Talk:Westmont College

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

organization[edit]

This needs to be a bit more organized. I will work on this and editing the language a bit...a few too many "many"s for an encyclopedia article. Help with citing sources would be appreciated.

This article is way too biased. Westmont is *not* that great of a school.

one word: organization. This page is totally inaccessible.

- This page reads like a prespective student pamphlet, and is very biased. It also makes no mention of the fact that the UC system by and large will not transfer any religious studies credits.

Rankings[edit]

Re: Westmont is not that great of a school. Then, may I ask, why is it that the factual data (entering GPA, SAT scores, professors with terminal degrees, etc.) would rank it in the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country?; that quite a few of its students choose it over Stanford, Harvard and other schools?; that an anonymous donor just gave it the fourth largest donation ($75 million) ever given to a college?; that it consistenly ranks at the very top of schools producing students with integrity?; that its applicant pool is growing out of control? Might it be that you haven't investigated the school, don't know its merits, or simply couldn't get in?

Re: Whether or not any of what you said in the last sentence above is true is completely irrelevant to my statement.

To be honest, it does rank very last in that top 50% [1]. :) In terms of academics (breadth of majors, degrees offered, library resources, graduation rate, professors with doctorates) Westmont does not offer as much to the student, particularly given its price, as do other liberal arts universities. TheFactsPleaseMaam 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the above -- as a graduate of Westmont, I can personally attest to the fact that in many respects it is a special place, just not in the aspects that typically define leading colleges and universities. They can afford to be highly selective (hence the high average SAT and GPA) because they appeal to very specific demographics. The location in Santa Barbara and the unapologetically Christian emphasis, combined with a hard cap on enrollment (per the Conditional Use Permit with Santa Barbara) keep "supply" artifically lower than demand. The academic environment is mediocre compared to leading liberal arts colleges even if just West Coast schools are considered. If a student is willing to trade off academic excellence for a heavy christian emphasis and/or proximity to a city like Santa Barbara, then it is an outstanding choice. For those interested dominantly is a truly excellent liberal arts education than places like the Claremont Colleges, Occidental, Whitman, etc. are far better choices just on the West Coast. A 106th place ranking is nothing to be overly proud of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.160.56 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

Our goal is not to edit this page to display Westmont as great or not that great of a school. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, this Wikipedia page exists to present the facts. My opinion is that Westmont is a pretty good school, but there are, of course, much more prestigious schools out there. This opinions, however, does not belong in the article. If it sounds like an ad then fix the tone and the bias, but don't remove the opinion just to re-insert your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.180.131 (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westmont does have multiple identities. It is a small private distinctively Christian college as well as an excellent academic liberal arts college. Relative to other Christian colleges Westmont stands out academically along with Wheaton College as two of the most selective and prestigious Christian colleges in the country. While it is not up to the level nationally as the Claremont's or other highly selective liberal arts colleges it does fit as an academically superior Christian institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.74.86 (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To Jwittrock- While your revisions did add information, they were not supported by by cites, and tended to lack objectivity. It's great that you love your school but this is meant to be an encyclopedia, and your revisions made it even more like an advertisement. If you want to add information, great, but try to keep it limited to objective facts, and try to use cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.202.28 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: revision by mkblood1- You need to provide objective information and cite your sources. The article needs to be less like a brochure, not more. EDIT- Your second attempt is much better. I made some formatting changes. Actually the formatting changes should have been done before you edits, but I just noticed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.101.77 (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Brentonboy- please use more credible sources. One of your sources was a blog. Additionally, specifics, like what ratio admitted, is far better than saying it is competitive. What is considered competitive differs from one person to the next, and one rating organization to the next. additionaly, i am deleting an entry on this talk page that appears to be based on a rumor that westmont students started the fire has been discredited by the sherriff.

-I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that forbids any/all blogs as references. Some blogs are legitimate sources of reliable information, especially blogs maintained by large institutions, such as the one cited by me. The sources I cited were completely credible. Brentonboy (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


- Look, the type of information is fine, but the source is not great, and the way your presenting it is not great. If you could give average SAT and GPA scores, say from say usnews or another source, even teh schools websiste, that would be great. Generally, blogs are not great sources. And the blog entry you cited was a year out of date and referred to obsolete rankings. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.101.185 (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


- I have successfully made two other Wikipedia entries in the past on other topics. When I recently saw that Westmont's entry was considered "biased," it bothered me. So I studied several other entries of tier 1 liberal arts colleges and also peer colleges of Westmont in the Christian College Consortium before I tried to make some edits.

