Talk:Rochester Institute of Technology/Archives/- June 2008

History

The second paragraph in History really isn't history because its talking about the present. I think it should be redispersed to other sections.

I agree. I would suggest moving it to academics. --Warthog11287 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Parking

I removed a paragraph regarding parking, which was opinionated and not fit for an encyclopedia article. Saying that parking is a problem is an opinion, not a fact. As a 5th year RIT student I have never experienced parking problems on campus. I have no issue with citing the amount of parking fines, etc., but I see no reason to include that information in a general article about the institute. --siliconwafer Nov 30, 2004

I don't know how it is now, but parking used to really suck. S lot, D lot and J lot would fill up right away. When they created U lot, it got a little better for about 2 quarters and then U lot would fill up quickly too. We would have to follow people walking out to their cars to get a spot, as bad as mall parking at Christmas. If you were running low on time before class, you had little choice but to park in a reserved spot or outside of a spot and be subject to the revenue-generating whims of the parking patrol. Maybe its been mitigated since I've been there ('01), but it really was not a good point about living off campus. Regardless, I agree, it has no place in an encyclopaedic article. --ChrisRuvolo 01:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RIT has since expanded many of the parking lots including S lot and D lot and N lot as of last summer. They have removed many of the grass medians to create more spaces. Parking continues to be a problem, but with regular busses from the apartments and dorms, reserve passes, a prohibition on non-commuters parking in most academic lots, and an increase in parking fines, it's not nearly as bad as when I started in 2000. --Mullaneywt July 15, 2005

They've also expanded reserve spots, U lot is entirly reserved, S lot gains a new reserve row every year, and they removed part of a parking lot for a new building. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.21.136.183 (talk • contribs) .

RIT Motto

I wasn't aware that RIT had a motto, but I did a search and found a convocation program (from 2003) which noted the motto. Interesting factoid. --Mattlary 20:05, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

RIT does not encourage that motto strongly. According to President Simone (word of mouth from Reporter Magazine), "it is inappropriate to attempt to sum up the whole university in one sentence. That is like asking someone to summarize the Encyclopedia Brittanica in one sentence. You just can't do it."

Radio

I'm not familiar with the history it, but the RIT-run radio station WITR is not mentioned. Also, WRIT, the former downtown station, should be mentioned as well. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I added this in addition to some other student run stuff. I don't know about WRIT, though you seem to. Why don't you post an updated version of the page? --Mullaneywt 00:58, July 16th, 2006 (UTC)

More bricks than the Great Wall of China?

I noticed this statement: With the expansion of the Math and Sciences Building, R.I.T.'s campus contains more bricks than the Great Wall of China. Could anyone back this up with a link to an official campus publication that asserts this, or some Guinness Book of World Records link or something? I have a hard time believing this fact without proof. --Mark McCartney (talk) 00:04, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

The actual number of bricks in the campus is an administrative secret. A friend of mine and I got together and after examining the size of the buildings and the number of bricks per square foot that RIT is composed of approximately 50 million bricks. Being as I do not know how many bricks there are in the great wall of China, I cannot state that RIT has more bricks than that. However it is a fact that there are a large number of bricks within RIT. --Tavris 03:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. In a recent Ask The President article (Feb 9, 2006) we are told there are 14,673,565 bricks on the campus. This may or may not include the recent construction projects on building 17 (NYSTAR Micro-E addition) and the CBET building. Tvh2k 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, I was THIS close to submitting that very question myself. =) Can we now add back in the bit about RIT having a unique brick color? Maybe even the official brick count. We can cite President Simone. =) Powers 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Simone's response hinges on a technicality: "The Great Wall of China, which extends 4,163 miles, was built by soldiers, prisoners and local people out of earth, stones, wooden frames, bricks, and tiles—so unlike RIT, it is not built entirely of brick." That's about as impressive as saying "RIT has more rebar than the Great Wall of China!" or "RIT has more parking lots than the Great Wall of China!" If it's included, it probably should be labeled as folklore. The fact that Simone so readily encourages the belief gives the appearance that it may be more "good marketing" than anything else. --DanielPenfield 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He never claimed in his response that RIT had more bricks than the Great Wall. You seem to have inferred that he said it does. The fact is, no one knows how many bricks are in the Great Wall. We do know how many bricks are at RIT. We can include that fact, if desired, as well as the fact that RIT's brick color is unique -- which is all I asked for in my comment above. Powers 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no official documentation available to the public, I say that the parts about the brick color, number of bricks, and other undocumented claims are either removed or at least identified as rumors. As it stands now, we're presenting them as fact, when they appear to be fabricated. - CloudedIce 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This site mentions the second most number of bricks, and was obviously written before the the expansion: http://www.rit.edu/~233www/cam_liv/lifestyle/bigevents.html

I wouldn't consider ResLife to be an authoritative source on the subject. They were talking about the Brick City Festival, and my guess is that the reference to the number of brick was a hook to get you interested in the Festival, rather than a fact. If someone can provide more concrete support for or against the rumor that would be great. - CloudedIce 09:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:T-rex has re-added this statement and related sentences, removed by User:Keithn, asserting that it's true. Is there some new source that confirms this? Powers 18:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

RIT's 5 km² has more bricks than a wall that's 6532 km long and several meters tall and wide? The claim is more entertaining than convincing. --DanielPenfield 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Great Wall of China isn't entirely brick. In some spots it's cut stone and in others just wood. Furthermore, in all sections, the interior of the wall is dirt -- the wall isn't solid brick. So we'd need more details on percentages in order to gauge the plausibility.

