Talk:Schulich School of Business/Archive 1

Welcome visitors following the RFCecon-list link

Fixed RFC template - corrected section title param to match actual section title DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the issue: Should two headers, or even two sub-headers, be used to organise a list, or just one all-in-one header? That is the gist of it. I have to hurry with my post (then pray) because I am not sure about it being edited off this page (like other things I have discussed). Anyhow, here I go...

Existing MBA rankings are presented in many different ways by the various ranking bodies. The rankings can be either for all the schools in the world or for schools within one country. "Non-American" seems to be another popular differentiation. The rankings can be for one-year programmes or two-year ones. Furthermore, according to the ranking bodies themselves, their purpose is either narrow or not. I have put some of these purposes in bold in my example below. Anyhow, one can see that there are lots of combinations and permutations. It is a confusing subject but, if you bear with me, you will see the good effects of my proposed edit.

First of all, I believe that all these MBA programmes could & should go into one big pool. That would be ideal.

Many rankings do approach programmes as a whole. Take the WSJ's rankings as an example of comprehensive rankings. Even though only recruiters are doing the assessment, they are ranking a programme versus all others, even though its methodology is restricted. Note that the WSJ is listed under both headers. See why? Anyhow, the pros and cons of the WSJ methodology, while worthy of discussion, do not change its one-big-pool approach for its inclusion under the header 'Global MBA Rankings'.

Another example is Karan Consulting Ranking (ReportEd MBA ranking). Even though both the ranking body and target audience are Indian, these rankings look at programmes versus each other. This was done according to its criteria and by its methodology. There was nothing written in the report about its methodology being used to find the best schools just for Indians. Wikipedia is for Indians, too, and they just happen to be the people who buy that publication and read those rankings.

Let's focus on and separate the rankings based on their qualities, and not, when it is inconsequential, the rankers or target audience.

Selling magazines, self-promotion, attracting students, and an institution's prestige are the top reasons we go through these ranking exercises every year or so. On the other hand, some ranking bodies confound the task of selecting a school. MBA rankings, such as from the Aspen Institute (AI), limit the scope of their study, and you can read that directly from the Aspen Institute itself. Say, you would like to consider applying to the top-ranked school in the AI's ranking. You would still need to go to other sources for the information you needed to judge the programme. Yes, AI considered schools from all over and without regard to programme length, but it admits it not a comprehensive report.

Still other rankings,... well,... here is a question: Which is better, the third-ranked, one-year, non-US MBA programme or the fifth-ranked, two-year American MBA program? The Forbes rankings do not make answering this question much easier. The Forbes rankings demonstrate a splitting of the one big pool. Are the number of credit hours in two-year MBA programmes that much different from those in a one-year programme? How important is it to separate American programs from, say, French ones? From an applicant's point of view, not very.

Whatever else one might say, there is no denying that one effect of artificially differentiating rankings is to have all the programmes get higher rankings. I say that is cheap. Yet, I believe the Forbes rankings have their place, too. So, too, do the Aspen Institute's. All the rankings deserve a place on MBA programme Wiki-pages. Frankly, I will be happiest to see all of these rankings on a special Wiki-page and OFF the MBA programme Wiki-pages. Then that page could just be linked to. Also, the page itself could add extra information about the methodology and scope of each article. That page already exists but is in need of an overhaul in my view.

So, is the case for two headers clearer? Either completely separate headers or a 1A/1B set up would work fine.

If disagreements were to arise, they would be exceptional. Terrific. That is good for more discussion. If one cannot see a difference between the four criteria of The Economist's rankings (below) versus the single criterion of the Aspen Institute's "alternative" rankings (also below), then good on that person! Write about it. One point or another point will always seem consequential to someone. All the same, exceptional cases are no reason to censure this edit that improves the page.