I really don't understand why the editors keep striking the entries down. Last night, I made a point to stop after the first paragraph, having carefully researched and documented my opening points, to see if I would get struck down again (and it was). I believe I was doing what has been done in other college entries - "factually documenting" some of the main features of the school. In fact, I do think nearly all these schools are "bragging" and are "biased," but that's a separate issue. I just want to see consistency in the editing. A lot of people will mainly read that opening paragraph and skim the rest. I believe my opening paragraph deserves to be reinstated in its entirety.

I looked at over 20 tier 1 college entries today (USNWR), somewhat randomly by geographic region. Let's compare what I wrote and what is shown about Grinnell College and Colby College, to pick two typical liberal arts college entries (I'm not necessarily trying to imply Westmont is as good academically, but all are considered tier 1 colleges by USNWR rankings).

I wrote the following opening entry (I'm moving sources down and removing wiki formatting so the prose can be easily compared):

Westmont College, founded in 1937, is a nationally-ranked Christian Liberal arts colleges in the United States in Santa Barbara, California.[1] Westmont emphasizes the intellectual, social, and spiritual growth of students.[2] With approximately 1300 undergraduate students, Westmont attempts to provide a rigorous academic program along with a personalized, residential Christian undergraduate experience.[3][4] The Templeton Foundation has recognized Westmont as one the nation’s top 100 colleges committed to character development.[5]

The opening entry for Grinnell is:


Grinnell College is a private liberal arts college in Grinnell, Iowa, U.S. with a strong tradition of social activism. It was founded in 1846, when a group of transplanted New England Congregationalists formed the Trustees of Iowa College. It is ranked fourteenth of the top liberal arts colleges in the nation by US News & World Report, and received the "Best All-Around" college rating from Newsweek magazine in 2004.[3] Until recently, the estimated value of Grinnell's endowment was the highest among liberal arts colleges; as of 2007 it had the third-largest endowment among them.[4] Grinnell additionally has the sixth highest endowment per student of all colleges and universities in the United States.[5]


The entry for Colby College is:

Colby College, founded in 1813, is an American private liberal arts college located on Mayflower Hill in Waterville, Maine.

Colby is the 12th oldest independent liberal arts college in the United States. Approximately 1,800 students from 66 countries are enrolled annually; the college offers 53 major fields of study and uses project-based learning. Volunteer programs and service-learning take many students into the surrounding community. More than two thirds of Colby students participate in study-abroad programs. Together with Bates College and Bowdoin College, Colby is one of three small liberal arts colleges in Maine. Colby College competes in the NESCAC league and is considered to be among what are known as the "Little Ivies." In 2008, Colby was ranked the 15th best liberal arts college by both Forbes and Kiplingers and 22nd in the U.S. News and World Report rankings. Colby was named one of the "25 New Elite Ivies" by the Kaplan College Guide.

Although one of the oldest liberal arts colleges in the nation, Colby is in the midst of a major campus building program, including a new social sciences and interdisciplinary studies building. It will house academic departments and the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement. The College has also created a new program in neuroscience.


[The Westmont references are: [1][2][3][4] [5]]

I believe one of the editors will say in effect, well, we just moved some of that information down to the main text. Why? This is the key introduction and summary that everyone will read. If it is good enough for these other schools to have a strong opening statement, then why not Westmont? By the current standard applied to Westmont, consistency would dictate that the Grinnell entry start out by saying it is a liberal arts college in Grinnell, Iowa, then have the table of contents; same for Colby.


My next complaint is that one of the editors removed my whole section about what makes the Westmont education different than other secular liberal arts colleges. I tried to discuss several issues: how incoming students apply with their faith statement essays; that professors also sign a statement of faith; explain the school's code of conduct (see Haverford College for similar entry); the chapel program; the religious education requirements that are considered part of the general education requirements and taught very rigorously; and the unique opportunties in the religious studies major. This is a very importance difference with other colleges and I don't see why this can't be allowed. I don't believe it biased per se - just explaining what the college is all about. Unfamiliar outsiders may not really understand how that whole system works. If it is the sourcing issue, I just ran out of time - an editor could have said, "citation needed" - and I would have found documentation on the college's web site.

Relatedly, I don't see how this issue that is so core to what Westmont is all about can't be kept, when I look at other colleges and see some very strange entries. Consider Pomona College's section about the fascination with the number "47" and Macalester College's entry about "all-gender housing." I challenge you editors to read those entries and then say Westmont can't have a section about the Christian aspects of the Christian liberal arts education.

