Talk:University of Toronto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Crest

Has the UofT given permission to use their crest on Wikipedia? I don't see any such permission on the image information page. RedWolf 03:23, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Don't tempt me to upload photos of U of T in its stead... ;) Krupo 07:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I rather think a few photos of U of T might make a nice addition to the article. Spinboy 18:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stephen Leacock

I've pulled Stephen Leacock from the list of grads and faculty, because he didn't graduate (he spent only a year at U of T due to financial trouble) and taught at McGill. --TenOfAllTrades 05:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WARNING

There's one individual who regularly vandalizes articles concerning the University of Toronto, Mcgill, and U of Western Ontario. Initially, he deleted large amount of content. This action was noticed by Wikipedia users and subsequently, he tried to vandalize by changing referenced content and inserting invalid and non-referenced content.

Please be aware of this individual and try to protect our wikipedia as many wikipedia users are already consistently reverting his/her vandalism. Thank you.

To date, he has been using the following IPs:

163.1.217.91 163.1.216.155 163.1.216.156 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.191.200.1 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 July 2005.

PLEASE post your suggestions and we will have a fair discussion on this page. As long as the content is backed up by appropriate references, you can make a case for changing the content. But please, have your suggestions discussed and agreed on this page before changing the article's content. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.191.200.1 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2005.

I don't know when this comment was posted, but I just changed a bunch of the links in the "See Also" section. I don't think anybody will have a problem with the changes, there were a couple random links to the Forestry Students Association and its intramural hockey team, that were clearly vanity links. Chartreuse green 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for adding the dates to the unsigned comments! Chartreuse green 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV usefullness of magazine rankings

i'd like to make a sticking point about the mention in the article about it being ranked among the top schools in mcleans magazine. While it is a large and somewhat reputable canadian magazine. There is nonetheless some controversey surrounding the methodology of their ranking system. Besides the point is that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia arcticle, and encylopedia articles are supposed to list actual facts about the university, not what a magazine says about it. Leave the P.R materials for the schools website, there's no place for it here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.8.117 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 July 2005.—The preceding unsigned comment was modified by 70.27.48.132 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 July 2005.—The preceding unsigned comment was modified by 130.63.148.166 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 July 2005.

I've checked all the references on the article and the written statements are all valid. If you look at other university articles such as Harvard, Mcgill, and others, you will see that ranking information by different sources are cited as well. I don't see why wikipedia cannot report these ranking information as well as opinions by these different sources. Many more university articles will have to be corrected if you consider this NPOV. When something is asserted consistenly by respectable sources such as the Macleans and Scientist magazines, I would consider that "widely acknowledged". As long as the sources are referenced, as in this article, the reader is well informed.

Mindcraft—The preceding partially signed comment was added by Mindcraft (talk • contribs) 03:52, 31 July 2005.

my main issue is just that Mcleans magazine is not really that scientific a source, and the language in the article referencing said magazine just seems a little biased in my view—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.48.132 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 31 July 2005.

I see your point, but if you read other university profiles in the Macleans magazine (they have a profile for each canadian university in the magazine that you can buy from the bookstore), the tone is similar and I believe that is just a way authors make the article interesting. In canada, macleans is the most in-depth ranking and most respected source. Virtually every school and recruiter has that magazine for reference. One of the reasons why it is so widely accepted is its objectivity and all subjective aspects such as reputation are from feedbacks from company executives, recruiters, school principals, and academic advisors. FYI, it is so widely adopted that even universities that are rather poorly ranked publish their ranking, usually also highlithing some categories where they did relatively well or improved. Mindcraft—The preceding partially signed comment was added by 69.156.36.39 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 July 2005.

The only place where UoT ranks high is in the medical doctorial category, it's ranked pretty low for everything else. Acadia university and waterloo are ranked much higher than UoT. Robust Physique 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Different universities are ranked in different categories. The fact that it's in the medical-doctorate catagory doesn't mean it's graduate programs are being judged. The preface for the MacLean's rankings specifically states that it is reviewing the undergraduate experience. Just different universities have different focuses. This is a very research oriented university and as such it is in that category.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.238.131 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 June 2006.