Also, I've heard the rumor as being that the initial construction of the Henrietta campus involved the largest single shipment of bricks ever recorded. That's not the most famous form of it, of course, but it may be more likely. Powers 20:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] says there is 14,673,565 bricks and that RIT does not make the bricks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Behun (talk • contribs) .

Great, now we just need to ask Dr. Simone to visit China and start counting. He's retiring next year, right? =) Powers ^T 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NJIT vs RIT

So, what's the deal with NJIT (my alma matter) vs RIT? I kept hearing there was beef between the two schools, but nobody ever knew if it was real and if yes, how did it start. Comfirm? Deny? No comment? --Project2501a 3 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

I'm an RIT Alum- I've never even heard of NJIT, so there's no "beef" between the schools that I'm aware of. - Mattlary July 4, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

I also went to RIT, and the only time I ever heard of this was when I talked to some NJIT students at an AeroDesign competition. I hadn't even heard of the school before then. Sorry.

I'm currently a 3rd year student at RIT. I've never heard of a rivalry between the schools, but there may be a rivalry in certain competitions, as mentioned above. --mdd4696 17:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good time to start something... heh heh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 02:16, 24 April 2006 (talk • contribs) 129.21.190.3 (UTC)

Could start with them or MIT could be fun.... :-) Busfault 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Images of the RIT campus

From what I can see, the images contained in the article are all photographing a private property. None of the images of the RIT campus contained in the article were cleared by RIT (or the people in them, as is the case in the quarter mile picture) for use in any publication(s) (including Wikipedia) and are therefore illegal. In accordance with this fact, I am removing the pictures, however I will contact the school's administration with regards to clearing the images so that they may be used. Until then, however, they will be kept in the Wikipedia system but will not be visible within the article itself.

It should be noted that the logo, unlike the images, is legal as it has been cleared by RIT. The images cleared by RIT are available here and according to RIT images not cleared shall not be published in any fashion. Tavris 03:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So.... we can't put up photos we take privately at RIT because it's private property. The ones that were on the page looked familiar, because they were mostly the same ones that were on the RIT website as my room-mate pointed out. Those are no good either. And the pictures in the link Tavris posted above are all that we know to be cleared for use? Most of those aren't even at RIT, and some are even at U of R. Looks like RIT's wikipage is in a predicament: NO IMAGES. -hendrixski july 28

RIT's policy regarding use of pictures of its campus is ridiculous. All of the pictures that are 'cleared' are from the campus as far as I can tell, but most were taken while the current RIT students were still in high school. In any event, there's not a great amount we can do about it except complain to the publications/news office. Tavris

All of the photos on RIT's cleared logos and stock images site are "approved for use in all electronic media by RIT staff, faculty, and students." That site is simply a resource for RIT staff, faculty and students. The site does not make any mention of prohibiting uncleared images from being published by non-affiliated entities. --mdd4696 17:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What about overhead images like those from Terraserver? Those are from the USGS and therefore the federal government. --BrendanRyan 04:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a load of shit. If I take photos on the RIT campus, unless I am doing it as part of my employment, I own the copyright, not RIT. RIT has no authority to tell me what I can do with photos that are in my copyright. Likewise, we must respect their copyright and not use photos that belong to RIT unless they fall under fair use or have a suitable license. The stock images link you give does not include any license. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to contest the idea that since RIT is located on private property that photographs taken there cannot be published. There are no gates or security checkpoints to get on campus. Although it is private property, it is publicly accessible. I don't think it's considered trespassing unless you enter a building or you have been banned from campus. The only time I've seen Campus Safety charge someone with trespassing is when a non-member (someone who's not a student, staff, or faculty) was caught dong something illegal on campus.

I have found several resources regarding the use of photographs of individuals and property. At The Publishing Law Center it says that "Releases are generally not required from people who are identifiable in a photograph of a street or public place, provided that the photograph is reasonably related to the subject matter and the identifiable people are not the focus of the photograph." Also, regarding property, "as long as a photograph of private property is taken while the photographer is on public property or on property that is open to the public then it is permissible to publish that photograph without permission from the owner of the property." The exception to this would be the Sentinel, since it is an artwork. A Paparazzi HowStuffWorks article mentions that "In the United States, photographs that are taken for editorial use in a public place generally enjoy Constitutional protection under the right of free speech." My third resource is from PhotoSecrets. It states that "Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright." But, "the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place."

Finally, I consider using the photographs (with the photographers permission) on Wikipedia Fair Use. They are not being sold or used in any commercial manner. They are being used for reference. I think any outdoor photos (with the exception of the Sentinel) should be replaced. --mdd4696 17:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of fair use is that it is a use without the copyright holder's permission. If you want, give it a try, and be specific about your fair use rationale claims. {{promophoto}} may apply. However, that said, there is no reason some good original GFDL, creative commons or public domain licensed photos can't be taken and uploaded.. especially with the number of photography and computer geeks on campus. Any volunteers? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a photography major, just a random alumnus, but I went and took some pictures yesterday. Uploaded here: commons:User:LtPowers/Gallery. I'll be adding a couple to the article shortly, but I'm open to suggestions. Powers 13:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

File:The Sentinel RIT.JPG

---

The file File:The Sentinel RIT.JPG has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

Here is a free picture that I found in Special:Unusedimages. ~ BigrTex 23:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

SportsZone

Someone needs to mention SportsZone (the tv show)!