My final point in this area that is tangentially related is why Westmont has this "bias" stamp on it, when I don't really see much in the entry that is different than some of its peers in the Christian College Consortium, e.g., Gordon College (MA) and Wheaton College (IL) (close sister schools). I will continue to document sources, try to use more neutral language, and add a few more sections (eg, alumni section), but it is frustrating to get knocked down by apparent Wikipedia editors (nameless internet nodes) who seem to be arbitrary and have their own biases.


My very final point for today concerns the unpleasant debate above Westmont's academic standing. I haven't had time to look up all the tier 1 colleges, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority were established much, much earlier than 1937 when Westmont was started. In this context, Westmont's achievements are quite commendable and what the founders had hoped to accomplish. I think the editors and debaters should keep this in mind.

68.227.213.212 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]



- Ok, I am only going to address some of the issues you brought up. You intro was biased. You stated that westmont was nationaly ranked. Almost all liberal arts colleges are "nationally ranked" so this is misleading. The entry you compared it to gave the ranking position. Additionally, westmont is not tier 1, its tier 2, and its at the bottom of tier 2, which makes it marginally better than average, according to the ranking (I know that they're are a lot of other factors to a school than the ranking, and westmont is a fine example of that). I think your confusion stems from the fact that USNews combines tier one and tier 2 into one category, calling it top tier. Each tier is 25% of the sample, so the bottom of the top tier is actually statistically average. I moved the Templeton ranking information down to where the other ranking information already was for consistency simply.

Additionally, the "bragging" you pointed out regarding other schools tended to be more specific and factual then the language you were using. Try to be more specific and cite. Vague puffery is not appropriate for a encyclopedia enty, its not appropriate here. Stick to the facts. EDIT- I was not responsible for the bias tag at the top and cannot speak to it. As the article stands now, it could be removed in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.202.59 (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at several more top tier (USNWR) Colleges in Wikipedia, which "factually state" their rankings in the opening section - I still don't get the inconsistency when it comes to Westmont... and I don't think it makes sense to talk about the school's main philosophy under history, but I'm tired of this all.

Would someone with appropriate Wikipedia authority please remove the "blatant advertisement" label on the main page? I think this page has undergone quite a bit of change in recent months and is generally neutral and well-sourced at this point (see previous reviewer suggestion to remove the label now). If there are still problems, please state where (specifically). Mkblood1 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


MKblood1- I removed that tag for you, but just so you know, everyone has the authority to remove the tag, you could have done it yourself, and when i suggested it, i meant it as an invitation for you to do it. This is wikipedia, anyone can make the edits. And thanks for all your efforts to add citations to the page and add all the alumni information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.85.55 (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/liberal-arts-search/page+5
  2. ^ http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/vp/introduction.html
  3. ^ http://www.westmont.edu/_about/information.html
  4. ^ http://www.westmont.edu/_about/index.html
  5. ^ http://www.collegeandcharacter.org/guide/honorroll.html

CNN Article on Mexican Tourism[edit]

MKBlood, I undid your revision as the article you cited was about a downturn in mexican tourism that mentioned how some of the Westmont students responded to safety concerns. The program was hardly "high lighted," it was mentioned in passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.44.170 (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honor code[edit]

So now it's okay to mention Westmont's honor code when it suits the purpose of essentially deridng the stand against homosexual behavior, just one of many behaviors prohibited? I had tried to elaborate on the numerous distinctive aspects of the school's curriculum and atmosphere in November 2008 (including the honor code), but was struck every time I tried to do so. So editors, where are you now? Why haven't you removed the material about the honor code??? It seems if you are going to allow this, then give it bigger context - the faculty faith statements, the student faith statements, the chapel program, the required seminary level religious studies classes, the special aspects of the religious studies major (e.g., Hebrew and Greek classes, Holy Land program), etc. The whole school is about rigorous intellectual honesty, faith struggles, and Christian devotion to God and man, but no one learns that part reading the Wikipedia entry. So right now it reads that it is a Christian College, but no one can elaborate what's distinctive about it, but it's okay to cherry pick and mention the part about homosexual prohibition because of a LA Times article. Yes, that's fair and neutral. Mkblood1 (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the rest of the honor code been mentioned in reliable secondary sources? What's unique about religious studies classes- that's common for many religious-affiliated institutions, such as BYU. The honor code is included (now) as part of encyclopedic coverage to make the article be written from a neutral point of view, not written from a booster's point of view. tedder (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Westmont College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Westmont College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Westmont College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Westmont_College&oldid=1213218603"