On University Professors vs. university professors

Just a note, for those unfamiliar. At U of T, the highest honour a professor can receive is to be given the honour of "University Professor," or UProf for short. Not all university professors are University Professors, in other words. Yes, I know that's confusing. The authoritative list of UProfs is linked off the article, and was cut and pasted into the article at one point... but right now what's happening is people are putting "regular" profs in the University Professor section. No harm, no foul, but at some point someone's going to come by and strip them out again, I suspect. If anyone can think of a better way to make this distinction in the faculty list, they're welcome to try. --BruceR 05:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Missing noun...?

As far as I know, this has been here awhile... I have no idea what it refers to...

In the second paragraph of the "History" Section:

"In 1853, was founded, as a non-denominational teaching institution within the university. Several other Toronto-area religiously affiliated universities and colleges would incorporate with University of Toronto, becoming "federated" with it. Those federated universities are the Catholic St. Michael's, Methodist Victoria, and Anglican Trinity."

In 1853, what was founded? UC? *confused*

Fixed - SimonP 14:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing U of T Alumni and Faculty

Does anyone know what happened to the huge list of alumni and faculty? The link "List of University of Toronto graduates and faculty" seems to be deleted. Let's try to fix this.

List of University of Toronto people. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I would call it over emphasis

Don't get me wrong, but it sound odd to repeat this phrase endlessly "Widely acknowledged to be one of Canada's top school ...". I am not exaggerating and you can confirm by reading it. The problem with the approach is, by the time you are done reading it, you have a perception it is one sided and you can't put too much faith in it. Sometime, being modesty rules.

Note, I am not saying the school is not great, I am saying the article could have been better written—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 December 2005.

Robarts Library Image

Can someone please find and upload a more flattering picture of Robarts Library? Frankly I don't think the building is ugly, it's very unique in a sci-fi kinda way that looks best surrounded by greens, such as in the summer. The ivy does much to soften the brutalist design, and we currently have a picture of Robarts Library in the winter and looking really old in this lighting... - AK-999 (December 7th, 2005)

James Loudon vs. William James Loudon

Hello all. There is a link problem and content issue on this page. The listing for James Loudon as President of the University links to a page for William James Loudon, who wasn't the President. James Loudon (1841-1916) was a physicist and President of the University. William J. Loudon was a geologist and I think he was Loudon's nephew. Sadly I lack the skills to correct the links and to change the William J. Loudon entry. But someone should get around to that. Thanks.

Addendum. I attempted to make the changes as needed but someone should still double-check Lostphd 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

brennan hall pic

Maybe this is a problem with firefox or the wiki in general, but the brennan hall pic doesn't display correctly. 66.91.249.23 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I was checking out the Queen's U discussion recently and someone was discussing creating a userbox for Queens. Looking up Canadian university userboxes I noticed that UofT lacks one as well. Would anyone be interested in making one for UT? I'm sufficiently proud of going here to like a userbox to stick on my page. And yes, I know the obvious comment is that if I wanted one so bad I should make my own. But I'm a craptacular artist.  :) --PIngp0NG 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Royal Conservatory of Music

The article claims that the RCM is part of the University. The RCM wikipedia entry claims that the RCM ended its affiliation with U of T in 1991. Can anyone find info about this?

The RCM gained its independence from U of T in 1991, according to this source: http://www.rcmusic.ca/ContentPage.aspx?name=RCM_History BFD1 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, as a student at and employee of the U of T, I've never heard of it having any administrative tie-ins with the ROM, either. There's some sharing of facilities and resources but that's it to my knowledge. BFD1 14:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do know that the ROM's libraries are affiliated with U of T [1] (and are searchable on the U of T Libraries website) [2]. I don't know how much administrative overlap there is between the two institutions.  :: Salvo (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know there are classes held in the ROM (mostly art history and archeology courses) and there are professors offices there in the administrative building as well. (isn't this off topic, the subtopic is for the RCM, not ROM)

30 "centres" vs. 17 "Academic Divisions"