School Colors

RIT states that their colors are either Orange and Burnt Sienna or Orange and Burnt Umber. No where that I have seen has RIT officially stated they changed their colors to Orange and Black. I sent an email into Paul Stella to get the official word on this and was told so far "There's been no mandate from administration, but there is an effort underway to place more emphasis on RIT’s traditional colors." I'm waiting on a second email from the art director about this years publications.

RIT's Identity Manual still states that RIT's colors are Orange and Burnt Umber. And yes, Burnt Sienna is not Burnt Umber, technically, but it's much closer than Black.

It is however true that SG held a vote to change the colors and, according to SG, the students voted overwhelmingly for Black, but it should also be noted that the GCCIS (Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences) senator (if not others) protested this vote as being inaccurate. --Mullaneywt

RIT's usage of black was mainly for their athletic use, because some believe that brown (burnt umber) was hard to shop for their uniforms, and that using black and orange matches their mascot, Tigers.

In the 2005-2006 school year, Student Government President James Macchiano made a push throughout the year for the school to use their colors more frequently on campus. Those colors being Orange and Brown (what version of brown is arguable). They have been Orange and Brown since 1956 when RIT changed their mascot from the Techmen to the Tiger. There never was black in the school colors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.190.3 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 April 2006

Technically the school colors are hex #CC6600 and #996600, listed as "RIT Orange" and "RIT Brown"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmarigold (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 November 2006

Infoxbox colors

Since the RIT's Identity Manual has specific values (RGB, Pantone, CMYK, Websafe) to use, I converted the RBG values to HEX and updated the old colors     with the new    . Though I think the official colors are kind of ugly, they match the identity manual and should be preserved. --Dan Leveille^TALK 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The colors I had there previously were from [2]. I don't know why they're different than the ones you found. Powers ^T 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, strange. That is weird. We'll definitely go with those then. Someone changed the brown slightly before I changed it to the version I found, so I'll change it back to the ones listed on the site you found. I was wondering where those colors were found. Thanks. --Dan Leveille^TALK 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain the ones I found are necessarily more correct. I'd actually be inclined to trust the Identity Manual over a web page that says: "The graphic standards and identity manual is currently being updated. But to answer our most common question, the official RIT colors are listed below." I do note that the two sources list the same Pantone number for the orange but different ones for the brown. Perhaps a note to the university may be in order; there's contact info on the link I provided. Powers ^T 04:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Clubs

ITSO and SPARSA need to be incorporated in some way.

It seems to me that the clubs listed in this article were chosen rather arbitrarily. One would think that only the largest or otherwise most relevant clubs should be named. While I am sure the Ham Radio Club is wonderful I don't think it has as many members as, say, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. When I put that on the list a while back it was removed and called "vandalism". What is the policy? For the record, the revision as of 01:42, 16 July 2005 by Mullaneywt was the first to include the list of clubs. It seems that these particular clubs were the ones which happened to be at the forefront of his/her mind at the time and I see no reason why we should use this to establish the RIT Canon of Clubs. Does anyone know if RIT has figures on the size of clubs, etc.? I'm pretty sure SG keeps track of this for funding reasons. If we could get a hold of that it would solve all of our problems. PeterMottola 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true. Even as large as IVCF (Which gets a crazy amount of people for being a Tech school), it's not mentioned. Neither is the Anime Club, nor the presence of substantial amounts of gamers. There's a conspiracy, not big or anything, but there's definetly those in power at RIT who're trying to downplay the Geek culture. --129.21.136.165 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RIT "judged harshly?"

I would like to see a source for the line "RIT continues to be judged harshly by college review periodicals, accreditation committees, and its peers." RIT is ranked as one of the best colleges in the northeast by the Princeton Review and is ranked as the 6th best school in the north to study at for a master's degree by US News and World Report.

Unless someone can back this line up, I'm going to remove it very soon, and refactor the information around it.

The sentence in question is specifically referring to campus life. Note the section it appears under and the context around it. In that respect, the sentence is, to the best of my knowledge, true -- but unfortunately, the data at Princton Review and US News is blocked by subscription requirements. Perhaps the sentence should be amended to "RIT's campus life continues to be..."? I know that's still not sourced but it's clearer, and we can work on finding a source for it. Powers 17:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation committees do not review campus life. At best, the line is sloppy and does not represent what the author is trying to say, and at worse, its false. I get the feeling it's leaning towards the latter. --Keithn 19:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the accreditation organizations. However, RIT is in fact judged harshly on its campus life by students, and thus also by groups like the Princeton review which rely on student ratings to evaluate such things. Powers 21:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RIT is not judged harshly by the Princeton Review. The only negative thing they say about RIT is that it has an ugly campus. In fact, like I said, the Princeton Review calls RIT one of the best schools in the northeast. The fact is, I have seen no college review periodicals or peers that have judged RIT harshly, and nobody has cited any sources. This should be removed very soon unless someone actually presents a source. --Keithn 14:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some sources.

