trivia. · rodii · 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: One correction: James Dallas Egbert was a Michigan State student! · rodii · 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spring Break

message: I removed this passage fromthe alummni section:The university claims the only alumni association with a chapter on the moon, established in 1971 when the all-UM crew of Apollo 15 placed the UM flag on the moon, along with a charter for the UM Alumni Association moon chapter.Although the Alumni Association claims this is true, a story in today's Michigan Daily debunks it. See here. I'm moving the text here to see if others find the Daily's version persuasive. Frankly, the M-flag-on-the-moon sentence is verging on University PR fluff anyway, IMO. · rodii · 15:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon passage 

message: Are there any sources for the cancer claims that were added on 26 April 06? --Jon Cates 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're toally untrue. Just an anon (or two) vandal being an ass. · rodii · 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute - Residence 

message: none dare comment on the tunnels...
:Every university's got them or the equivalent, and undergraduates who think they're rilly kewl. Unless there's something notable about UM's, I'd say nothing to see here, move along... · rodii · 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  steam tunnels 

message: I just had occasion to read this article for the first time in a while and, I have to say, I found it kind of, well, nauseating. In some sections, almost every sentence is about how UM is the biggest or the best or the first. It's not enough to say UM has such and such a record, we have to add "more than any other Big Ten school" or some such superlative. Try to read the article with a detached eye and see if you agree.
Wikipedia has a guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism that I think we aren't really doing justice to. I wonder if anyone is interested in trying to systematically tone the article down and try to present a little more neutral, balanced, just-the-facts approach. · rodii · 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid academic boosterism 

message: Madonna left her studies after 3 semesters at UoM. Technically she isn't a graduate of UoM. Why is her name listed as a graduate of UoM in Alumni section? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Iggy Pop, she attended but didn't graduate. That makes her oficially an alum (according to UM, anyone who attends for two semesters or something is an alum) but not a graduate. So the answer to your question is "someone made a mistake." · rodii · 21:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So please correct the sentence. The sentence implies that she is a graduate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The odd thing is, by the actual definition of Alumnus, she is one. I had always cringed when the ads during Michigan State athletic events would name Magic Johnson as an Alumnus of MSU, not realizing that it means "former student", not "graduate". The common perception is that it means "graduate", but it doesn't. --Habap 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Explain to me why you didn't just correct it yourself instead of bitching about it, Ambuj. Did I not get to it quickly enough for you? · rodii · 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer is simple and evident in the corrected version. I only knew about Madonna; and not about the status of others mentioned as graduates. Clearly, Iggy Pop and Bill Ayers also fall under the same category as her and I didn't knew about them. My correction would still have been a "wrong verison" as it wouldn't have handled them correctly. I never objected to her being an Alumnus, and my only objection was refering to her as a graduate. Since I wanted an "expert" to fix this issue and probably others if they existed (here they actually did), I used the talk page. And I will use the talk page a 100 times for these kind of corrections as the correction re-affirmed my view of need of expert to do the job. And by the way, where was my tone anywhere near "bitching"? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will revise my assessment to "peremptory." Waiting longer than seven minutes for something to be fixed would be nice. · rodii · 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madonna 

message: The Michigan library is ranked by the Association of Research Libraries (http://www.arl.org/index.html ) along a number of dimensions (acquisitions, volumes held, support staff, budget…). In each such ranking category in the year 2003-2004, the Michigan library system ranks in the top ten. Using a regression equation (page 91 of 142 pages), the UM library is nationally ranked by the ARL in the 8th position.
http://www.arl.org/stats/pubpdf/arlstat04.pdf
66.65.76.15 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Library System 

message: UM Olympians are referred to under sports, and supported via an external link. However, they don't appear to be referenced under "Notable Alumni". Should a section be added to do so?
66.65.76.15 23:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very wary about that, especially if we start adding names for that is an invitation for anyone to add names (even for the most trivial, and in several cases absurd). There is a short mention of UM Olympic medalists, but as long as individual names are not included, I have no problems with mentioning UM Olympians. It would be best to include individual names within the list of UM alumni article, and if that becomes too large to create a separate article listing. PentawingTalk 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UM Olympians 

message: There is a bit of a reversion struggle over Salk v. Sabin in the vaccine annoucement. While it is clear that there are 2 types of underlying virus (dead v. live), this link makes it clear that the annoucement concerned the Salk variant:
http://www.umich.edu/news/MT/05/Fall05/story.html?vaccine3
66.65.76.15 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polio Vaccine

message: After a bit of debate (part two) related to Pennsylvania State University and University of Pennsylvania, any objections to adding a top link to Michigan State University?  And likewise to University of Michigan? Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: This did happen at the University of Pennsylvania page.  Not so much aesthetics, but academic elitism was the problem.  GChriss <always listening><c> 02:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|disambiguation link]] to [[Michigan State University]] 

