Jump to content

Talk:Kettering University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Top-Level Picture

The top-level picture isn't showing up when I load this page. Can someone who understands wiki-code fix the problem? Jim Huggins 00:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:Bkonrad backed the picture out, Dr. Huggins. Gookey

The image was deleted because a troll removed the copyright info and then posted it as no copyright. I didn't catch it in time like I did the DX bulldog. If someone has the picture and knows it's copyright status, it needs to be uploaded again. The morgawr 00:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation

Should mention of ABET certification of programs be discussed? However if ABET is mentioned would inclusion of the faculty/student controversy surrounding it be appropriate? Some faculty members and students feel that the hoop jumping involved is distracting from teaching and improving the school and curiculum and feel that our "acredidation" should come from our co-op employers (GMI was never acredidted and was one of the most highly reguarded schools...) Others think it enhances the value of the degree. I'd add a mention but I'm involved so I can't be entirely unbiased.

>Accredidation review for CS degree is now in progress. Internal Conflicts should not be discussed on a page providing general information to the public.

Isn't being ABET accedited a requirement for graduates that are seeking to get their P.E.?

No. You don't need to graduate from an ABET accredited program to get a PE, but it sure helps. Some government engineering jobs are easier to get if you graduate from an ABET accredited program. Mwicks 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You must have accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission to be in business in Michigan. The "hoop jumping" is also required for HLC accreditation, assuming "hoop jumping" means having an ongoing assessment program. General Motors Institute (GMI) was accredited by what's now the HLC in 1962. If you have an assessment program strong enough to to satisfy the HLC, then ABET accreditation doesn't require much additional hoop jumping. Mwicks 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Demographics/Diversity

>>> (US News does not have demographic information available, but was the listed source)

>>Wrong. US News college rankings DOES have demographics listed in the yearly college ranking, which Kettering submits information to.

Yes it does LIST the demographics in the print edition. However they do not appear to be generally AVAILABLE - i.e. you can't get them online or without a subscription. Please let me know if this is incorrect.


>>2/23/05: Since when wikipedia require only information that is referenced online? Are wikipedia users going to need to stop referencing information found in encyclopedias because there isn't an online version of the said encyclopedia? What about more complex, obscure topics that are plentiful in textbooks that people purchase, but do not have a wealth of free websites with that information.

You are wrong. Those US News statistics are readily available. Readily available in the sense that it is widely distributed publication in addition to being available online, and readily available because this information is inexpensive to obtain.

Because you will not (or cannot) spare the $3 to acquire those US News statistics, does not mean you should take it upon yourself to omit a reliable source.

The claim in the reverted version of the demographics page that Kettering is not diverse is false. If anything Kettering is slightly more diverse then the demographics would have us expect in almost every area, Asian students being the exception. Also where does the regional and state by state information come from? The numbers supplied by the admissions department are different than those listed in the article (US News does not have demographic information available, but was the listed source). Numbers provided by the US census:

Sex:

  • Engineering Managers are 94% male
  • Mechanical Engineers are 93.45% male
  • Industrial Engineers are 83.35% male
  • Electrical Engineers are 91.31% male
  • Computer Engineers are 83.67% male

Race:

  • Engineering Managers are 86.51% White, 3.26% Hispanic, 2.17% Black, and 6.54% Asian
  • Mechanical Engineers are 84.11% White, 3.33% Hispanic, 3.49% Black, and 7.49% Asian
  • Industrial Engineers are 84.40% White, 4.11% Hispanic, 4.70% Black, and 7.13% Asian
  • Electrical Engineers are 77.59% White, 4.07% Hispanic, 4.46% Black, and 12.08% Asian
  • Computer Engineers are 69.66% White, 5.21% Hispanic, 5.70% Black, and 16.81% Asian

Largest ME Program?

The comment that Kettering is home to the largest ME program in the country is a myth that has been handed down orally on campus for as long as I've been at Kettering. It was probably true at one time. The data I have says that Georgia Tech has the largest ME program (in terms of number of graduates per year). I'd be interested to know if anybody else has any real data. Georgia Tech leads the pack by a comfortable margin, but there is a cluster of schools who are bunched together near second place. Kettering is in that cluster along with Penn State, Michigan Tech, Purdue, VPI, and U of M. Perhaps the text should be changed to say "one of the largest ME programs" or something similar. Mwicks 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

100% of graduates have a job before graduation?

This is false. I didnt find a job until a couple of months after graduation. I also know for a fact that I am not alone in this regard.

Questionable Neighborhood Edits

Removed link from 2002 again from links (12/12/2006) please state why this information is still valid as it is nearly 5 years old and outdated.