I have seen (or imagined?) too many Schulich grads and staff, on this page posting self-serving (and unsigned) edits. These people benefit monetarily when the ranking numbers 3, 4 and 8 are mixed in with numbers 11, 24 and 49. This COI issue cannot be overlooked. COI is about the appearance of unfairness more than it is about reality. Using two headers on a MBA programme Wiki-page is just a small improvement but it is an improvement. Get a load of the Yahoos that have posted on the Schulich School of Business article and discussion page (see below) over the past year. This improvement does not help keep self-interested editors in check, but it does establish a distinction that helps this Wiki-page.

All-righty, then. Below is what a sandbox edit of two headers does for the "Rankings" section of Oct.20, 2007:

++++++++++++++++++++++

Global MBA Rankings

--11th in the world overall according to Wall Street Journal 2007. The ranking measures full-time MBA programs from a recruiters' perspective. The ranking specifically measures "the recruiters intention to return and hire a school's graduates over the next two years."

--49th in the 2007 Financial Times MBA rankings, down 31 spots from previous ranking and 30th over a three-year average (2005 - 2007). The ranking measures MBA programs against graduates' current weighted salary, graduates' increase in salary, percentage of graduates employed in three months, and number of faculty publications.

--24th in the world in the 2007 MBA rankings by the Economist Intelligence Unit, up six spots from previous ranking. The ranking measures full-time MBA programs against four criteria: "[opens] new career opportunities," "personal development/educational experience", "increase [in] salary," and "potential to network."

Other MBA Rankings

--4th non-US, in the "non-US, two-year program" category according to Forbes Magazine. The "survey ranks schools based on return on investment--meaning compensation five years after graduation minus tuition and the forgone salary during school"

--3rd in Aspen Institute's Global Rankings in a research survey and "alternative ranking of business schools" that "spotlights innovative full-time MBA programs" leading the way in the integration of issues concerning social and environmental stewardship in to the curriculum. The school ranked 1st in Canada.

--8th in the world for financial services according to Wall Street Journal 2007. The ranking measures full-time MBA programs from a recruiters' perspective. The ranking specifically measures "the recruiters intention to return and hire a school's graduates over the next two years."

++++++++++++++++++++++

This is a public forum and there is a debate going on. All sides should be presented fairly. That includes a reasonably fair presentation of the argument, which you could provide at the top of your post. You did not, so I did. You rightfully got upset when your work was altered by "other editors." But you then destroy others' (my) work. How is that right? I kindly request that you restore my work. As you have said many times on this very page, all view points are important. I'm certain that you meant what you wrote.Dtorgerson 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DTORGERSON, I think you and other users have lots of space to contribute without putting your stuff all over my post. So, I reverted my post to the original, pre-DTORGERSON edit. You often have clear, positive ideas, and I learn a lot from them. I still believe you should stay off my posts. Why? Because I am asking you nicely. This is my polite request for you to consider third parties as people not named Damon Torgerson. You are still operating under the assumption that we are having a debate. Like the tango, that takes two and you are alone. There is no discussion between us now, understand? Later, sure. Now, no. Put all your ideas and kind requests anywhere you like except inside my posts. I think that makes the page harder to read. And I have had enough discussion with you to know that it is not discussion at all. Thanks. COYW 15:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're opinion counts as a "third" opinion, mine does not. Fine. You do not wish to place a neutral statement about the issue. Fine. Where may others, including myself, place our comments in response to your stated position that is acceptable to you. Would you please make a place on the page where you will allow us to contribute? Since others coming to this page will only see your opinion, would you mind placing a link within your section to the section, deemed acceptable to you, for opinions other than yours? You were right, I was wrong: there is no debate.Dtorgerson 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I use a "neutral statement"? This all seems adversarial to me. You write your stuff and I write mine and never the twain shall meet. OK? I repeat, put all your ideas anywhere you like except inside my posts. Instead of gumming up the page with more bickering, earlier tonight, you might have added a link to your own arguments or written them on this page-- anywhere but inside my posts. Gaaaaawd!COYW 02:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per step four in the instructions, you are to present a neutral statement that summarizes the dispute below the template. I am unsure how my request for you to provide said neutral statement may have been misconstrued as adversarial, but it was never intended to be so. I apologize for any miscommunication on my part that may have led to such an assumption. So that others who may visit the page and wish to comment on the dispute may have a neutral starting point upon which to base their comments, would you please present a neutral, unbiased summary of the dispute below the template? I believe a fairly neutral summary exists further down the page, however you may disagree so I invite you to write your own should you feel so inclined. Also, it would be very helpful if you would detail where others, including myself, might post comments to your arguments such that they do not gum up your posts, which might result in you feeling the need to erase such comments to maintain the integrity of your posts. Would it be acceptable to you if posts were placed above your posts, below your posts, or in an entirely different section? If you would prefer an entirely different section, could you please suggest a title that would be acceptable to you? I am sure that you do not want to be forced to erase anyone's posts and I certainly do not wish to have my posts erased so it would benefit everyone, especially me, if you would provide guidelines that are acceptable to you.Dtorgerson (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There exists an opposite opinion." I wrote that in the bot template. I edited the template to make it more even-handed. In my opinion, it was neutral enough. Then, on this page, I wrote just exactly what I wanted about the headings matter. You do that, too. Please. You have been told, many, many times, to write whatever you want, where you want (just do not involve me personally). Now, looking at your legalese post from yesterday shows that you still don't understand. Let me break it down for you again: Write what you want! Write where you want! Just don't write to me, or inside my posts! Write a summary, if that pleases you, and post it anywhere you want. Get a tattoo of it. Since the F#$%^&! bot's time limit has already run out, go back get it again. That would be time better spent than complaining about an expired bot. On another note, I have learned that I cannot erase my own Talk page contributions. I will simply archive it all. I am sure that afficionados of the archives will enjoy the extra material.