message: A new wiki table has been added for endowment growth on the endowment page. Michigan ranks first on both the aggregate and exponential return measures for endowment growth over the last 20 years. Might this be added to the article?
:What, the whole table? Surely not. The fact that "Michigan ranks first on both the aggregate and exponential return measures for endowment growth over the last 20 years", with a citation, seems sufficient. · rodii · 21:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endowment Growth

message: http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf
Michigan in 9th position overall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.76.15 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 NACUBO Endowment Survey

message: Rank Order	Name                             	Aggregate Arithmetic Growth  (2006-1986)	Per Annum Exponential Growth  (2006-1986)	Endowment @ 2006  ($000)	Endowment @ 1986  ($000)
1.        	University of Michigan           	2147%                                   	15.56%                                   	$5,652,262              	$251,517
2.        	Duke University                  	1140%                                   	12.59%                                   	$4,497,718              	$362,706
3.        	University of Notre Dame         	1041%                                   	12.17%                                   	$4,436,624              	$388,965
4.        	University of Virginia           	963%                                    	11.82%                                   	$3,618,172              	$340,387
5.        	Yale                             	937%                                    	11.69%                                   	$18,030,600             	$1,739,460
6.        	University of Pennsylvania       	884%                                    	11.43%                                   	$5,313,268              	$540,084
7.        	Stanford                         	837%                                    	11.19%                                   	$14,084,676             	$1,502,583
8.        	M.I.T.                           	761%                                    	10.77%                                   	$8,368,066              	$971,346
9.        	University of Southern California	747%                                    	10.69%                                   	$3,065,935              	$361,784
10.       	Harvard                          	742%                                    	10.65%                                   	$28,915,706             	$3,435,013
11.       	Northwestern                     	625%                                    	9.9%                                     	$5,140,668              	$709,236
12.       	Princeton                        	575%                                    	9.54%                                    	$13,044,900             	$1,934,010
13.       	Vanderbilt                       	560%                                    	9.43%                                    	$2,946,392              	$446,458
14.       	Emory                            	554%                                    	9.39%                                    	$4,870,019              	$745,188
15.       	Dartmouth                        	547%                                    	9.34%                                    	$3,092,100              	$477,774
16.       	Cornell                          	541%                                    	9.29%                                    	$4,321,199              	$673,848
17.       	University of Chicago            	506%                                    	9.01%                                    	$4,867,03               	$802,500
18.       	Rice                             	427%                                    	8.31%                                    	$3,986,664              	$755,782
19.       	University of Texas              	423%                                    	8.27%                                    	$13,234,848             	$2,530,730
20.       	Case Western Reserve             	420%                                    	8.25%                                    	$1,598,566              	$307,250
21.       	Texas A&M System                 	408%                                    	8.13%                                    	$5,642,978              	$1,110,440
22.       	Washington University            	389%                                    	7.93%                                    	$4,684,737              	$958,461
23.       	Johns Hopkins                    	378%                                    	7.82%                                    	$2,350,749              	$491,543
24.       	Columbia                         	369%                                    	7.72%                                    	$5,937,814              	$1,266,640
Wolvve85 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Institutions by 20 year endowment growth

message: Given the repeated vandalism of this section, it is not clear to me that these figures are supported by the citations given: "18% of the university's incoming class of 2006 earned a high school GPA of 4.0, while 22% earned a GPA of 3.9 or higher.[5] [6]". It seems unlikely that a 18% of the students would have a perfect GPA, but that a sweep of the distribution down to 3.9 would only yield an additional 4%, especially given an average of 3.72 for the entire class. Given 18% at 4.0, one would expect a figure closer to 29% for the 3.92 cohort, or a cumulative total of 47% for the cohort above 3.9. Unless the edit is intended to suggest 22% at 3.9, and 18% at 4.0, for a total cohort of 40% above 3.9? Either way, the figures are suspect.
66.65.76.15 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic Profile

message: Extensive vandalism to UM article as of 10/5/2006 by user Tommerrigan
The source is no longer editable, might someone repair?
Presumably user Tommerrigan is either a Notre Dame “graduate”, or a provocateur: “Michigan's stated academic goal is to become the "Notre Dame of the Midwest," as it trails its archrival in nearly all academic and athletic categories.”
Wolve85 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensive vandalism to UM article

