Talk:Schulich School of Business/Archive 1

message: At the request of another editor, I moved the majority of the debate between COYW and myself to my talk page. The editor suggested that the arguing detracted from any discussion about the article. As one side that helped to "detract," I tend to agree with this view. It will be copied without any edits. If this is unacceptable to anyone, please suggest another alternative. Otherwise, the move will take place one week from this posting.Dtorgerson 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What editor suggested that "the arguing detracted from any discussion about the article"  One with an anonymous IP address?    COYW 00:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As everyone here is anonymous - except for me I guess - I'm not sure what difference an "anonymous IP address" makes. Regardless, I agreed with the poster's argument that our bickering detracted from the argument and made it difficult for others to identify the issues. I also take unqualified responsibility for my part in detracting from the issue. The post is still available, unedited, on my talk page.Dtorgerson (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COYW and DTORGERSON debate 

message: Where are the rankings from famous publications?  They are all gone except for two.  This page looks better and more organized than the last time I looked.  Don't overdo it and bring the yahoos to deface the page.  Where is the old talk page?  
Whoever wrote about Gareth Morgan should put a link to him. Surely, there are more famous alumni from Schulich.  What about that Brenda Stronach (?) politician.  Her name used to be on the page.
---------------------
According to the Belinda Stronach wiki page, she attended York for one year and then dropped out. Since she did not earn a degree, she is not an alumnae.Dtorgerson 02:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Discussion 

message: Should the page call out the school's rankings relative to Canada? It is a clarification that is always made by the school. Shouldn't the school simply be ranked relative to "all" the other schools in it's class? And by "class" I mean in a taxonomic sense (e.g., business schools).
I personally don't like it because it sounds typically Canadian..."we might not be first in the US but we're first north of Lake Ontario"
I figure the school should simply stand its own but I do have a bias so...thoughts?Dtorgerson 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nth in Canada 

message: There is a debate about how to present the rankings in the article. So far, there are two opinions: present the rankings under one heading or present the rankings under more than one heading (specifically, the editor that takes this view feels that two headings is appropriate). We need your help resolving this debate. Please weigh in.
Argument for one rankings section
No objective criteria exists to separate rankings into two or more sets. As more than one set cannot be defined objectively, there can only be one set. Therefore, the rankings should be maintained in one set.
Argument for more than one rankings section
Some rankings are comprehensive and others are more specialized. In order to enable apples-to-apples comparisons, the rankings should be separated into two sections. Rankings that are comprehensive in nature should be in one section, rankings that are more specialized in nature should be in another section. More background on this argument is located on the editor's talk page.Dtorgerson 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In favor of one rankings section Separation into two (or more) sets would add benefit if a clear criteria for separation could be established. What constitutes a "comprehensive" or "global" ranking? What is the criteria for a "specialized" or "other" ranking? What one reader may consider comprehensive, another may consider specialized. For example, rather than having a Notable People section, the article has Notable Alumni and Notable Faculty. The distinction between the two is objective and simple: persons who are alumni belong in one set and persons who are faculty belong in one set. For the odd case where an alum is also a faculty member, the person can be included in both. Or a third section could be introduced. In either case, the rules are inherently simple and objective. Publishers of rankings - regardless of profit motive - need to differentiate so that their rankings are consumed. By design, it is impossible for an apples-to-apples comparison between rankings. Rankings cannot be separated objectively and therefore belong in one set.Dtorgerson 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote in favor of one rankings section. [EMidvidy]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.103.59 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings Debate 

message: This is a discussion about the content of the section.
What are your thoughts about changing the rankings section to a grid presentation? A few other schools such as Kellogg use the format in their Rankings section. I think the grid does two things well: it conveys the ranking and it conveys an unbiased presentation of the history of the rankings. Bias might be construed in a statement such as "down 31 spots from previous ranking" or "up 31 spots from previous ranking," whereas a simple presentation of numbers allows the reader to draw a conclusion. It also affords easier maintenance. Thoughts?Dtorgerson 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format of Rankings 

message: Most business schools do not have a criticism section. It makes sense for several reasons...a couple follow. Institutions tend to not want to have their dirty laundry aired in public: keep it in the family. Another reason is that criticism often trends toward whining, which doesn't help anyone. In our discussions, COYW raised some fairly valid criticisms of the school.
I'm of two minds. Healthy organizations have valid internal mechanisms for dealing with criticisms and should be given a chance to "right the ship" and some decisions by the school leave me concerned for its health.
Should the school have a "criticism" section and, if so, how do we ensure the criticisms are fair and not of the whining variety? How do we ensure that a criticism is valid? As criticism is usually quite subjective, I'm not sure it's possible.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am an alumnus.Dtorgerson 03:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the School