COYW and DTORGERSON debate

At the request of another editor, I moved the majority of the debate between COYW and myself to my talk page. The editor suggested that the arguing detracted from any discussion about the article. As one side that helped to "detract," I tend to agree with this view. It will be copied without any edits. If this is unacceptable to anyone, please suggest another alternative. Otherwise, the move will take place one week from this posting.Dtorgerson 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complete, unedited page is located on my talk page.Dtorgerson 15:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What editor suggested that "the arguing detracted from any discussion about the article" One with an anonymous IP address? COYW 00:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone here is anonymous - except for me I guess - I'm not sure what difference an "anonymous IP address" makes. Regardless, I agreed with the poster's argument that our bickering detracted from the argument and made it difficult for others to identify the issues. I also take unqualified responsibility for my part in detracting from the issue. The post is still available, unedited, on my talk page.Dtorgerson (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Discussion

Where are the rankings from famous publications? They are all gone except for two. This page looks better and more organized than the last time I looked. Don't overdo it and bring the yahoos to deface the page. Where is the old talk page?

Whoever wrote about Gareth Morgan should put a link to him. Surely, there are more famous alumni from Schulich. What about that Brenda Stronach (?) politician. Her name used to be on the page.

According to the Belinda Stronach wiki page, she attended York for one year and then dropped out. Since she did not earn a degree, she is not an alumnae.Dtorgerson 02:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the information in point form could be better read on the official site rather than the Wikipedia page, but it is a bit harsh to delete it. It is true info and kind of useful, too. If you felt that was advertising, how did you miss the "tagline"?! I think that is useless information. It is the advertising catchphrase of the school, isn't it? What's more, it is misleading. Do you know if you took away all the Indian and Chinese students, there would not be so many foreign students in their MBA programme? So, how can it be 'global'? I'm sure that I am missing something and there is some explanation, but I haven't heard it. THAT explanation must go on the page. Who is going to justify that tagline?

Also, you are right about filling out the headers. I prefer a "Notable Schulich People" section that combines the alumni & staff (Gareth Morgan?? I remember meeting him and immediately forgot him! Why he is 'famous' should rightly be written up... at least a link to a page of his or about him.). One editor on here now is against having separate headers for comprehensive rankings/reviews and specialised/narrow ones. That is the same editor who wrote up a header for a two-item list. In the end, you have to wait and give people time to follow through.

Talk first and edit second, people! There is no rush.