• From the Princeton Review (2003 edition): "'Since RIT is such an intense learning environment, there isn't a lot of time left for extracurricular activities,' says one student. When students do find some time to put their books and laptops away, they 'go to the movies, work out at the gym, or hang out in somebody's room' playing video games. For more lively entertainment, students often 'travel to other schools for parties.' Greek life provides a social outlet for some students, though at least as many despise fraternities and sororities." Hardly a glowing review. Worse is the blurb at the top of the page: "SURVEY SAYS... Very little drug use · Musical organizations aren't popular · Great computer facilities · Student publications are ignored · Popular college radio, Unattractive campus · Campus difficult to get around · Student government is unpopular · Intercollegiate sports are unpopular or nonexistent · Political activism is (almost) nonexistent" Again, aside from WITR, the computer labs, and the level of drug use, all negatives. [3]
• College Prowler says: "If it weren't for athletics, RIT would rank miserably in the school spirit department." Note, however, that it goes on to talk mainly about RIT Hockey and the Corner Crew; the other sports are not even mentioned (and for good reason, considering levels of fan support). [4]
• In 2004, the Princeton Review ranked RIT #10 in the "tiny or unsightly campus" category and #19 in the "least happy students" category (albeit, those were improvements (as in, lower ranks) than the year before). [5]

Is that sufficient?

Powers 19:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No. You are only quoting specific aspects of the articles and not giving them in the context of the entire article. The Princeton Review article on RIT is more positive than negative. RIT is not in the unhappy students category, and MIT ranks worse than RIT on the Campus is Tiny, Unsightly, or Both category. Would you dare go into the MIT article and say that MIT is judged harshly by college review periodicals? Of course not. The quotes saying that the workload is intense and that that gets in the way of your social life, I view that as a positive. If you want to go through 4 years of a drunken haze, go to UMichigan or Penn State. You cannot objectively call that review "harsh" by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, you did not provide a single peer review or accreditation board review (and accreditation boards are not in the business of reviewing a campus's social life, like I said).

--Keithn 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question is specifically referring to campus life --T-rex 23:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

...as I said before.

The "accreditation board" reference "judging harshly" is due to RIT's low retention rate, which is believed by the administration to be directly tied in to the quality of campus life. The sentences in question perhaps are a little unclear, but the gist of it is true. RIT is ranked extremely high for many things, in particular academic reputation. But I have never seen a glowing review of RIT's social life, and its a plain fact that the administration is trying to work on the retention rate.

Look, Keith, you'll not find a much bigger proponent of RIT than I. I think it's one of the best schools in the country; I love the way the campus looks; and I am damn proud to have it as my alma mater. But I do not let that get in the way of seeing how others judge the university.

When I get a chance, I'm going to take a stab at revising the paragraph; I think we can get something that keeps the concerns without overstating them. I hope you'll help by giving your input. Powers 02:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about your feelings about campus, I care that the article is incorrect. First off, the statement that the line in question is based on ("RIT continually suffers from an alarmingly low retention rate") is flat out false. Nationwide, the freshman retention rate is 74% for all schools and 74.9% for private schools (source), far lower than RIT's 88%. If you look at highly selective public schools (schools that have an average incoming SAT score of over 1100) the retention rate is 86.7% - still slightly lower than RIT's (source). How you can blame RIT's "low retention rate" (which are, by all objective measures, high) on "harsh reviews" is beyond me. I am kind of annoyed that I am being accused of pro-RIT bias for trying to remove not only anti-RIT bias, but false statements. We have already established that accreditation boards do not review social life. I also haven't heard of any of RIT's peer universities judging RIT harshly, either. These lines need to go, and the paragraph they are in needs to be reworked. --Keithn 17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You may find the retention rate high, but President Simone disagrees. [6] [7] [8] [9] (look at the bottom of page five) Obviously, in most cases he's talking about 5-year graduation rates, not freshman-to-sophomore rates -- but it's also obviously been a concern for the Institute and Dr. Simone in particular for several years. Powers 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

KeithN, I can't seem to find your source for the 88% rate. I found one article from "Ask Dr. Simone" that stated in the college of engineering, the retention rate for freshman is 89%, but nothing overall at 88%. --69.204.109.242 03:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My source? The source I used was this wikipedia article. The number has been removed by somebody, but you can see it in the page history. --Keithn 22:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember seeing it; I was hoping you had a reference for it, since the article didn't list one. Powers 22:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. --24.95.157.245 16:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It appears that the freshman retention rate is indeed 88%, which would therefore be well above national averages (although how that compares to comparable institutions is unknown). The 5-year-graduation rate, however, is, as Dr. Simone said in one of my links above, much lower than that of competitive universities (even though it's well above the national average). So the article perhaps should be changed to clarify which rate is being focused on as "alarmingly low". Powers 17:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

