Talk:Greene's College Oxford/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Greene's College Oxford. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The history section seems quite biased and lacks any citation. 128.40.71.93 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Advertising and other issues

Most of the Curriculum section is clearly advertising, probably written by an employee.

Some of it sounds wildly unlikely. Not sure how a college eighty miles from the sea offers scuba diving, or how a college located in a valley offers rock climbing. Tutorial colleges tend not to have sporting facilities either - not sure how they offer polo. The college's website makes no mention of 90% of what's listed here.

The History section also sounds like advertising, though in less exaggerated form.

As for the introduction, a lot of it is out of date - saying "recently" about changes or students in 2007, while the Peter Snow quotes are a quarter of a century old. Also, do we really need to know what subjects the college's owners studied at university - how is that relevant to anything (except as more advertising)?89.241.85.216 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Staff and student numbers

It previously said that Greene's has 150 staff and 400 students. However, looking at the college's 2014 ISI report here http://www.educationaloversight.co.uk/schools/8319/ it would be truer to say that it has 16 staff and 36 students, which I've changed it to.

The "119 tutors available for tuition" mentioned in the ISI report are presumably self-employed and so can't be described as "staff" in any reasonable sense, e.g. they probably teach for several different colleges.

The ISI report says the college has 36 full-time students, with 69 on part-time courses or short courses at the time of the inspection - these 69 are presumably already full-time students somewhere else. The source for "400 students" is a page on Greene's own website where it can easily be deduced that the overwhelming majority of the exam candidates were external or private candidates and not Greene's own students.

The previous inflated numbers match the lists of sport, activities, music etc in the Curriculum section. The items in these lists are unsourced and many seem wildly unlikely for a small tutorial college in the centre of Oxford. I propose deleting them unless someone can source them. There had been a link to ISBI but their page about Greene's here is empty of information http://www.isbi.com/school/10066/greene-27s-tutorial-college.php#offer

All this shows a pattern of someone trying to claim the college is far bigger than it really is. Almost all the sources for this page are Greene's own website - very suspicious.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 21:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to tell you that I am going to revert your changes for the following reasons:

1. Even the report you cited stated at the top that the total number of students exceeds 100; so, only citing those 36 students you state would not be correct if even the inspectorate cites a different number for the total amount of students. I quote from the report: "Total number of students 105".

2. Even if a lot of the students are mainly exam takers, this is how student numbers are counted too: via exam entries. Besides, the college seems to offer a lot of short courses as well as online tuition too - obviously they are and have to be counted as students as well. The college would not publish the number of 400 students just like that; thus, students are not only those who study there permanently for years but also the ones who take short or revision courses and those who study online. I mean, look at students studying, for example, via London International Programmes for a distance learning degree; although not physically present, all those students are counted as students or would you say that a distance learning provider like London International Programmes has 0 students according to your logic?

3. Regarding the staff: You say "presumably self-employed"; no, they are not... how should they be if they are tutors for the college students? They will obviously have a contract with the college and the college will be the intermediary between the tutors and the students and the college will get a commission from each individual tutor. As such, the number of staff may be justified.

4. The ISBI page did indeed change but it used to name all of those subjects. In order to get a more current source for the subjects, I included the source where the college publishes the number of 93 subjects. Given this number, it can be well assumed that the majority of the subjects stated are indeed offered. 92.23.28.190 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the same person as the one who wrote the first comment, though my IP address is different for some reason.

First, though I'm not that well versed in Wikipedia, I do know that editors can't just unilaterally revert changes they don't like without some overwhelming reason, like obvious vandalism. Your arguments don't, to be honest, hold water and they don't overturn my arguments for reducing the staff and student numbers by about 90% from what you claim.

(1) The college's most recent (2015) ISI report says its "total number of students" is 57. The link is http://www.educationaloversight.co.uk/schools/8319/ but it already appears on the Wikipedia page as reference no. 12. This in itself should be enough to conclude the debate on student numbers.

It isn't true that student numbers and numbers of people taking exams are the same. To be the student of a school or college, it's necessary to study there, to enroll on program of study. The college's website says "We welcome both internal and external (private) candidates for a range of examinations and tests." http://www.greenes.org.uk/examinations/

Wikipedia defines private exam candidates as: "A private candidate, also known as an external candidate, in the UK examination system is a person who enters an examination but is not enrolled as a student at the centre (school or college) where he or she sits the exam."

