This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Clinton Adams link that the Peabody Institute's article mentions is a different Clinton Adams. Same name, but links to the wrong guy.
does someone think they can find a better or more pictures of the Peabody than the one that is shown? I'm sure there are more
Are there any criertia for determining who qualifies as a notable faculty member? The current situation just looks increasingly like a list of everyone regardless of notable-ness. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the fact that Peabody discontinued Tori Amos's scholarship isn't the slightest bit notable in 'pop culture', and doesn't deserve such prominent (or perhaps any) notice in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.110.203 ( talk) 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The preparatory accepts children regularly as young as 3. I would suggest that stating a 5 year old was their youngest is incorrect. Moreover, she was not a student at the Institute which grants degrees, but merely at Peabody Preparatory which does not grant degrees. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
199.173.226.229 (
talk)
12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The methods and judgements (= opinions) of the marketing and journalism staffs at the USN&WR --for assigning precise numerical rankings of U.S. colleges and universities is: fatuous and illusory.
Initiated as a marketing and publicity gimmick to pump-up sales of an ailing weekly news mag, the gig has proven very sucessful, by USN&WR's criteria; but, by reducing all data to that which can be forced into numeral ratings --or by ignoring data that doesn't quantify-- it has brought misinformation and confusion to students and their parents. And, the 'whole show' has cheapened the behavior and values of college bureaucrats as they now try to out-guess and out-spin 'the competition' in presenting their colleges annually to all those poseur-judges --note, other mags and other poseurs are jumping into the game-- and then to the public in the 'ratings' game.
Several college administrations have by now recognized the pitfalls and potential for silly or unethical behavior in the spinning of infomation to the public; and they are dropping out of the 'ratings' game.
At WP we would do well to avoid those who preach a gospel of being able to provide numerical ratings to the vast range of qualitative diffences between colleges and universities.-- 71.99.108.84 ( talk) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
whoa! that statement requires substantial backing up, and may STILL be too pov. at least one, and preferably several citations are an absolute must. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dbartramr ( talk) 22:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)dbartramr
I had to remove a faculty member who has transferred to another university. I think perhaps someone should check the faculty listing to make sure it is current. Beggarsbanquet ( talk) 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged this section for removal, as it stands. Wikipedia is not a directory of an educational institution's entire faculty. Only notable faculty meeting Wikipedia's academics notability guideline should be listed here (and linked to their Wikipedia article). JGHowes talk 22:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll remove them as planned. Airplaneman talk 00:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
the complete absence of any description of the programs and degrees available is unimaginable. musicology?composition? conducting? performance? describing the architecture is all very well, but what does the school DO? sheesh! Toyokuni3 ( talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
sings in concerts biannually ...
Is that twice a year? or every other year?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biannually recommends to avoid this expression. -- Bahnmoeller ( talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Clinton Adams link that the Peabody Institute's article mentions is a different Clinton Adams. Same name, but links to the wrong guy.
does someone think they can find a better or more pictures of the Peabody than the one that is shown? I'm sure there are more
Are there any criertia for determining who qualifies as a notable faculty member? The current situation just looks increasingly like a list of everyone regardless of notable-ness. -- Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the fact that Peabody discontinued Tori Amos's scholarship isn't the slightest bit notable in 'pop culture', and doesn't deserve such prominent (or perhaps any) notice in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.110.203 ( talk) 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The preparatory accepts children regularly as young as 3. I would suggest that stating a 5 year old was their youngest is incorrect. Moreover, she was not a student at the Institute which grants degrees, but merely at Peabody Preparatory which does not grant degrees. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
199.173.226.229 (
talk)
12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The methods and judgements (= opinions) of the marketing and journalism staffs at the USN&WR --for assigning precise numerical rankings of U.S. colleges and universities is: fatuous and illusory.
Initiated as a marketing and publicity gimmick to pump-up sales of an ailing weekly news mag, the gig has proven very sucessful, by USN&WR's criteria; but, by reducing all data to that which can be forced into numeral ratings --or by ignoring data that doesn't quantify-- it has brought misinformation and confusion to students and their parents. And, the 'whole show' has cheapened the behavior and values of college bureaucrats as they now try to out-guess and out-spin 'the competition' in presenting their colleges annually to all those poseur-judges --note, other mags and other poseurs are jumping into the game-- and then to the public in the 'ratings' game.
Several college administrations have by now recognized the pitfalls and potential for silly or unethical behavior in the spinning of infomation to the public; and they are dropping out of the 'ratings' game.
At WP we would do well to avoid those who preach a gospel of being able to provide numerical ratings to the vast range of qualitative diffences between colleges and universities.-- 71.99.108.84 ( talk) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
whoa! that statement requires substantial backing up, and may STILL be too pov. at least one, and preferably several citations are an absolute must. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dbartramr ( talk) 22:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)dbartramr
I had to remove a faculty member who has transferred to another university. I think perhaps someone should check the faculty listing to make sure it is current. Beggarsbanquet ( talk) 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged this section for removal, as it stands. Wikipedia is not a directory of an educational institution's entire faculty. Only notable faculty meeting Wikipedia's academics notability guideline should be listed here (and linked to their Wikipedia article). JGHowes talk 22:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll remove them as planned. Airplaneman talk 00:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
the complete absence of any description of the programs and degrees available is unimaginable. musicology?composition? conducting? performance? describing the architecture is all very well, but what does the school DO? sheesh! Toyokuni3 ( talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
sings in concerts biannually ...
Is that twice a year? or every other year?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biannually recommends to avoid this expression. -- Bahnmoeller ( talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)