From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Clinton Adams link that the Peabody Institute's article mentions is a different Clinton Adams. Same name, but links to the wrong guy.

does someone think they can find a better or more pictures of the Peabody than the one that is shown? I'm sure there are more

Contents 1 Faculty? 2 Tori Amos? 3 Fatuous: US News & World Report (= get'ur national college ratin's, right 'cher!) 4 Leading conservatory in the world?

[edit] Faculty?

Are there any criertia for determining who qualifies as a notable faculty member? The current situation just looks increasingly like a list of everyone regardless of notable-ness. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a difficult question, though, clearly names do not belong in this list of people who just are not on Peabody's faculty. At a prestigious institution it is likely that many or most of the faculty are notable. Because the range of specialties is broad, it is also difficult for any one person to know who is notable in all the different areas. For example someone able to determine which of the composition or jazz faculty are notable would not necessarily be able to say whether someone in the opera or early music departments was notable. For now, it seems reasonable keep the list more inclusive and see whether linking articles appear which might give better grounds to keep someone in the "notable" category. --Servais 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that "notable" means wiki links. The user inquiring about Clinton Adams, for example, should make a Clinton Adams page if he desires information about a specific faculty member. 71.179.76.18 05:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

as of now there are a number of dead links in the faculty section.i am hesitant to delete these people, although i suspect that they have left the school. however, on the subject of notability; it's not like most of them have their own articles. they're just listed, and link to their pages on the peabody website.those who someone thought sufficiently noteworthy link to their own wp articles.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tori Amos?

It seems to me that the fact that Peabody discontinued Tori Amos's scholarship isn't the slightest bit notable in 'pop culture', and doesn't deserve such prominent (or perhaps any) notice in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.110.203 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatuous: US News & World Report (= get'ur national college ratin's, right 'cher!)

The methods and judgements (= opinions) of the marketing and journalism staffs at the USN&WR --for assigning precise numerical rankings of U.S. colleges and universities is: fatuous and illusory.

Initiated as a marketing and publicity gimmick to pump-up sales of an ailing weekly news mag, the gig has proven very sucessful, by USN&WR's criteria; but, by reducing all data to that which can be forced into numeral ratings --or by ignoring data that doesn't quantify-- it has brought misinformation and confusion to students and their parents. And, the 'whole show' has cheapened the behavior and values of college bureaucrats as they now try to out-guess and out-spin 'the competition' in presenting their colleges annually to all those poseur-judges --note, other mags and other poseurs are jumping into the game-- and then to the public in the 'ratings' game.

Several college administrations have by now recognized the pitfalls and potential for silly or unethical behavior in the spinning of infomation to the public; and they are dropping out of the 'ratings' game.

At WP we would do well to avoid those who preach a gospel of being able to provide numerical ratings to the vast range of qualitative diffences between colleges and universities.--71.99.108.84 (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leading conservatory in the world?

whoa! that statement requires substantial backing up, and may STILL be too pov. at least one, and preferably several citations are an absolute must.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)