Talk:Ryerson University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Education in Canada
This article is part of the Education in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] New/Better Pictures

This University has so much more we can include, and so many more pictures that can be used. Maybe someone from the Arts program can make a project of this. I would help in anyway. This page can use alot more work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoice (talk • contribs) 01:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Faculty of Dragonball Z? Someones been vandalizing

[edit] Faculties

I think it's overkill to link to each faculty, there's already a link to the main website, people can find their own way there. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see how it is overkill. Most other university sites have links not only to the main faculty, but also to each department under them. While I agree that they can find their way through the main site, I don't see why we can't make things a little easier for those who aren't web savvy.

Greysliver 00:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Then they should probably be removed from those articles. I think the links as they were make the article look sloppy. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryerson's own edits

Ryerson people seem to be removing unflattering information.


We need more pictures of Ryerson. (FreshRapture 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC))


I don't even think its Ryerson people. This article has turned into a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.2.77 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryerson Faculty Association merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryerson Faculty Association. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryerson International Living Learning Centre merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryerson International Living Learning Centre. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitman Hall Residence merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitman Hall Residence. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

"It has the largest undergraduate Faculty of Business in Canada and in the fall of 2006 will offer graduate business programs including MBA programs. The G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education is the country's largest provider of university-level adult education with over 60,000 enrollments." Ardenn 04:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective Puffery

This article on Ryerson University contains much self-congratulating puffery. For example: "According to Maclean's Magazine Annual University Rankings, Ryerson's best rating is in the 'Reputation' classification where it is consistently ranked in the top 5 of the 21 'primarily undergraduate' category universities and in the top 20 of universities in all categories."

This is highly selective reportage. Actually, Macleans ranks Ryerson University near the bottom (18th of 21) among "primarily undergraduate universities" - a drop from 16th the previous year. See [1] This ranking implies Ryerson is of the worst universities in all of Canada - in the company of other academic embarrassments such as Lakehead and Nipissing which arguably should be shut down.

More puffery: "Ryerson University offers strong programs in Aerospace, Mechanical, Industrial, and Electrical Engineering. The university also has the prestige of being the only one in two Canadian Universities to offer programs in Aerospace Engineering, and many leading Aerospace Industries choose Ryerson graduates as in comparison with other universities."

Are there any non-Ryerson engineers in Canada who would says Ryerson's programs are strong or prestigious ? If anything, Ryerson may be reputed to be the engineering school to attend if the applicant has been rejected everywhere else - even by Windsor.

There was some debate in the 1980s and 1990s about the wisdom of converting Ryerson from a superior "Poytechnic" offering primarily three-year diplomas, to a mediocre "University" offering degrees. One could argue the people who most benefitted from the change were faculty members who wanted to call themselves professors but could not get appointments to real universities... There should be some discussion why the change was made from Polytechnic to University, and from three-year diplomas to four-year degrees.

An article based too much on the wishful thinking of boosters and spin doctors invites cynicism. This article should be revised to reflect the institution's true status and reputation.

70.49.37.207Kalos

Agree on the line ranking - perhaps we could put a line to the effect of "but Ryerson does not typically rank highly in overall ratings"? I'm wondering how relevant the Maclean's rating is to the article at all... The rest of your comment though is more opinion than anything else and I don't think should be included in the article.--Artificialard 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed some marketing speak. Added some citation required tags.Saganaki- 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Ryerson actually began issuing degrees in the early 70's, making it an older university (comapred to the remainder of the category). Ryerson's overall Macleans ranking is low. However, its ranking with regards to reputation is signifcantly greater than you seem to be aware. It ranks 19th of the 47 universities in Canada. Ryerson needs to improve its library, that is where it loses with Macleans, if you actually bothered to read the article.
Yes. There really wasn't a debate. Ryerson ranks 3rd overall for REPUTATION amongst the "primarily undegraduate" universities.. Your opinion is as wrong as your English. http://www.wlu.ca/page.php?grp_id=65&p=1296 if you don't believe us. --74.98.113.160 03:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well why are there so many people who want to insult this univerity, Ryerson is RANKED OVERALL 18th OUT OF 47 yes 47 not 21 . So READ BEFORE YOU WRITE. Windsor is at 47. Anudeep Toora

It ranked 18th for reputation, yes. Actually, Windsor was not 47, some university called Nipissing was. Also, with regards to the comment above, Ryerson has the 3rd highest entrance grade in primarily undergrad category, and offers far less places that Windsor.. i think that guy went to windsor, he seems reluctant to admit that Windsor is undoubtably the worst school in the province. Even its professors hate it.

[edit] What in the world happened?