LtPowers: It is silly to say "Despite a recent push to enhance clubs, the creation of learning communities, special interest group housing, and the implementation of a new student orientation, RIT continues to suffer from a relatively low six-year graduation rate" because the creation of learning communities (which is only for freshman) and the implementation of a new student orientation are less than 6 years old. Also, I'd like to point out, 88% is the highest freshman retention rate RIT has ever had. The six year statistics take... well, six years to catch up to what is really going on in the institute. The same things that bumped up freshman retention rate has not been reflected yet in the long term statistic. Before you edit the paragraph again, let me have a stab at it. --Keithn 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I propose we do. I think the paragraph on retention should be taken out of student life, and added to a new section specifically on retention. The reason is because factors behind the retention rate are complex, and it is misleading to say, in effect, "RIT's campus life sucks, just look at our retention rate." Perhaps suprisingly, after doing a little bit of research on RIT's retention rate, I found that a 1999-2000 retention task force found that one of the biggest factors in the relativley low graduation rate is quarter academic calandar. That task force set three major goals, and one of them was switching to a semester calendar, which RIT was unwilling to do. The statistics also pointed towards course difficulty as a major individual factor for students leaving - the graduation rate for students who received no D or F and did not withdraw from any courses their freshman year is 85%. --Keithn 20:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like good info. I look forward to seeing what you can do with it. My most recent edits were more of a stopgap to get more accurate information and sources in there. Powers 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Aidan

This is pretty funny. I think it should be allowed to stand for as long as no one with a stick in his or her ass notices. This means that copy cats should resist the urge to top it, or else it will come to the notice of someone who will get the page locked, and then the fun will be over. —This unsigned comment was added by 129.21.145.148 (talk • contribs) .

RIT Alma Mater

I found this Alma Mater printed inside the convocation 2005 booklet. Perhaps it should be added to the article?:

Hail, RIT! Together stand:
Creating good with mind and hand;
Inspired to learn 'till life is done,
As teachers, learners, all are one!

With pride in our diversity,
A spirit of community,
We are the men, the women
Of the future, here at RIT!

From RIT, our course is set;
We celebrate a promise kept;
A life, a living you have taught;
Let new horizons now be sought!

The second paragraph/verse seems a bit new-age liberal--perhaps it was added after-the-fact? Tvh2k 03:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe most university articles include the alma mater. Also, RIT's is of farily recent origin, so I don't think any part of it was a later addition. Powers 11:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was also another verse that has been gone for a while... it had to do with "fired brick and evergreen". Maybe check old copies of Techmila.

Dang, you're right. It was there in the mid-90's. Powers 02:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I just remembered. There are five verses to the alma mater. Usually they only sing three (much to the relief of those of us in the band), but I'm sure "fired brick and evergreen" was usually one of them. Powers 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Would the Alma Mater be worthy of its own page? It's a bit interesting because the music itself is original and was written sometime around the turn of the century for the Mechanics Institute. There was also a different alma mater that was used for some time until new lyrics were written for the original one. Mattlary 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merges

Several articles, including Art House, Computer Science House. SPARSA. and Information Technology Student Organization do not merit their own entries. I am going to merge them into this article (and re-redirect Art House) unless someone has compelling reasons why not to do so. RobLinwood 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

not much there to merge, the first two could just be redirects I guess--T-rex 00:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the merges currently proposed should happen. They would seriously clutter this article. Powers 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. They wouldn't flow well, but on the other hand, I'm not sure they justify separate articles. Perhaps a "List of..." article? --maru (talk) contribs 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just leave it the way it is? Are there other Computer Sceience Houses, SPARSAs and ITSOs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.56.108 (talk • contribs)

It's not about confusion with other articles- in such cases our disambiguation systems work just fine. It's about notability. --maru (talk) contribs 03:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of an Encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to if entries that people contribute are going to be marked/considered Not Notable. I could point to hundreds of other articles that are equally as notable as any of the ones you are considering Not Notable above. --Blakis 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The failings of others is no excuse for one to fail. If they really aren't notable, then AFD those articles. I think a "List of" article for those organizations would be notable, but each one by itself may not be. --maru (talk) contribs 05:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a gain to anyone in having a three- or four-line summary of campus organizations (which are only of interest to RIT students) as separate articles in Wikipedia. Surely each of them already have web sites, which are already more well-known and well-maintained than the articles on Wikipedia would ever be. Wikipedia has rules, including the notability guidelines because it is not simply a dump for any sort of information - the web already provides such an outlet anyway. RobLinwood 05:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Three or four lines? Art House has five paragraphs, and SPARSA is a pretty comprehensive article. Computer Science House is short, granted, but an excellent candidate for expansion; they are probably the most well-known RIT organization outside RIT. ITSO is admittedly questionable. However, it is my firm belief that in cases of borderline notability, we should err on the side of keeping (WP is not paper). Powers 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note the article you cited for notability starts off with the following: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians but may not have wide support. " Thus your comment about it being a rule is very misleading. --Blakis 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Blakis, notability is as close to policy a ghost could starve on the difference, especially where it comes to AFD: AFD is (supposed to be, anyway) based entirely on notability. As separate articles, SPARSA, ITOS, and Art House stand no chance in any AFD. CSH I'd give better than even odds would be spared, but more because of the Yahoo! mention than because the article really makes CSH's notability (I know a little about'em, and the article elides the important matters).