According to the U of T quick facts (http://www.utoronto.ca/aboutuoft/Quick_Facts.htm) there is no reason to believe that U of T "administers over 30 centres". I would like to see a source for that. As a noun, "centres" does little to convey a true sense of the administrative architecture. "Centres" at U of T are generally physical buildings, not academic entities. "Departments" or better yet "Divisions" (since the latter includes Faculties & Colleges) is preferable to "centres". BFD1 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My source: (http://www.answers.com/u%20of%20t). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Journalist. I question the credibility of that source. It's wrong about the ROM and the RCM; at the very least it is out of date. I would prefer to go along with the facts and figures resource. http://www.utoronto.ca/aboutuoft/accountabilityreports/factbook.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFD1 (talk • contribs)

I have to agree with BFD1. The answers.com source has this Wikipedia article as 90% of that entry. Ardenn 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is reproduced on answers.com. However, it is not the source from which I quoted. I quoted a source from Columbia University Press, which is also reproduced on answers.com. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me turn to monograph literature for a moment. If you consult Martin Friedland's 2002 book "The University of Toronto: A History", you will see index references to various centres at the University, including the Centre for Culture and Technology, the Centre for Industrial Relations, the Centre for Russian and East European Studies (CREES), etc. Some of these centres became academic departments (Linguistics) and some are still only centres. I don't have a recent count but there may be thirty of them still functioning. I don't think all of them are "physical buildings", as an earlier comment stated. Lostphd 13:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point, perhaps we could work that into the article? You're right to correct me; the point I may have over-stated is that it is strange to emphasize the number of centres in the lead paragraph without mention of the larger-scale divisions to which the majority of the University's students and faculty belong, and without explanation. BFD1 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First things first: now that I think about it, I agree with BFD1. It's better to discuss the 17 divisions in the lead paragraph (the 30 centres can be mentioned in the body). Additionally, I was wondering if anyone finds the info at "List of Colleges" misleading. I thought that U of T had only 7 college. A reader may think that it has 12. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 7 Arts & Science colleges to choose from as an undergraduate, so that number has special significance in the promotional literature and probably sticks out in people's minds. The other 5 colleges are for theology or graduate studies. In total, there are 12 colleges at U of T, as the table illustrates. How do you think the table might be made clearer? BFD1 18:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I wasn't aware of the additional 5 colleges. I've always heard of the 7 so I thought... I get the picture. Orane ^(t) 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

I've done a very cursory search through U of T's facts and figures and have been unable to confirm that Victoria college is the wealthiest of the colleges, as the article claims. Can anyone point me to the source of this information? Thanks. BFD1 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think U of T is the largest university in North America.

See List of largest United States universities by enrollment. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the list of the World's largest universities, State University of New York is the largest. According to the list you cited, it's Arizona State. I'm a little puzzled by this. BFD1 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha. The list of U.S. universities includes only individual campuses, whereas the list of the World tallies active enrollment across all campuses. This does highlight the need to qualify any claims as to the relative size of U of T compared to other North American universities. BFD1 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

SUNY is a system composed of many campuses so that's a bit misleading. The list cited above by Ekrub-ntyh is also pretty poor as it clearly doesn't match up to the numbers in IPEDS (which is cited as the source for one of the years; the sources for the other years aren't even stated making it a particularly poor list).

In general, comparing institutions in different countries is very difficult because basic terminology and definitions can differ significantly. That's not to mention the difficulty of just obtaining reliable information about institutions in the first place. IPEDS is great for US institutions but some (many?) countries have nothing comparable. Or at least nothing comparable that is easily accessed from the web. --ElKevbo 16:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maclean's Ranking