Hello.
Happened to stumble upon this article, and there are two issues that seem to need addressing.
The first is the result of an attempt to "remove marketing cruft". The article is now very insulting to Ryerson. (There's nothing wrong with being neutral, but implying accusations is a bit much)
eg. "The university claims to offer more than 80 undergraduate and graduate degree programs". Claims? Is that really necessary? It very strongly implies that Ryerson doesn't offer that many programs. Wouldn't a simple {{fact}} have made more sense than phrasing it like that?

Far more disturbing than that is the set of accusations against muslims at Ryerson. I will admit that I've never been there (Brock student, myself), so I can't confirm or deny whether or not a cabal of evil muslims is truly trying to take over the entire school. However, what I can say is that providing only two sources:

  • A school newspaper (and I've never seen a neutral school newspaper. our own "Brock Press" is insanely liberal)
  • A conservative "news" website, wherein the article contains a great deal of outright racism

doesn't really qualify as "verifiable" or "reliable".
Does anybody have any good references for supporting the accusations of intimidations, threats, organized campaigns to take over, etc? Because, if not, I'll just be deleting the entire paragraph. Bladestorm 23:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made the changes. I waited 2 days first, which I think was reasonable considering what was in that cited "article". (muslim canadians are still canadians, despite what that author thinks)
As for the Saganaki's attempts to remove "marketing cruft", I certainly applaud that sentiment. However, it isn't fair to phrase it so negatively. (Just because someone else tried to push POV, that isn't license to ignore neutrality.) Instead, I've restored most (all?) of the material, but added {{fact}} tags. If unsourced statements were always summarily deleted without {{fact}} tags, then nothing would ever get cited. If nobody ends up providing any cited references, then you can try again. (But I'd still try to avoid saying things like, "Ryerson claims to offer over 80 programs".) Bladestorm 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags aren't meant to be permanent fixtures. Either cite it, or remove it. GreenJoe 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ryerson Rams logo.png

Image:Ryerson Rams logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook "cheating"

[2] Should we include something about this current event? Is it notable enough to include here? --W0lfie (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its notable enough to be included. GreenJoe 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I created an article at Chris Avenir. GreenJoe 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. It's recentism IMHO. It *definitely* doesn't deserve its own article, though. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does. There's 378,000 Google hits, thus it's notable. It's also precedent-setting. GreenJoe 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've never been a big fan of the Google test. I would rather see the controversy in the University's article, since it's a school policy not really about a single individual. But that just my two cents. --W0lfie (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not really notable in either article, IMHO, I would take a look at WP:RECENT and I think anyone would logically agree that this was a result of Recentism. If the result were expulsion it would have set more precedent, but as it was, it just sort of fizzled out. I haven't seen any media attention on the aftermath aside from small articles in the campus newspapers themselves. Not notable. Wjw0111 (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revamp

I am currently working through a major revamp to correct several issues, such as the introduction, source citation and the elimination of the trivia section. Please continue to edit this article, while the Under Construction tag is in place, but please consider not editing while I am using the In Use tag. This article is in need of a lot of work.

Also, please be aware that I am not adding any Personal Research. Most facts that I am adding, I do not believe are challenged or likely to be challenged. However, if you feel that anything I have edited is in dispute, please ask me to Prove it and I will add further sources and citations. Wjw0111 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Some comments about the introduction. I suggest using the Cornell University article as a guide since it is the considered one of the best university articles.
I don't believe that the Yonge and Dundas Square description is meaningful to anyone outside of Toronto. I think what is important globally about Ryerson University's location is that it is in core of downtown Toronto, the largest city in Canada.
As well, I noticed that some of years stated conflict with the years further below in the article so you should use citations in support.
With regard to Ryerson gaining "full" university status in 1993. Although this statement is true in the strictest sense because this is when the province approved graduate degrees, the implication is that those who graduated prior to 1993 do not hold accredited bachelor degrees, which is not true. It is important to be clear that Ryerson has been accredited as a university-degree level institution since 1971. The "university" name is generally used when institutions have a strong research mandate, i.e., grant graduate degrees (masters and doctorates).Histo1 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, I will definitely look at the Cornell article, I had previously been using several others as guides that may have not been as good. Core of downtown could be added, but Yonge and Dundas is a major landmark in Toronto and is wikilinked for anyone looking for more information, thus I believe its inclusion is valid.
Many of the years further below are part of a trivia section, which will be good soon enough anyway, as they are discouraged. I'll start getting those dates sourced as soon as I can. I don't believe the full university status statement implies anything about the degrees held. The University has been accredited to grant some bachelor degrees (as a Polytechnic) since 1971. You will note that many of these are "applied" degrees that have now changed over the years, as well.
Most importantly, though. Be Bold! At the time of your edit, I did not have the Template:Inuse Inuse tag up, I had Template:Underconstruction. While the inuse tag is up, as a courtesy it helps to refrain from edits. When it's underconstruction, feel free to edit! You can make these changes yourself. Under Construction just means means that I AM doing a lot of work around this time, so everything isn't just right yet. Please feel free to make your edits during this time. Wjw0111 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've given this article a pretty big overhaul. There are some sources that need citing and some sections to expand, I'm aware. I'll be working on this over the next few days. Please add any information you have, make edits, Be Bold!. Just don't add another Trivia section ;).