And LtPowers, what's wrong with a list? The only information lists distort or destroy are categorizations, and I can't say that that is a valid concern with these articles. Putting them in a list would protect them against deletionists, as well. --maru (talk) contribs 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess i'm not sure what kind of list you're envisioning. I was merely objecting to the merge into this article, not to your suggestion of a list. A list, done properly, might indeed work best, but that's not what was being proposed. My main concern is that some of the articles have good information in them that would either be lost (if the article is deleted without merging) or clutter up this article (if the article is merged). --Powers 17:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just, y'know, a regular old list List of RIT organizations, kinda like List of minor Star Wars characters, to give an example familiar to me. Anyway, if no-one else will, I'll propose the list. (Consider it proposed). --maru (talk) contribs 17:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

McAfee, a leading security vendor mentions SPARSA in a news release (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=104920&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=710712). Hows that for notability. I do not see what the point of creating a huge list of organizations. RIT has some over 100 organizations. Sifting through 100 organizations worth of Wiki on one page is not practical. I disagree with the idea of merging the articles, and I am not really a big fan of the list either. I see your point wiht organizations that have only a paragraph of data. However with articles that have a potential to grow, such as the SPARSA one, I do not see the point of combining them and then having to separate them out again at some point in the future when there is too much information about them. If you are trying to created a unified list of organizations, why not just create a category that displays them all. --Blakis 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A press release. Man, that'd fail even WEB. How does SPARSA have "potential to grow"? --maru (talk) contribs 23:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My question is, not how best to organize 100 articles on RIT student organizations, but why that information belongs in Wikipedia in the first place? Other universities, eg MIT, Cornell, Columbia, etc. do not appear to have individual articles for student organizations. RobLinwood 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. See Tech Model Railroad Club (also an example of a student organization which is absolutely encyclopedic). --maru (talk) contribs 05:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a terrible criteria for judging the vailidity of those articles. Are you saying nobody is allowed to be the first? Just because some of those articles are short now doesn't mean they won't be expanded on. You should know that Wikipedia is never finished. --Keithn 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in expanding them - they are not encyclopedic. I agree that WP is never finished, however I don't think that articles listing when college students legally drink in Canada is really worth finishing. Again, as someone else had mentioned, if these articles were AfD'd they would most likely not stand a chance. Merging them will likely prevent that. RobLinwood 04:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

These articles are limited in scope and should be merged in, IMO. As for MIT's TMRC, it has wider implications than just at MIT. RTFA. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I don't quite understand what you're getting at in your second and third sentences. Are you trying to say that adducing the TMRC as a counterexample to RobLinWood is flawed since it had wider importance and so is not analogous to the organizations under discussion? --maru (talk) contribs 22:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with that - the TMRC was vastly influential (and well-known) well beyond the borders of MIT. It is obviously a special case. RobLinwood 03:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SPARSA is in talks with other colleges that may be setting up sister chapters at colleges such as Purdue and others. Therefore that article also has wider implications than just RIT.--Blakis 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if these clubs did exist at multiple schools, I still don't think they would pass WP:NN. Their scope isn't the issue - its just that they aren't "notable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word. RobLinwood 03:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would provisionally agree about SPARSA and ITSO, but CSH is definitely notable, and Art House is potentially so. Regardless, though, notability is not a WP guideline or policy. =) Powers 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel these articles should be merged, and this whole to merge or not to merge thing has been going on for a while now. I would like to request that someone remove the merge tags unless there are new points to be discussed. --GICodeWarrior 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be put to a vote. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been a week without any new discussion. A vote would be alright, but I don't see anyone voting. I am removing the merge tags for now. If people still want to merge some of the pages, you can put the tags back, but be certain to introduce new points into the discussion or immediatly start a vote. --GICodeWarrior 12:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Lets setup a poll to see where people position themselves. Lets leave voting open for at least a week or two. Please sign your name with ~~~~ under solution you vote for. Feel free to add other options. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll closed. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge all relevant articles into RIT Student Organizations

1. ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Computer Science House into this article

For:

1. T-rex 00:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
2. BennyD 05:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Against:

1. GICodeWarrior 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Blakis 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Powers 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC) -- Verifiable, useful, notable.

Merge Art House into this article

For:

1. --maru (talk) contribs 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
2. --no1lakersfan (talk) contributions 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
3. --T-rex 00:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Powers 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC), but only in the larger context of Special Interest housing, which includes a new Special Interest Housing at RIT article if deemed necessary.

Against:

1. GICodeWarrior 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Blakis 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge SPARSA into this article

For:

1. --maru (talk) contribs 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Against:

1. GICodeWarrior 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Blakis 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
3. --T-rex 02:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
4. --BennyD 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Powers 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC), so long as we can find some reliable sources for notability.

Merge Information Technology Student Organization into this article

For:

1. --maru (talk) contribs 04:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
2. --T-rex 00:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Against:

1. Powers 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC). Nothing there to merge. I'd probably support deletion.