How many of the college's exam candidates are private candidates? Well, putting the college website figure of 400 candidates together with the ISI figure of 57 students, then well over 300 of those exam candidates are private candidates.

You seem to want to claim that people who have never studied at a college are nonetheless students of the college. I don't see how that can stack up.

The student number should now be changed to 57 (from 400).

(2) The college's website says "In addition to our own tutoring staff, Greene’s maintains a register of carefully selected tutors" http://www.greenes.org.uk/our-tutors/

The "tutoring staff" who are "our own" will presumably have a full- or part-time contract, whereas those who are just put on a register presumably don't become part of the college's staff.

The college also says "Greene’s tutors are selected through a ten-stage application process. Once we are happy that all these stages have been satisfactorily completed, tutors are then entered onto our register". http://www.greenes.org.uk/our-tutors/tutor-facts/

Again, there's no suggestion that these tutors are members of the staff of the college. You say all the tutors "obviously have a contract with the college", but just saying "obviously" isn't good enough - do you have any evidence they have full- or part-time contracts?

The college's "Staff" page lists 14 people http://www.greenes.org.uk/about-us/oxford-tutorial-staff/

The college also states that "Greene’s has a core of full-time academic and administrative staff supported by a network of carefully selected and trained tutors". http://www.greenes.org.uk/about-us/

There's no getting away from it - those tutors are NOT members of the college's staff. They're "in addition" to the staff, they "support" the staff, they're not named on the college's website on its staff page. It couldn't be any plainer.

Instead, the tutors must be self-employed. They offer services (teaching) to the college which they then invoice it for. Just like the electricians or plumbers who fix problems in the college's buildings.

The best number for staffing figure at the college that I can find is the college's webpage called staff http://www.greenes.org.uk/about-us/oxford-tutorial-staff/ - it should be 14 (not 150).

(3) The college has a page listing the subjects it offers http://www.greenes.org.uk/subject-categories/a/ Many of the academic or language subjects listed in Curriculum aren't on this list, e.g. Photography, Agriculture, Journalism, Czech, Swedish, Welsh etc etc. The list in the subject section needs to be checked against that and cut back.

I haven't added up how many subjects are listed here, but it looks like a lot less than 93. Some subjects are listed several times with slightly altered names, and some are services the college offers rather than subjects in their own right.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 23:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Greene's exam hall" photo

I don't believe that is Greene's Tutorial College's exam hall in the photo, and would like to know where the photo comes from. I couldn't find it on Google.

From its decoration, the room pictured looks like it belongs to Oxford University. This is confirmed by the students, who look too old to be sitting A level exams. Many of the details of the room, like the position of the clock, are in contravention of A level and GCSE exam regulations.

If the photo has been uploaded by the person who took it, that is original research and incompatible with Wikipedia practices. If the photo is in the public domain, please could whoever uploaded show where it comes from?Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Notable alumni" section

This section has been created specifically to state that the college doesn't divulge information about its alumni.

It then mysteriously, vaguely and solemnly refers to "distinguished and prominent careers".

It talks about a "principle of discretion" being followed and a "privacy policy", and gives no source for either of them.

In its current state, this section is junk, and needs either to be deleted or to have some actual sourced information added to it.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Tuition" section

This section is marketing pure and simple - the information is on the college's website. Other independent schools and colleges in Oxfordshire whose Wikipedia pages I've seen don't include this information. Nor should they.

The section should be deleted.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous" section

This section alludes vaguely, mysteriously and solemnly to "a considerable number" (however many that is) of the college's students and tutors participating in "significant sports contests and tournaments" (whatever they are) in "various disciplines". The Olympics is mentioned, along with vague and mysterious "prizes and medals".

The only source for all of this guff is a page on the college's website about one of its tutors rowing in the Oxford-Cambridge boat race. No source for the "considerable number" of sportspeople, no source for the Olympians, no source for the prizes and medals.

This is yet another section in desperate need of an overhaul to add some actual information to back up its claims. Either that, or deletion - having one tutor in half a century row in the university boat race is statistically negligible in Oxford.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

This section claims "the college has been repeatedly criticized that the focus on high academic achievement and, in particular, the school's tutorial method of one-to-one tuition may happen at the cost of students' social activites and relationships; supposedly causing pressure and loneliness among students".