Removed older information about Kettering's surrounding neighborhood. I feel this 2002 information isn't actually accurate to Kettering University of 2006 (almost 2007). Also many of the fires are miles away and are misleading people about the neighborhood around Kettering University, I'd like to see actual up to date information such as redevelopment projects in downtown Flint.

The IP address 192.138.137.237 is styx.kettering.edu, which is the administration and faculty of many at Kettering.edu. Many completely irrelevant statements that could be interpreted as a negative to Kettering.

For example, the link to the surrounding neighborhood is a good link. The picture of the house burning in the distance of Kettering is relevent to the surrounding neighborhood, yet between 5:30pm and 7pm on Oct 30 the caption was edited to say it was a "firework display" before the user deleted the photo alltogether. Same goes for the external links section, with a link to the neighborhood around Kettering. That was deleted entirely without any explanation given. I feel there are relevent links and help add to the information about Kettering and makes for a much better wiki page than a bunch of text. The information has been re-instated.

Response to the Picture of Fire

The picture of the fire demonstrates that the surrounding neighborhood is not safe. There is a new section, discussing Kettering's surrounding neighborhood, and this photograph is now very pertinent. The surrounding neighborhood is a big concern for the majority of the students at Kettering, and this new section, along with the photo demonstrates that.

>Ok, now that there is an explaination for what the picture is for, I can see how this would be pertinant information. Having a picture floating there just didn't make sense to me. 69.92.186.247 22:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The picture of the fire is perfect. Flint is a dump.

Wouldn't the picture be a better fit in the Flint article instead of the Kettering Article? The same could be said of the link to the surrounding neighborhood site link.

The fire picture does not prove that surrounding neighborhood is unsafe. Buildings sometimes burn. It could happen near your location too. Verifiable statistics of numerous fires in the surrounding area, on the other hand, might be interpreted as proof of this point. --TRosenbaum 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TRosenbaum above and have marked the article accordingly as having issues with neutrality and valid facts. 12:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but how does the picture improve this article? If you admit that it could happen near any location, why aren't there pictures of fires in every wikipedia article about a urban location. If the fire didn't happen at Kettering (on the property) it shouldn't be in this article. 198.36.89.4 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Fire

What purpose does the picture of the fire serve? How does it make this article better? As far as I can see, a picture of a fire that happened several years ago and was several blocks away from the university has no relevence to this article. Including it in the middle of the article just makes it confusing. What does this picture have to do with Kettering and why should this picture be part of the article that talks about kettering? 69.92.186.247 02:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to keep reverting the addition of the picture of the fire. User Windezal has not justified the picture and link as relevant to the article. The consensus on this page is that the pictures are relevant to Flint, not Kettering. The link is on the list of Flint external links, and there is no reason to have it posted here. By the way, sign your comments! Bryan Duggan 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality/Verifiability of Surrounding neighborhood Section

The section expresses the "student" POV predominately. There is no substantiation of this information as fact. Perhaps observation and opinion, but not fact. --TRosenbaum 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Morgan Q study is indeed a fact, where Flint was the 3rd most dangerous city in 2005. The CVA does have barbed wire, key card entry, and razor wire. That also is a fact. Most students at Kettering do recognize that the neighborhood is dangerous. Kettering University even sponors a talk for incoming freshmen on how to stay safe, travel in groups, etc. Please discuss.

I agree, but the picture is of a fire near campus, not on campus. It should be in the Flint article, not the Kettering article. We should concentrate on events that happened on campus and cite the statistics Kettering produces annually about crime on campus. We should also link to the Flint article and make sure that the CVA data is shown there. 198.36.89.4 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Surrounding Neighborhood section does not belong in Kettering University article. Section is pure sensationlism and meant to slander a fine institution. Other universities in difficult neighborhoods do not have similar sections. Information about Flint belongs on the Flint page.

This appears to be getting nowhere. Is it time to bring in some help via WP:DR? Jim Huggins 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, maybe we can finally get this resolved. Bryan Duggan 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(RfC) - While the section portrays the University in a positive light (e.g. safe campus located in a shady neighborhood), I agree that the information does not belong in this article. If the university owned the surrounding areas and had a direct ability to control the neighborhoods and did nothing about the dangers then it would be relevant to the article. However, the university has no such control. Therefore, the "Surrounding Neighborhood" section should be removed and placed within the article for the city itself. Malson 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If Windezal vandalizes the article again with irrelevant information, please report him to administrator intervention against vandalism as all of his 31 edits have been to this article. I have warned him for this and he has been asked to first discuss changes on the talk page. Matthew Yeager 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Changes