Poll closed

It has been eleven days, I'm closing the poll. I think everyone can agree that there is no consensus. No action to take, except remove the merge tags. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

Please place any further comments here. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Added status quo as an option. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think my preference would be this: keep Computer Science House as a separate, verifiable, encyclopedia article. Art House should be merged (with much reduced content) either into a "Special Interest Housing" section of the RIT article or a new Special Interest Houses at RIT article (title subject to change). SPARSA is borderline; if we can get some more external sources for it, I think it might deserve its own article (due to its apparently first-on-the-scene status as a student organization for computer security after 9/11). Information Technology Student Organization is notable only on-campus and probably doesn't even need mentioning in the RIT article (there's really nothing there to merge). Powers 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Special Interest Houses at RIT might be a decent article, the question is if anyone knows enough history to actually write it? --T-rex 00:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the 'For' and 'Against' distinction. This way there are no assumptions that if you are for only one merge that you are therefore against the others. Also, I would like to ask that those signing here please review each page again before signing as some, specifically Computer Science House, have changed since the discussion began. Thank you. --GICodeWarrior 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be bold, but I added a "Rochester Institute of Technology" catergory to Wikipedia and added most everything related to RIT to it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rochester_Institute_of_Technology], for the time being. --Madmarigold

Infobox fields

I noticed Danlev (talk · contribs) added a custom field of "Mascot" to the RIT infobox. It appears that the infobox already had a custom label using the "free_label" field, namely athletics, and it seems that the new one supercedes the old one. This raises two questions: is it possible to have both listed, and if not, which one should we list? Powers 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

on a related note, T-rex (talk · contribs) has changed the "Mascot" entry from "Spirit" to "Ritchie". "Spirit" was the name of the original live Bengal tiger obtained when the school's athletic nickname changed to "Tigers". "RITchie" is the walkaround costume character. I'm not sure which one applies more accurately. Certainly the tiger depicted in logos and such is not RITchie, but it may not be Spirit, either. Powers 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

History

The second paragraph in History really isn't history because its talking about the present. I think it should be redispersed to other sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yeshalkno (talk • contribs) .

I think it's ok. The present is part of an institution's history; it's the last part. History textbooks usually include a section on the present day at the end. Powers 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

RIT Pride

Why do people always post negative stuff about RIT on this wikipedia entry? There are great facets of the school that is not being presented here. Have more pride for your school (or alma matter if you graduated). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paradiseloste808 (talk • contribs) .

Why did you not sign your talk post? I don't appreciate the aspersion you're casting. If you're trying to insinuate that I have no school pride, you are sorely mistaken, and I would point you toward our policies on civility. I also point you to WP:NPOV, which discusses why there might be negative information included in this article. Powers 20:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I do think that Wikipedia is "unbiased" so people who post negative things are kind of skewing that. Just the facts about RIT show that it's a good school. --Madmarigold

I think Paradiseloste808 was referring to my reversions of his/her removal of the paragraph on RIT's retention rate. Powers ^T 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

College Town

Should there be a section about College Town? There isn't really much information on it, but it may be relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danlev (talk • contribs) .

The article is starting to become a bit large, but I would say a brief mention might be appropriate. Not sure what section, though. Powers ^T 15:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

College Town hasn't broken ground yet. According to an interview done by a Reporter reporter last year, College Town was supposed to be started this past fall and completed in the summer, however this hasn't happened. Possibly we should wait until ground is physically broken before adding a section? Marigold

I have already added a section about college town, stating known facts. --Dan Leveille 11:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Missed that. Looks good! Marigold 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's not called College Town anymore, it's Park Point. --Mrxak 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

College Links in the "Academics" Section

There should be consistency between the links: E. Philip Saunders College of Business B. Thomas Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences Kate Gleason College of Engineering First off since in the first two the name is split linked between the name and the college name, where KGOE is one link. Secondly some of the links point to RIT websites and some to wiki sites with the RIT website aftewards. If there are no objections I think that the wiki links to the persons name,E Phillip Saunders and B. Thomas Golisano, should be removed or moved to a separate link, as the "B. Thomas Golisano College of Computing and Information Science" is the full name of the college. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Busfault (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

"Ask Dr. Simone" gone

As Besselfunctions (talk · contribs) noted with this edit, the Ask Dr. Simone site has been replaced with a message indicating that the site has been removed with Dr. Simone's retirement. Unfortunately, they left us no way to access the valuable information found on that site. In the specific case linked above, I rescued the following text from the Google Cache (this is just an excerpt, but it's the part relevant to the sentence in question):

In terms of your question, the average graduation rate (nationally) is around 50 percent, so we're

definitely better than average. We are also higher than many of the SUNY schools. But the schools we see ourselves as competitive with--in terms of students and faculty--tend to be in the 70-90 percent range.
Rensselaer is around 77 percent, Cornell is 90 percent, Syracuse is 77 percent, MIT in the

low 90's.

The Wayback Machine only has archives for some of the Ask Dr. Simone pages. =(

-- Powers ^T 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Try going here for at least some of the Q&As. I'm gonna mess with the url and see if I can get some more data. Slade24 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's more: July-Dec 2003

The official URL to access this is http://hdl.handle.net/1850/971 ~MDD4696 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Athletics navboxes

The Empire 8 navbox defaults to a collapsed state and I can't get it to default to expanded (the two navboxes are so small that I feel overriding the autocollapse is justified). The AHA navbox is fine because it specifies itself to always be expanded. Powers ^T 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetic Clean-up

The blank space under "History" before the text starts looks awful. I would fix it myself but I don't know how. Can someone fix this? --Keithn 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a blank space. Powers ^T 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Judged harshly line (Again)

This is pertaining to this line:

"RIT's student life and retention rate continue to be judged harshly by college review periodicals, accreditation committees, and its peers."

