Talk:McGraw-Hill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
McGraw-Hill is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
There seems to be an EDA company named McGraw-Hill. I believe they make good money on this. Worth investigating a bit. Biblbroks 01:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] moved from article
[edit] Related Wikipedia Template
Caution: this template is used throughout wikipedia science articles
- Template:McGrawHillAnimation
but instead links to 'Max Animations' advertising front-end for McGraw-Hill's biology animations
Dina 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted acquisitions
Got rid of acquisitions section, and re-entered the info in the beginning paragraph. Someone can change the wording if they like, but I don't think two sentences warrants the need for a new section.
- Bardiak - I understand why, in its previous state, you removed the Acquisitions section but McGraw-Hill has during its history made many significant acquisitions in addition to the two that were listed. A couple of prime examples are mentioned in the same paragraph; Standard & Poor's (1966) and J.D. Power & Associates (2005). As the sentence you had added was factually incorrect I have removed it, re-added the Acquisition section and expanded accordingly. Richc80 15:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism...
McGraw-Hill has a vandal in their IP blocks who is constantly making bad edits in the Wikipedia. I wonder if this is an official act or a rogue flunky doing the dirty work. Sukiari 02:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] McGraw Hill Professional -- Submission Guidelines
I'm trying to submit a book proposal to McGraw Hill Professional. I went to their page titled "Submission Guidelines" trying to find an adress to send a message. I was unable to find either an E-mail or a regular mail address so I tried going through the gazillion different pages that show up on the internet. After going around and around in electronic circles for an hour and a half, I finally wound up here, wherever this is.
This is the message I was trying to send to McGraw Hill Professional, repotedly a publishing company:
"I have a nonfiction manuscript that is 99.95% complete. It's 280,121 words in length and, without the photographs/drawings/maps intended for inclusion, it occupies 538 pages; it took me 49 years to research it. If I double-space it, it takes over 800 pages (I think 844), also just text with no photographs, etc. I want to submit a proposal in accordance with your submission guidelines. As you can imagine, just the synopsis, query letter, etc. will take up a fair amount of space (not so much that it won't read quickly) and I'd prefer to send it in via "snail mail" (in today's vernacular), if that's o.k. with you. However, in going through your submission guidelines, I can't find any mailing addresses. Do you think you could reply to this message by sending me your address if you don't mind recieving it that way? Incidentally, would you like to see the "candidate" Alaskan photos and drawings along with everything else. There will probably be about 100 (maybe more) of them included in the final manuscript."
Now -- Is this a sort of "round-about" way of getting this message to McGraw Hill Professional Publishing - if I can figure out how to send this? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1500 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] McGraw Hill CTP
Back in the '80s some places in the California penal system used an IQ/assessment test supplied by McGraw Hill for their new convicts. It was called the McGraw Hill CTP, CTP standing for "California Teacher's Program," as I understand it. It was in three parts, reading/writing, then a squiggle test (gears and whatever the dots and lines were), then math at the end. I guess it was to gauge just how criminally sophisticated the new arrivals were.
It was discontinued for some reason. There was a flaw in the deductive reasoning section or something. Technically, the gear/squiggle tests were sufficient for assessing deductive reasoning, as many convicts didn't make it to algebra when they were in school. The prison system brought a new school rationale into use, having teachers visit each cell individually for a while. There was a teacher at Donovan State Prison in San Diego who refused to give a test to one of the prisoners, caused the prisoner much turmoil and affected his sentence (he was there for something he didn't do, he was factually innocent). Some kind of friction arose out of it, anyway. Caused some changes.
Apparently McGraw Hill's test really flopped somehow. No telling how this affected those prisoners who had to take it. They're probably still there.
They supply stingers on the canteen list now. That happened after the tests were changed.--76.245.121.71 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- If the test was bad, does that mean that all the prisoners who had to take it should get new trials because of what happened to them in prison afterwards? Or, maybe the convict that you're talking about (the one who got a real good score, and who the Donovan teacher wouldn't let in class) should have his convictions overturned? That would be a good starting place. I agree, McGraw Hill was wrong to do this.--76.212.158.113 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