Maclean's ranking of universities is very complicated, but I will attempt to explain. The magazine ranks universities in three main categories: "Primary undergraduate", "comprehensive" and "medical/doctoral". U of T has always topped the "medical/doctoral" category, and in 2005, they tied with McGill. For some reason, most people cite only the medical/doctoral category when they talk about rankings (example) However, Maclean's also does an overall "reputational ranking" of universities, under the categories "Highest quality, "most innovative", "leaders of Tomorrow", and "Best overall" — "Best overall" represents the sum of all the categories. In 2005, U of T placed second on the "Best overall reputational survey"; in first place was Waterloo University. This may be confusing, but you can view the list here and a more comprehensive list here. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be confused. The best overall measure is only for the reputational survey. This is a very different evaluation from the general classifications. The reputational survey is essentially only an opinion poll, the general classifications are an analysis of data such as library books per student, number of professors with PhDs, etc. When people speak of the Maclean's ratings they are almost always referring to the general classifications, not the survey. - SimonP 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"In 2006, U of T (and many other universities) refused to provide Maclean's with data due to concerns regarding the magazine's ranking methodology.[14] Consequently, in the magazine's next publication, U of T was ranked as Canada's 3rd best university in the Medical/Doctoral category, behind McGill University (1st), and Queen's University (2nd)."

Stricly from a NPOV, saying that "as a direct result of not supplying Maclean's with required data, their ranking went from 1st to 3rd." seems very uncyclopedic to me. Being ranked third in Canada, that's right, a whole country, is still something to be very proud of. This dorp could have merely been a statistical drop given Maclean's altering of grading criteria.ChaoticLlama 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Consequently" so there is no direct implication. –Pomte 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Student Life

The entire section (especially the first paragraph) is unsourced POV. PLease cite. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow - you're absolutely right! I took a stab at cleaning up some of the most obvious parts. There's still a lot of work to be done but it probably have to be done by someone more familiar with this insitution than I. In particular, there are virtually no cited references in this entire section and that definitely needs to be addressed. --ElKevbo 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Toronto at Scarborough

There is some sketchiness surrounding the official name for the University of Toronto at Scarborough. Please check the UTSC talk page before making changes to the UTSC mentions in this article, and feel free to add to the discussion. Thanks. BFD1 12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Methodist affiliation

attended a recent tour where I was told that Victoria College has a Methodist affiliation. It is here listed as Non-denominational. Should this be updated? Conor 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Victoria University used to be methodist. Emmanuel College, which is part of Victoria University is still linked with the United Church of Canada, but the other college of Vic, Victoria College, is non-denominational. Just look at the Vic website first page : "Victoria University comprises Victoria College, a non-denominational arts and science college, and Emmanuel College, a United Church theological college". Manuel Menal 05:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

College Religious Affiliations

The article implies that colleges such as Trinity and St. Michael's actively support and enforce a religious affiliation. In fact, all colleges at UofT are non-demoninational. Some have traditional ties to a religious afifliation, which usually includes housing a church of that affiliation, a divinity school, and related archives. Nevertheless, to list these colleges as having a denomination is misleading. This should either be removed or clarified.

I think the current page is quite accurate. It lists the colleges and their affiliations, and does not describe the extent of those affiliations -- more information can be found at the articles for the individual collegs. In addition, I emphatically disagree with you that all of the colleges are non-denominational: the theological colleges are certainly not! For example:

• The St Mike's webpage states "St. Michael's is committed to fostering among the members of all divisions a learning community animated by the Spirit of Christ."
• The Knox webpage uses the tagline "Preparing Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ".
• The Emmanuel College webpage says "As its primary mission, Emmanuel College prepares women and men for ordered and other ministries within the church"
• The Regis College webpage says "we are a College rooted firmly in the Roman Catholic tradition and serving the Catholic community."
• Wycliffe says "Wycliffe College is an Evangelical Anglican graduate school of theology, committed to preparing its students for the challenges of ministry in our society today."

Only Victoria ("Victoria College, a non-denominational arts and science college") and Trinity ("We have an Anglican heritage and an active Chapel community, but most of our Arts and Science students are not Anglican") are nondenominational in the sense that you are describing. Chartreuse green 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Enrollment statistics WAY off