message: I would guess that the following proposition would be unsurprising and uncontroversial among people who have taken a moment (or more) to inform themselves upon this question:
* Among the dozen-or-so universities called "the U of M" (see the U of M disambiguation page) the one that most extensively and frequently uses that abbreviation in something like an official way, as a trademark, is the University of Minnesota;
* The University of Michigan is (perhaps a distant) second in such ranking;
* Whichever is in third place is far behind Michigan.
Note that I said "I would guess...".  My research is less than thorough and so I reserve the right to alter my assessment as I learn more.
However, I am amazed that the immense volume of stupid bigotry on this point incessantly pouring out of Ann Arbor.  The University of Michigan is (in all other respects) a excellent and admirable institution.  It seems as if most people affiliated with the University of Michigan not only feel strongly that only that university has any legitimate claim to that abbreviation, and not only are amazingly ignorant of the facts of the matter, but also (and this is why I insist on calling it bigotry) are given to making strident and inexplicably belligerent claims about other universities, of which they are ignorant, to the effect that those other universities either do not use the term, or do not use it officially, or do not use it as extensively or as frequently, as does the University of Michigan, without having given a tenth-of-a-second's thought to the question.  Many of these people are highly intelligent, and become profoundly stupid only when this particular question is raised.  It's amazing.  I'd understand it if it were just cheerleading for the home team or such.  But one such person, having pointed out that the University of Michigan claims "U of M" as a registered trademark, went on to tell me in sneering tones that other universities that may be referred to in that way do not use that abbreviation officially, and then when I contradicted him and questioned his qualifications to say anything about those OTHER universities, insisted with great adamance that ALL HE HAD SAID was that the University of Michigan has registered "U of M" as a trademark.
I don't think people from the University of Minnesota reciprocate this attitude (but I'm the first to admit it may be only that I haven't encountered it, so tell me if I'm wrong).
What causes this bizarre irrationality? Michael Hardy 04:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has less to do with bigotry and more to do with the occasional semi-drunk undergraduate with too much time on their hands, of which there are many.  A lot of universities can be called 'U of M'.  Revert, rewrite, and don't let it get to you too much.  As it stands, the disambig looks fine to me. Fedallah 05:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, when I say "U of M", I always mean Michigan, but that's probably because I grew up there. I now live near the University of Maryland, which I have never heard referred to as "U of M". Disambiguation pages are intended to help people, so his drunken arrogance is pointless. --Habap 15:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the drunkeness is really a moot point.  What you need to do is establish consensus and then treat unjustified alteration of the disambig like any other annoyance.  The thing is, it's not that big a deal - there are plenty of universities with the 'University of M____' name.  Put them all on the disambig, and hold to the policy that any university with that naming pattern be included.  It's a far more precise line of reasoning, it's simple, logical and difficult to argue against, and anyone who gets offended over it should go get a life anyway.  Far better than fretting over regional differences in use of the term.  I think you and I are in complete agreement here, but again, consensus needs to be established on that point.  That way, those who think their university is somehow more deserving of the title 'U of M' can be treated like any other vandal if they repeatedly modify the page along those lines.  Fedallah 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think ambiguity is that much of a problem when there's sufficient context.  You may call your friend "Bill", while many other people also bear that name, and there's no problem.  But if he claims to be the only person who can legitimately be called that, or the only person who was ever called that, then he's wrong. Michael Hardy 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which universities are most often called the [[U of M]]? 

message: As this is still 2006, I don't see how the school (or anything in existence for that matter) could have been ranked anything in that year. Either that's vandalism like other parts of the article or I am not understanding something relating to time traveling journalism.
White Lightning 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is the ranking from the 2007 edition of U.S. News & World Report.  They always release the next year's issue around September of the previous year to make it sound newer, I guess.  I have clarified this in the lead. -Bluedog423Talk 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 

message: Does anyone know why the article was removed? Thanks. - IstvanWolf 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every Three Weekly 

message: I've updated the figure in the article, but haven't updated the link/reference.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=3116
U-M Research reaches $797 million in FY 2006
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Research expenditures by the University of Michigan reached $797 million in fiscal year 2006, a 2.4 percent increase, Stephen Forrest, vice president for research, told the Board of Regents at its monthly meeting Thursday.
The greatest portion of research is sponsored by the federal government, a total of $585 million, which accounts for 73.4 percent of the total. Additional funding sources include the University, industry, state and local governments, and foundations.
66.65.76.15 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Research Figures 

message: The United States National Research Council puts out a ranking of United States graduate programs about every 10 years, although the time elapsed between each new ranking has exceeded 10 years. The next rankings are expected to be published in September 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council_Rankings
In the 1995 ranking, Michigan ranked 3rd nationally behind Stanford and Berkeley only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.76.15 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Research Council

message: I find a reference to something called "NACUBO" in very very many Wikipedia articles on universities, and nothing on Wikipedia to indicate what the acronym means.  It is as if it is taken to be so universally known that no article is needed.  Never having heard of it before, but wondering whether I should have, I tried google, and it seems to refer to the National Association of College and University Business Officers, so I thought "No wonder I've never heard of it; there's no reason why I would have."  So could whoever added these innumerable references to NACUBO take the obvious next step?  I've added a suitable red link to the article (although that link should redirect to the full title whose red link I've put in this present paragraph). Michael Hardy 20:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NACUBO?