As far as I know accreditation committees are not concerned with student life and retention rate. They are concerned with the quality of the academic programs. So this line would confuse the reader who is familiar with what accreditation is into thinking perhaps RIT's academic standards are not up to par, which is not true. So the bit on accreditation committees will be removed if nobody can find a source.

Also, I have never seen a source where a "peer" (I'm assuming what is meant is another university, or we'll have to clean it up) critisized RIT. Saying that a university is being criticized by other universities is a pretty big claim to make and needs to be backed up, or this part of the line will be removed as well.

Finally, while I have seen college periodicals that have quotes from students who criticize RIT's student life, I haven't seen the periodical itself criticize RIT's student life. This last point may be nitpicking, but in any case, "judged harshly" is subjective and the way its being used violates WP:NPOV. --Keithn 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you have good points with these changes. Really the only people who criticize RITs student life and retention rate are the students (and possibly a ranking, but I don't know of any that have said this). Next time I see something like that in The Reporter I will try to cite it in here. HebrewHammerTime 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you going to take a stab at revising that part of the article back in February? (Talk:Rochester_Institute_of_Technology#RIT "judged_harshly?") I think we have enough data at least to say that college review periodicals aren't very kind to RIT when it comes to campus life. We could use more data on retention rates, though. Powers ^T 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I never did get around to it. I removed the bit about retention rates from the judged harshly line because none of the listed references (accreditation boards, peers, or review periodicals) judge the retention rate at all. Everything else there about the retention rate is still there. The only people who aren't satisfied with the retention rate that anyone has cited are the RIT higher-ups. --Keithn 04:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated this line to fix the issues I brought up. --Keithn 04:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the number of years is specified as six. Those are six-year graduation rates. The data is claimed to be from the US Department of Education, so it would appear to be verifiable. Powers ^T 15:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alumini

I'm trying to revamp the Alumni section, because it as lacking before. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sscamatt (talk • contribs) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Rochester Institute of Technology alumni category. Please add this category to any alumni! --Dan Leveille (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Several alumni are in Category:Rochester Institute of Technology and should probably be moved. Powers ^T 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Orange Hair

Destler's orange hair incident has been added and removed three times due to non-notablity. The last version is copied here:

Notable Presidential Actions

On January 19, 2008, RIT President Destler dyed half of his hair orange in response to the student attendance for the division 3 men's and women's basketball games. His initial offer stated that should both bleachers be full to capacity for both games, he'd dye his hair orange. While the attendance for the men's basketball game was overwhelming, the women's game was only half full. As a result, during half-time of the men's game, President Destler announced that although his original proposal had not been met, he would compromise by dying half of his hair orange.

If the consensus someday changes, then it could be included, otherwise, it should be left out. Dspark76 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I deleted the popular culture section, because it seems very stupid, unprofessional, and unencyclopedic. --169.229.85.206 (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC) — User:169.229.85.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oh, I was just about to start a section on this; I, too, deleted it yesterday (for your very reasons), but it has crept back in. I'll delete it again and welcome further comments here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The mention in popular culture helps to show RIT's position in the consciousness of society. Kim's comment in the strip shows RIT's reputation. It's an interesting tidbit that livens up the encyclopedia entry. Powers ^T 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LtPower's assesment. However, we should be be careful to avoid wp:trivia... (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture) Dspark76 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see this included as well. I don't see how it's any less professional than the similar (and much longer) section on the Harvard University page. Yale's section has even spawned its own article, Yale in popular culture. Why shouldn't RIT have a section for similar mentions in pop culture? Dstumme (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Imagine Cup

What about adding something about RIT's recent win of the US 2008 Imagine Cup, or of the ImagineRIT festival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.229.120 (talk • contribs)

AAU Membership

In the info box, RIT is listed as having an affiliation with the AAU. While it would be great for this to be true, the AAU's own membership list does now show this is true. (Has RIT recently joined the AAU's ranks?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.229.120 (talk • contribs)

time to start a WikiProject: RIT ?

the RIT page could use some serious expansion, several colleges are missing wiki articles, Imaging science is not even mentioned under notable academic programs, History section still contains more than half contemporary narrative, etc. And the history page was the first comment!! can't believe RIT is still B-class, or "unkown importance"

Does anyone want to be in charge of the WP ? I can contribute to some COE, CIS, and perhaps other topics, but I am not very good with wikiprojects... Anatoly.bourov (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never dealt with WikiProjects, but I'd be willing to help out. I created a proposal - please sign your name if you're interested! -Dan Leveille^TALK 09:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a WikiProject to make improvements to this and related articles. I think the scope is way too narrow, especially given how inactive the New York State WikiProject has been. Powers ^T 13:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, as an alternative, perhaps someone could create User:Danlev/RIT or User:LtPowers/RIT or a task force where we could discuss existing cross-article improvements or new article categories? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A task force of WikiProject Universities might work if they don't mind us coming in. =) We should be using their templates and resources anyway. Anyway, it'd be worth asking. Powers ^T 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)