Added references as NONE were listed. referenced official websites, up to date, as much as possible.
Much was cited / added and only few things were deleted. Among the deleted is much of the "external link" section as it violated Wikipedia's external link policy.
Shortened the opening so summarize the article and moved other information to its needed sections, such as information belonging in the Campus section or the Academic Programs section.
2nd picture of bulldog removed, as repetitive and does not offer any additional information to this article. this change was also discussed with Bryan Duggan.
Notable alumni section was reformatted to sort on name or date of graduation.
New info box added with presidents terms, as no information within the article was provided.
student organization and greek organizations formated to fit better.
thats most of the changes of the material that was previously there, much was added.

thats just a general overview of the changes. i tried to only remove information the violated Wikipedia policy and keep the rest so that nothing was lost. I hope everyone finds this as a great addition. please feel free to add more information to this article and expand some of the subtitles but please continue to reference your information so that we can ensure that only facts enter this article. please check out the article and let me know what you think. if you have any questions, feel free to contact me.Matthew Yeager 05:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

btw its extremely difficult to help out or understand what is going on when people start / respond to messages without signing them. its easy just, just leave ~~~~ after your post and it automatically signs your name for you! thank you for your time, Matthew Yeager 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the new president's timeline:

  • The names of the president's are getting clipped; notably, Dusty Rodes and Bill Cottingham's. Can this be reformatted?
  • Please remove the "KU" logo at the top left corner. The University of Kansas apparently has a trademark on the use of "KU" in higher education; on campus, we've been asked to specifically avoid using that abbreviation.

Jim Huggins 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catches, professor. I'll look into fixing this right away. thank you for your comments. Matthew Yeager 14:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Corrected and saved. Matthew Yeager 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

surrounding neighborhood

section was vandalized today by Dabosstony. it has been reverted and he has been warned. I removed the entire section today. If information is needed on the surrounding neighborhood users may consult the Flint Michigan article. Matthew Yeager 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The ratemyprofessors link was probably removed because it is necessary to register to read most of the reviews. According to the criteria in Wikipedia:External Links, this type of external link should be avoided. Bryan Duggan 05:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Honorary Degree List

User Windezal keeps removing most of the list of honorary degrees from this article. On my talk page he claimed "Readability was lost by listing every minute detail. That alone is reason to remove some of those links." First, they aren't just links, it's a list of people, their companies and the year they were awarded the degree. Additionally, the length of the list didn't impede your ability to read the article, and the information did add to the article. The information may warrant a sub-article and might be represented better as a table, but it shouldn't just be deleted. Furthermore, please discuss deleting large sections of the article in this talk page before deleting them. It is monitored by several users and posts will be responded to. (Also, Windezal sign your posts with ~~~~). Thanks, Bryan Duggan 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kettering University

I completely agree with Bryan Duggan, as stated in Wikipedia External links:

  • Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
  • Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
  • Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazines articles are archived, there is usually a fee for accessing them. A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article.

and arguably

  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

with that said, please leave "ratemyprofessor" out of the Kettering article.

Honorary Degree List

In this instance, i see the point that Windezal wishes to convey, yet his method of going about it was poor. Please bring all major edits to discussion on the talk page, there is only so much that we can assume as good faith. On the other hand, Bryan Duggan's response was excellent and I support his suggestion.

"the information may warrant a sub-article"

This can be seen in other articles such as Yale#Yale_people_of_note which is part of the main Yale article. This section gives a brief overview of the famous and most notable people who have graduated (what Windezal wanted) yet links to the main article, List_of_Yale_University_people. List of Yale University people retains most every significant person with detail (what Bryan Duggan wanted), while not cluttering the main article.

if no one is interested in doing this transition, please let me know as I would be more then happy to.

  • This seems like a reasonable solution. When I get some time/energy/motivation/creativity/caffeine, I'll try to look at some other similar pages (like the Yale pages mentioned above). But if someone gets there first, no big deal ... Jim Huggins 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I created List of Kettering University people, copied both the alumni and honorary degrees there, and edited down the honorary degrees to the biggest names (IMHO). Thoughts? Jim Huggins 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Windezal

if you wish to respond to Windezal here, please also respond on his talk page. Is anyone sure he visits this page at all ? If he doesnt he will have no idea what your responses were.