As for source citation, I realize there's a lot that needs to be cited (mainly stuff out of the Trivia section that I put into the main article). However, I'm not sure what could be questioned and what is assumed true. For me, it's all assumed true because of my personal knowledge. However, this is not a place for personal unverified research, so if there's anything that you question the validity of, please just place a citation needed tag next to it in the article and I'll get to it and add a source as soon as I can. I just don't want to have to search around for sources of things I know are true unless others feel they are needed.Wjw0111 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that being accredited as a university-degree level institution since 1971 is significant in the history of Ryerson, and would be considered a significant milestone in any institution's history; certainly it should not be considered trivial. The misconception that the degrees prior to 1993 are invalid in anyway should not be promoted. The point is that Ryerson students have been accepted in graduate schools all over the world because the institution was fully accredited since 1971. The community colleges you mention that have 'applied' bachelor degree programs today are not accredited by the AUCC nor accepted by the Ontario university community (i.e., not accepted as members in the Council of Ontario Universities). As well, please note that there are many Ryerson degree programs that were accepted by regulating professional bodies in Ryerson's early years, examples that come to mind are: Urban Planning, Landscape Architecture, Nursing, Interior Design, Accounting.
You can see that many, many people contributed to this article and their input should be respected. It appears to me that there have been several qualified people, including educators, who have contributed. As the article stands now it is given a B accuracy rating primarily because it does not include enough citations, i.e., content must be verifiable. As can be seen in the highly rated Cornell University article, just about every sentence has a citation, and many have multiple citations. I don't believe that one person rewriting the whole article is going to advance nor improve its status, but more likely it will be a set back. I suggest you build upon what is there now.
Note that Wikipedia rules due not permit work in "draft" form to be posted, therefore, please revert the article at this time and make any changes when ready.Histo1 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I see nothing in this article that questons the degrees granted before the University gained full University status. I did not mention any community colleges. Degrees offered in previous years were generally Applied degrees (Film Studies, RTA, etc... granted BAA degrees, where they now offer BA's and BFA's). There were no Bachelor degree programs prior to the 1970's, Interior Design was the first program at Ryerson to acquire the right to grant degrees and this was in the 1970's. I feel like you are reading what you want into this article. Nowhere did I mention Community Colleges. Ryerson was a Polytechnic, that's different.
Secondly, I have not removed any content. If you actually care to look at my edits you will see that I have merely moved a lot of information from the Trivia Section into prose (as is the recommended by WP:Trivia). I have also summarized the article into an introduction. The B-Rating was old, and yes, the article needs citations. It was also not organized and the majority of the article was a trivia section. One person rewriting the article will not help, but it's a step in the right direction. I believe if you compare the article before and after you will see that it's quality is vastly improved. As stated, I have not yet added any additional citations, but I haven't removed any either. Basically I've re-organized the existing information into a format very similar to the Cornell University article that you often cite. The next step IS citing and expanding that information, you can help! Rather than giving general thoughts on talk pages, consider requesting citations where you feel necessary. Feel free to add information, cite sources that you can find.
Regarding Drafts. Wikipedia is a work in progress, after all. The Under Construction Template would not exist if changes weren't able to come in gradually. I have no idea what rule you are speaking of, but please cite what you are talking about to the appropriate rule. Reverting the article back to the mess it was in will just make it more difficult to organize and will bring back the discouraged Trivia section. What we need now is citations. I am planning on working on this shortly (hence the Construction Tag). There is no reason why the improvements made so far should be compromised by problems that were facing the page prior. It's not like I went through and removed citations.
Once again, please add to this page, add citations, edit it, do things! The second line in the Under Construction tag is "However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." Only when Template:inuse is active, are you to avoid editing. So, that said, rather than simply pointing out negatives on the talk page, make some positives on the article itself! Happy Wikipeding! Wjw0111 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos needed

Could someone with a camera upload some good photos of the "Arch" at Ryerson to Commons:Category:Normal School (Toronto) and Commons:Category:Ryerson University at the Commons? (The Arch being the preserved portion of the façade of the old Toronto Normal School). Photos of the front (south side) of the Arch would be great. Actually, the Ryerson category at the Commons is a bit sparse, and could use contributions of any photos of the campus. Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully someone beats me to it, but I can take some next week, if no one else has. Wjw0111 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)