Most universities in the world do not even have a Wikipage. Most departments/colleges/schools that operate in those "universities certainly do not have their own distinct page. I note that about 60% or so of the top-twenty MBA schools have "Rankings" as a separate header, but if you check out ALL the schools around Schulich's rank and beyond, this percentage goes down precipitously. So, should we have this section at all? I say yes, but we should also help the users along to make sense of these numbers.

This is all to say, too, that York should still have a page and all other universities should follow suite. Different departments can have a page and others can follow suite, as well. I believe all rankings are a dirty business, but I am not one for censorship; they should also be includeded, with some contextual and research methodology info. An entire articlecan be written about the money made from ranking schools! In one sense, rankings are pretty much like a school's tagline: an advertising tool that is best left to the official school page. Some people with agendas or "self-recognition disorder" don't get it and should have their edits scrutinised.

Our Schulich Wikipage can be improved greatly with added context about the rankings and their results, but who is going to do it? That said, we should assume that Wikipedians can figure things out for themselves. So, the editor(s) that are erasing the Talk Page and erasing imperfect rankings (Hey! What ranking is perfect?!)-- especially when the publication states it methodology-- should stop and let Wikipedians decide for themselves. The one erasing the logical & useful separation of comprehensive and narrow rankings should stop and reconsider. This separation adds something just as useful as the (OMG) tagline!!

The one erasing the Talk Page, in particular, is due to explain why!! You really get my goat. Do you burn books as well? Stop it. Let people read the Talk Page. We need every opinion including the ones that are dumb (to you). Newcomers need to get a feeling for what is happening with the encyclopedia, so they need to read more not less. I cannot be arsed to check how other pages do it, but I am so sure non-profane Talk Page entries less than six months old are not erased. COYW 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65.95.116.58>> Forbes' "Top Non-U.S. Two-Year Business Schools" does not show what you've written. Close, but different! Please change it soon. COYW 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DTORGERSON>> I am glad that you have given the person at 65.95.116.58 the chance to revise one edit, but your edit deserves no such nicety. What's more, you may want to fill out the sections you've created before editing my work because it seems "advertisy" to you. COYW 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nth in Canada

Should the page call out the school's rankings relative to Canada? It is a clarification that is always made by the school. Shouldn't the school simply be ranked relative to "all" the other schools in it's class? And by "class" I mean in a taxonomic sense (e.g., business schools).

I personally don't like it because it sounds typically Canadian..."we might not be first in the US but we're first north of Lake Ontario"

I figure the school should simply stand its own but I do have a bias so...thoughts?Dtorgerson 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Should the page call out the school's rankings relative to Canada?" <--Is DTORGERSON's question, but note that he keeps editing out headers for an "MBA Programme Rankings" and a "Other Rankings" section. These headers would serve to sort out the growing list of publications that choose to rank schools. COYW 04:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COYW, you are probably very busy and didn't get a chance to read my position on your statement before typing. It's in the ranking section. Give it a read and let me know your thoughts.Dtorgerson 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES, I have read it. Of course. "...[Y]ou are probably very busy"... Oh! Give me a break! A university ought to be ranked, if it must be ranked, against all other schools. Let's put all the fish in one big pond. This was done under an apples-vs-apples ranking header called "MBA Programme Rankings". BTW, you edited it out.

Still, people want to know what programme is best in Canada or is the greenest or produces the best HR people. Whatever. This is what the "Other Rankings" section was for. BTW, you edited out the "Other Rankings" section, too. Please revert the page to the way it was organised before.

I think that your suggestion of getting third party mediation is an excellent one. Let's do that.Dtorgerson 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, let's separate the rankings and not people. Just because a publication gears its article to its own readership (and why wouldn't it?!) does not necessarily mean that its rankings are either comprehensive or specialised or not useful for anyone. Geez! People can handle different sources, so it should not matter whether a publication has South American, North American or Indian readers. Let's look at the rankings independently. COYW 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Rankings Debate

There is a debate about how to present the rankings in the article. So far, there are two opinions: present the rankings under one heading or present the rankings under more than one heading (specifically, the editor that takes this view feels that two headings is appropriate). We need your help resolving this debate. Please weigh in.