No source for this "criticism" is given, and one needs to be, all the more so as the section is even called "Criticism"! Where is it stated that the college has been criticized for this? It's not enough just to say it has been. If the college has really been "repeatedly criticized" for this, it should be easy enough to find a source somewhere for it.

The only sourced part of the section is the college's response, which is copied and pasted from the college's own website.

In fact, the last 24 functioning references on the page are to the college's own website. This isn't acceptable - Wikipedia is not a marketing platform.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Admission" section

This section quotes the college's website as saying "Greene’s is non-selective and accepts students of all ages and abilities". Wikipedia itself calls a selective school one that "admits students on the basis of some sort of selection criteria, usually academic... The opposite is a comprehensive school, which accepts all students, regardless of aptitude."

On this basis, if Greene's is non-selective, and non-selective means accepting all students regardless of aptitude, then there is no possible way that "admission [to Greene's] remains competitive" by reference to some test.

Wikipedia defines competitive exams as ones where "candidates are ranked according to their grades. If the examination is open for n positions, then the first n candidates in ranks pass, the others are rejected." But Greene's doesn't reject anyone (except presumably on the basis of inability to pay its fees - it's a private college). Its own website says so.

So - entry to it isn't competitive. This needs rewriting.

The section could even be deleted, as the final claim about the college not releasing admissions data isn't informative enough to warrant keeping it.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearing page of comments

To anyone who is thinking of clearing the comments from this page: first please could you explain clearly why you consider them as trolling and worthy of deletion.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have updated my comments with my username. As an infrequent editor, I had used my IP when adding these comments a few days ago.Mifachispa96 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Background:

On 2nd February I added six sections to the talk page, each addressing a different section of the article. I also added to an existing discussion on the talk page about staff and student numbers. As I had mislaid my password, I signed my contributions with my IP address.

On 4th February moonlightwing cleared the entire talk page, giving the explanation: “Cleared Talk Page of troll comments of one and the same IP user.”

Also on 4th February I found my password, logged in, updated all my comments with my username in the place of my IP address, and reverted the cleared page, restoring all the comments. I added this to the talk page: “To anyone who is thinking of clearing the comments from this page: first please could you explain clearly why you consider them as trolling and worthy of deletion.”

An hour later, also on 4th February, moonlightwing again cleared the entire talk page, giving the explanation: “The comments were trolling: The exact same user criticizing each and every single section of the article. And why create everytime a new section on talk page to criticize every single section of article?”

As this discussion has already gone past the three revert rule WP:3RR, I’m now going to put it and the whole article to a third opinion WP:3O.

Addressed to moonlightwing (and others):

To summarize, your reasons for deleting my comments are: that you think they are negative; that there are several of them; and that you think they should be laid out differently. Please could you tell me which of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines you think I’ve infringed?

It is against Wikipedia policy to disparage either the subject of an article or an editor. I have not done that. Instead, I have criticized portions of an article. I repeat: please could you name the policies and guidelines that my comments have broken such that they need deleting?

When editors disagree, Wikipedia says they must focus on content WP:FOC. You haven’t done that at any stage. Whatever their validity, my points are carefully argued and rely on sources. You’ve deleted them for reasons you seem to have invented yourself.

As for the article, my view is that, first, it is a train wreck, for the following reasons:

(a) the vast majority of it is marketing-speak in thin disguise – it breaks WP:NOTADVERTISING (b) the vast majority has only one source, the college’s own website – it breaks WP:THIRDPARTY (c) large parts of it are unsourced – it breaks WP:VERIFY (d) large parts of it use weasel words WP:WEASEL

There is probably more, like original research, but I don’t have time to go any further.

As a new editor – your account was created four minutes before you first deleted my comments - you may not be aware of many of these rules and policies.

Second, as a minimum I would like everything after Campuses in this article deleted for the above reasons, and the article given semi-protected status. Three-quarters of the article seems to have been written by now-banned sockpuppets like Educationalist080 and Magicrudolph, and in general the article seems to attract people who appear to have some kind of interest in its subject.

Third, I would also like my comments on the talk page to stand.Mifachispa96 (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I am declining to provide the requested third opinion and removing the third opinion request because the question appears to involve conduct issues, an allegation of trolling, and third opinion is not for conduct issues. If there is a content issue about the article itself, please state it concisely, and repost it to WP:3O. If the question does involve whether talk page comments were trolling, or whether talk page guidelines were violated by blanking, or any other conduct issue, the venue is WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)