Yet, that is no excuse for his repeated removal of material and he has been warned about these actions once again.


let me know if you have any questions or suggestions, i'd be happy to help out however i can.
MatthewYeager 01:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Student Organizations

In looking at the list of student organizations, most of those are not listed on the official university page of student organizations. Can someone provide any source that lists these as official university organizations? I just searched for the last one added (Muslim Students Association) and found zero Google hits or any reference on the kettering.edu site. Thanks! Malson 02:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The clubs are listed primarily on an internal internet site called blackboard. However, there is probably some list of clubs somewhere else. I'll try to locate it and list it as a source. Also, the Muslim students association is listed as a club on B section. Bryan Duggan 05:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of Undergraduates

It currently states that there are 2400 undergraduates. I know in B-Section we are around 950, and A-section is traditionally lower. What is the real number? I would think it should should be less than 2000 undergraduates. [[User:]] 11:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I found some internal data (which I can't post). Last year, there were 2300 students. The year before that, there were 2400 students. The three years before that, there were 2500 (or more) students. Given this year's projected enrollments around 2400, that number seems as good as any. Jim Huggins 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

co-op program

shall we consider adding a section specifying the co-op history with Kettering naming a new of the more notable co-op partners and then linking to a page with a full listing ? any thoughts ? MatthewYeager 05:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • My only issue is that, as with the alumni list, the list of co-op employers is ever-changing, and deciding on "notable" is decidedly problematic. There are large firms who hire a small number of employers, and vice versa. (At least the list of alumni is monotonically increasing!) I don't mind the idea, but I'm not sure how it would work in practice. (Which might mean we should just try it anyways ...) Jim Huggins 19:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I was thinking more along the lines of the initial history of the co-op program and kettering (include like the first couple of co-ops available), then if we want to have a list or whatnot, have it based off of statistics that can not be argued and that dont change often (like top 10 kettering co-op employers). I think this way we will only have notable employers, what do you think about this idea ? MatthewYeager 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the problem is that the first co-op employer was, of course, General Motors, being the owner of the place. I suppose you could find the first non-GM co-op employers after the split in 1982, if you had the right resources. I have mixed feelings about the "top-ten employers"; clearly, they are "notable" in that they objectively hire the most students, but it also doesn't necessarily show the diversity of disciplines and employers in the program. Of course, I'm a member of one of the smaller programs, so I've got a huge bias when it comes to this topic. Jim Huggins 12:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

survivekettering.com

I removed the link to survivekettering.com that was added on 10/04/07. The website has little to no content and an online store. I believe the primary purpose of adding the link was to promote the website, not to enhance the article. According to Wp:spam this link is considered a spam link, and I was justified in removing the link from the article. Bryan Duggan 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please leave this link. SurviveKettering.com is a legitimate organization dedicated to helping Kettering students. We provide site content for free and have a web store to help offset costs associated with hosting large amounts of data for the student population. Official release was on October 04, 2007 and site content will increase.

Thank you.

I agree with Bryan Duggan's revert and I have done the same. To understand why this is happening and the reasoning behind it, please read the following articles on Wikipedia policy: Spam, Conflict of interest and External Links. Above all be sure to stop by WP:NPOV. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Please do not re-add this link before discussing it here.MatthewYeager 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a website that is supposed to be student ran, a resource for all students of Kettering University. That is the entirety behind a Wiki. Leave the link, there is no profit gaining strategy for this website.

While that may be true, the purpose of wikipedia is not to promote other websites. Wikipedia is not a collection of links like a web directory. The content of your website could be useful to students, but it doesn't add to the encyclopedia entry for Kettering University. We don't have any issue with the website, we just believe search engines and web directories are a more appropriate place to promote your website. Bryan Duggan 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If that is indeed the case, then why is there a link to the KU Course Scheduler? It doesn't provide encyclopedic content. Either both links belong, or neither belong. Jim Huggins 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a valid point, professor. It is really of no benefit to people outside of kettering and should probably be removed. Maybe we can ask the Kettering webmaster to link to it and remove it from the article. If there aren't other comments in the next few days, I'll remove it. Bryan Duggan 01:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. MatthewYeager 04:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it turns out the link to the KU Course Scheduler is dead ... so I deleted the link. Jim Huggins 17:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki reference errors

I notice that there are two endnotes labeled "1". Can someone who understands wiki syntax look into this? Jim Huggins (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias about location

I notice the intro paragraph contains the sentence "The campus is located along the not so scenic Flint River on property that used to be the main manufacturing location for General Motors" (emphasis mine). Shouldn't this biased statement (in bold) be removed? Vintagejonny (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Kettering Concerns"

I have removed the link to the Kettering University Concerns website. It clearly fails the links to be avoided criteria on several counts; specifically, rules 1 (not a FA-quality resource) and 2 (factually inaccurate material/unverifiable research). Additionally, there seems to be a conflict of interest, as the user adding the link appears affiliated with this site.

If there's a reason I'm missing that this link should remain, please let me know... otherwise, I don't think this one is appropriate. -71.238.57.17 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Kettering University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kettering_University/Archive_1&oldid=1174635422"