Argument for one rankings section No objective criteria exists to separate rankings into two or more sets. As more than one set cannot be defined objectively, there can only be one set. Therefore, the rankings should be maintained in one set.

Argument for more than one rankings section Some rankings are comprehensive and others are more specialized. In order to enable apples-to-apples comparisons, the rankings should be separated into two sections. Rankings that are comprehensive in nature should be in one section, rankings that are more specialized in nature should be in another section. More background on this argument is located on the editor's talk page.Dtorgerson 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of one rankings section Separation into two (or more) sets would add benefit if a clear criteria for separation could be established. What constitutes a "comprehensive" or "global" ranking? What is the criteria for a "specialized" or "other" ranking? What one reader may consider comprehensive, another may consider specialized. For example, rather than having a Notable People section, the article has Notable Alumni and Notable Faculty. The distinction between the two is objective and simple: persons who are alumni belong in one set and persons who are faculty belong in one set. For the odd case where an alum is also a faculty member, the person can be included in both. Or a third section could be introduced. In either case, the rules are inherently simple and objective. Publishers of rankings - regardless of profit motive - need to differentiate so that their rankings are consumed. By design, it is impossible for an apples-to-apples comparison between rankings. Rankings cannot be separated objectively and therefore belong in one set.Dtorgerson 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote in favor of one rankings section. [EMidvidy] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.103.59 (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format of Rankings

This is a discussion about the content of the section.

What are your thoughts about changing the rankings section to a grid presentation? A few other schools such as Kellogg use the format in their Rankings section. I think the grid does two things well: it conveys the ranking and it conveys an unbiased presentation of the history of the rankings. Bias might be construed in a statement such as "down 31 spots from previous ranking" or "up 31 spots from previous ranking," whereas a simple presentation of numbers allows the reader to draw a conclusion. It also affords easier maintenance. Thoughts?Dtorgerson 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the table copied from Kellogg

	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000	1999	1998	1997	1996	1995	1994	1993	1992	1991	1990	1989	1988
BusinessWeek (MBA)	3	3	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	3	3	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
BusinessWeek (EMBA)			1	1	1	1	1	1
Economist (MBA)	6	6	2	1	1	1
Financial Times (MBA)	19	17	11	11	13	10	12	10	11	13	11	9	8	11	8
Financial Times (EMBA*)			8	2	7
Forbes (MBA)			10	9	11	8	8	7	8	9
US News (MBA)	5	4	4	4	4	5	3	3	4	4	3	4	4	4	3	4	3	4	2	4
US News (EMBA)		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
US News (Part-time)		3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
WSJ (MBA)	12	6	4	7	4	4	5

Thoughts???Dtorgerson 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the School

Most business schools do not have a criticism section. It makes sense for several reasons...a couple follow. Institutions tend to not want to have their dirty laundry aired in public: keep it in the family. Another reason is that criticism often trends toward whining, which doesn't help anyone. In our discussions, COYW raised some fairly valid criticisms of the school.

I'm of two minds. Healthy organizations have valid internal mechanisms for dealing with criticisms and should be given a chance to "right the ship" and some decisions by the school leave me concerned for its health.

Should the school have a "criticism" section and, if so, how do we ensure the criticisms are fair and not of the whining variety? How do we ensure that a criticism is valid? As criticism is usually quite subjective, I'm not sure it's possible.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an alumnus.Dtorgerson 03:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DTORGERSON is an alumnus with an agenda. Should I copy-and-paste it here? COYW 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated I am an alumnus, have always done so, and will continue to do so...copy-and-paste away. Open and full disclosure only adds to the discussion. I am interested to hear what you believe my agenda is.Dtorgerson 13:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is hard to read because of the arguing. Wikipedia already has rules for the TalkPage.

Agreed. I apologize for making it difficult to read. I thought a 'public' forum for the discussion was warranted. As the arguing is between myself and COYW, I can move most of it to my TalkPage if that's alright with everyone.Dtorgerson 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]