Talk:California Institute of Integral Studies/Archive 1

I am reverting User:AnjaliGupta's edits, which consist of a series of undocumented, POV, contentious attacks on CIIS. These edits are not in accordance with the Wikipedia manual of style. --goethean ॐ 20:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the "cleanup" template on the article because much of it is in unencyclopædic style, (and it also seems to hide the nature of the institution until some way into the article); if there's a more specific template I should have used, I'm sorry — could someone replace mine? --Phronima 13:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticisms"

The following section was removed due to a total lack of sources. These are all vague and unsubstantiated. If anyone needs to return them, please do so with either citations or at least a more viable source. –Frater5 (talk/con) 04:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of CIIS tend to be directed to the following points:

The Institute's heavy reliance on student tuition [school fees], resulting in relatively high costs which must be borne by students.
A lack of representation by certain U.S. minority groups, possibly related to costs. (CIIS is predominantly white, with a significant East Asian presence as well.)
Poor and/or unresponsive leadership and administration.
Low academic quality on the part of at least some programs and courses, especially when compared to mainstream ones elsewhere. For example, despite the school's early focus on Asian spiritual traditions, CIIS is not now considered one of the better places to study them.
A "consumerist" curriculum model, in which program and course offerings seem to be driven mainly by student demand.
Over-emphasis on subjects which are widely perceived as "flaky." For example, the school offers a Women's Spirituality course entitled "Menstruation: Blood, Bread, and Roses."
A corresponding neglect of mainstream subjects not of interest to the CIIS subculture. For example, despite its spiritual focus, the Institute is unlikely to cover mainstream (non-"mystical") forms of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
A certain disconnect between the standards and methodologies of some CIIS departments, and mainsteam ones elsewhere. For example, several CIIS programs include the name "philosophy" but make no attempt to qualify for recognition by the American Philosophical Association, apparently on the grounds that their conception of "philosophy" is radically different. Some departments appear to exist entirely without reference to a wider academic field to which they might be held accountable.
The difficulty that many CIIS graduates face in finding suitable employment, as compared with their counteparts from other schools.

Reply to above

It is standard practice, in dealing with paranormal topics, to include skeptical criticisms. The article as it stands is much too pro-CIIS. (e.g. the opening paragraph where we learn that CIIS has "rigorous" academic standards! I look forward to seeing evidence for THAT!)

The under-representation of certain U.S. minority groups is simply a statement of fact. If the previous poster works for CIIS (as I suspect), he / she would know very well that this has been a common internal criticism. By the way, the fact that many students are non-white does not contradict this, since many students are East Asian.

CIIS suffers from a widespread perception (among outsiders who know about the school) that it is "flaky" or academically unsound. Whether one agrees with this or not, it is surely important. Its marginal status within U.S. academia is also a matter of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.160.171 (talk • contribs)

The problem has to do with Wikpedia's verifiability policy. The criticisms must not be the observations of the WP editor adding them: they must be criticisms which were actually made and published by someone and the source must be cited. Jefferson Anderson 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice, in dealing with paranormal topics, to include skeptical criticisms. ...CIIS is an accredited school of higher education, not a "paranormal" topic.

I look forward to seeing evidence for THAT!...the evidence is in the accreditation. What is the evidence against?

The under-representation of certain U.S. minority groups is simply a statement of fact. ...Compared to where? The statistics the school gives shows that the CIIS minority population is no less, and in most cases, more than most higher education institutions. If you wish to say otherwise, you will have to provide some data.

CIIS suffers from a widespread perception (among outsiders who know about the school) that it is "flaky" or academically unsound. ...Says who? Maybe the "widespread perception" is itself a perception, not an actual fact. Either way, some kind of source is needed...if two people think it is flaky, then technically "some people" think it...but that doesn't make it a valid criticism. Again, a source is needed representing valid criticism.

Its marginal status within U.S. academia is also a matter of fact. ...What does "marginal" mean? Nowhere in the article does it try to claim to be mainstream. That is too vague...where some people see "marginal" others see "cutting edge" or "topics underrepresented by the mainstream." Spin is not criticism.

Psykhosis 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional accreditation is not evidence of "rigorous" academics but of "acceptable" (perhaps barely) academics--i.e., they do not appear to be engaging in outright fraud. CIIS is absent from...well, as far as I know ALL college rankings (both general and subject-specific), which surely indicates that it is a marginal school with little respect from the people who do those rankings. I'm sure that most academics in related disciplines would give a similar opinion, and discourage their students from choosing CIIS.

I also notice that hardly any of its numerous graduates (though rather more of its instructors) appear to have made their presence felt in fields such as philosophy or religious studies (as would be shown for example, by university hirings and refereed publications). The sole exception would be the controversial field of Trans-Personal Psychology (which skeptics also tend to dismiss as flaky, as they do paranormal subjects in general). I suppose that CIIS graduates are more likely to be found in professional practices of psychology and religion than in the academy.

Come on, we're talking about a school which offered a course called "Menstruation: Blood, Bread, and Roses." Which according to the catalogue, was taught through ritual practice. Even granting CIIS the benefit of every doubt, what possible interpretation would result in this qualifying as legitimate academic work?

Finally, school fees and selectivity are matters of public record, no? Surely a fair overview of CIIS would record that it is expensive and easy to get into. ==== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.166.61 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, your personal opinion in these matters isn't enough to warrant a criticism section. As I originally wrote above, if you can provide verifiable sources for these criticisms, then I will welcome their return. Psykhosis 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I wrote, (a) the assertion that CIIS has "rigorous" academics is the unsupported assertion here, and (b) the issues of fees, course content, and racial breakdown are matters of public record (I got them from their website).

The absence of its graduates from academic positions or publications elsewhere could be demonstrated easily enough, as could the school's absence from academic rankings. Would that do? Also, I note that former professor Charles Tart won a Pigasus award (for pseudo-science). That's easily documented.

I can't help but get the impression that you are really stretching to find things to criticize CIIS about. You are bringing up former professors, past courses, and numbers without context or comparison. To use those to extrapolate global criticisms about CIIS says more about your agenda than anything about CIIS. For example, the course you mention, while it was a single course no longer taught, was created and taught based upon a PhD. dissertation, the teacher being a recognized scholar with several academic recognitions. The fact that you think of such a course as "flaky" is irrelevant and reflective perhaps of misogyny rather than dedication to academic rigor. Further, the "criticisms" you mention, such as "easy" attendance, are actually common with small, private schools...but what makes that bad? Again, you can't extrapolate or invent criticisms...either find actual criticisms that you can cite or stop trying to foist your personal opinions on this article. Thank you. Psykhosis 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]