For the love of god Jphillips23, what the hell are you doing? Your figures for enrollment statistics as well as the number of faculty members is a gross underestimation. Unless you cite a recent proper source - you have not done so - I will keep backtracking to the older versions. 82.201.228.62 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable (in fact the official) source, which is far better than the brochure you cited (without proper formatting). Please do read the Facts and Figures report yourself, carefully. You are lumping together figures from different campuses, undergrad with graduate students, and faculty with staff numbers, which is misleading if not outright wrong. And what you did was not reverting—your newest "backtracking" is totally different from your original edit. I don't know what makes you think the numbers are "way off", because they are not. Jphillips23 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the info on the other two campuses? This article is about the entire university, and there should be summaries here about them. Both total and St. George figures can be displayed, with the latter in brackets. –Pomte 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the prevalent practice in articles for universities with multiple campuses. Please have a look at the article on the University of Michigan (one of the few featured articles on universities), which like U of T has a main campus in Ann Arbor and two other campuses. Notice the main article is devoted to the Ann Arbor campus, while there are separate articles on University of Michigan-Dearborn and University of Michigan-Flint. Same with University of Washington devoted to the main Seattle campus and separate articles for University of Washington Tacoma and University of Washington, Bothell. Of course we should have wikilinks to Scarborough and Mississauga where appropriate, but we don't need to have more clutter with full-blown subsection summaries. Jphillips23 01:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I still think it's unintuitive, but readers can figure it out. –Pomte 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you say it's unintuitive. Some universities with many campuses like the University of California actually have overview articles describing the whole system, and then individual articles on campuses such as UC Berkeley and UCLA. But this really only works with universities that have many campuses where no single campus dominates, like California or University of London. U of T is much closer to the arrangement of Michigan and Washington with just three campuses, so this layout is probably more suitable. Jphillips23 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will respectfully disagree with you but not do anything about it. Canadian practise has always been to lump all students together within an institution, not segregate them like the University of Michigan or Washington systems. This relates to the fuzzy relationship between university and state in Canada. What does Laurier have to say about their Brantford campus? or Laurentian about Barrie? Or York about Glendon? I freely admit that your method is internationally consistent, which is why I am not rushing to alter what you have done Lostphd 13:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the other campuses should fully be considered a part of the university. The primary division of U of T is into colleges, not campuses. For the most part UTM and UTS are treated exactly the same way as the different downtown colleges. The suburban colleges are closely integrated into the main university. Unlike with the American schools listed, students at all campuses vote for a unified student council, play on the same varsity sports teams, and can freely enroll in classes on the other campuses. - SimonP 14:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

<-- Of course UTM and UTSC are part of U of T (Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with you on that), just as Dearborn and Flint are part of UMich. But it is not true that the campuses are treated the same as the colleges. Administratively, UTM and UTSC exist at the vice-presidential level directly below the president, like American campus systems. In other words, UTM and UTSC are essentially autonomous components of the university. While the downtown colleges do enjoy some self-governance, they operate under a much closer collegiate model like those of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham. UTM and UTSC also operate different admissions processes from the main campus, whereas the downtown colleges select their students after admissions have been decided by the faculties. So in short, the campuses annd colleges are fundamentally different.

While you have a point about the sports teams and student associations, the same can also be said of American universities. At UMich for example, students are allowed to use libraries and facilities at any of the three campuses, faculties from all campuses collaborate on curriculum and research, and graduates automatically belong in the same alumni association. And as far as I know, all three UMich campuses share the same sports team (I'm not 100% sure about this). So we should be careful about using these things as benchmarks. It's true that the university PR materials sometimes lump the figures together, but perhaps they think it's more politically correct and inclusive that way, even though it's a bit misleading. Jphillips23 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

nominate

is it a good time to nominate this article to FA? UTislander 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deal with the merge tag first because it can make the article look "unstable". –Pomte 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is still far from ready for FA nomination at this time. There's still a lot cleaning up, expanding and referencing needed. I hope to do some of that shortly. And as Pomte said, we should still wait a while after everything is done before the article becomes "stable". Jphillips23 01:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to get this to FA level, but I agree that it is not there yet. I've dealt with the merge tag,. The content at University of Toronto Campus Police really doesn't belong in this article, so I've removed it. We need more and better references. There have been several books published about U of T, and we should go through them and see what facts they can back up. This is especially true for the history section, which is pretty much unreferenced. We also need to clean up the faculties and centres lists. Currently some of them have links to the official sites, but not all. We need consistency, and also consistent formatting on how those links will be presented. - SimonP 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)