Talk:University of Pittsburgh/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old talk

To the person who edited Vladimir Zworykin out of the alumni list: See "25 Ways..." in this pdf. The extent of his work at Pitt I don't know, but he's officially an alumnus. Also, check this external link from his personal entry: "He also enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh where he received the Ph.D. in 1926." -- Hesychast

Can someone cite a source for Pitt being a private university? To the best of my knowledge, it is public.

Actually, Pitt is a "state related" university. Not exactly public, but not exactly private, either. --Kurtbw.

If we take a look at the offical University of Pittsburgh fact book (http://www.ir.pitt.edu/factbook/) we can read... "The University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education is a nonsectarian, coeducational, state-related, public research university." The research part is what makes it so expensive. This article does not give the place justice. Someone with more time that I should fix it. - bethlynn BSIS 12/2000


As an alumnus (BSChE/MSChE), I assure everyone that Pitt is not properly designated as a "private" university. In Pennsylvania, there are three basic types of "public" schools: state schools (e.g., Indiana University of Pennsylvania), state-related (Penn State only, I believe), and state-affiliated (Pittsburgh, Temple, and Lincoln). Unless the original author is using "private" in a nonstandard parlance (non-US, perhaps?), I'm confused. Flyers13 04:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln, Temple, PSU, and Pitt are all state-related. According to the PA Dept of Ed, Pitt is public. Khanartist 05:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)


Sitting in my dorm room on pitt's campaus right now.... Pitt is "state related", at least how we all understand it here. We get funding from the state, but we aren't a state school. Lyellin 22:06, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


In 1966 the Commonwealth designated Pitt a "State-related university". See http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/SC/HC/0/SC/SUPD.HTM . A fraction of its budget comes from the Commonwealth and thus it operates under many of the same constraints as public universities. [from a former faculty member, 8/19/05]


--Public vs. Private: As stated above, the PA Dept of Ed lists Pitt and the other three "state-related" schools as public. [1] The governor and both houses of the state legislature appoint a minority of members to Pitt's board of trustees. Also, the governor, state education secretary, Pittsburgh mayor and Allegheny County executive all sit on the board in an ex-officio capacity. The remaining trustee positions are filled by alumni and existing trustee election. Similarly, Pennsylvania State University trustees are appointed by the governor and elected by the alumni and various boards. This differs from the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education schools, which are governed by a totally governor-appointed board that includes alumni and state legislators.

Compare: Some state universities, such as University of California and University of Michigan, have governing boards that are chosen by statewide election. Singularly, New York State has so-called statutory colleges that are publicly-funded academic units within private universities, see Alfred University and Cornell University. Also, some state universities have private academic units. The Michigan State University College of Law, which was formerly a stand-alone private institution, is classified as a private school within the public university. Its board is independent from the university and it does not offer reduced tuition for in-state students. The Dickinson School of Law at Penn State was also a stand-alone private institution. It does not offer reduced tuition for in-state students, though the PA Dept of Ed lists it as a public school. I do not know how the school is currently governed, though I know there is an ongoing conflict over moving the school to Penn State's main campus, setting up a dual campus system or breaking ties with Penn State.

IMHO: Making the private/public distinction appears to be more important in states where most elite institutions are private, e.g., Northeastern states. This distinction appears less important in states containing both elite public and private institutions, e.g., California and North Carolina. This distinction may even drift in favor of public schools in states with just elite public institutions, e.g., Michigan and Virginia.--


-- I noticed that someone added the undergraduate US News ranking and the fact that it is 10 places below Penn State. This person also added, and subsequently removed, the word "average" to the first sentence of the Pitt description. This person is also a contributor on the Penn State page. I don't think there is much question as to where lies their allegiance. (Ah, NPOV right?) That being said, what do people think about adding Pitt's graduate/professional school rankings (which are mostly higher than Penn State's) v. removing the rankings listing altogether? I have not done either. I don't care for the rankings that much, though I freely admit that they are followed by many, myself included.

Personally, I would remove the rankings listing. I took a brief survey of Association of American Universities (research universities group including Pitt) in the Big East, Big Ten and Ivy League, plus CMU. Only Penn State, and to a lesser extent Purdue, bothers to list the bulk of their rankings. Perhaps a third of them make some mention of US News rankings, a la Princeton noting its many years of being first or others noting their being among the most selective schools. The rest don't bother. Unless there is a definitive top 10/top 5 program that someone wishes to list, I'd just skip it.

Comments? - Id-less. Jul 20 2005

In 1980, some minor polls listed Pitt as No. 1. At that time apparently, only AP and UPI were counted as "national championship" polls. Both AP and UPI voted us second that year. Earlier, other polls apparently counted as "national championship polls," see e.g. 1936 and 1931. http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html

Most importantly, the Pitt athletic department claims only 9 national titles, not including 1980.

Pitt Philosophy Department rankings

Did anyone else notice the recent edit to the University of Pittsburgh page, (this one[2]), which references a Philosophical Gourmet Report? I'm wondering if we can get a citation for the PGR, or clarify whether it was added as a joke? At first I thought it might be a tongue-in-cheek nickname for the US News rankings... I posted a message on the talk page of User:Wikimaniac14, but s/he has only made 4 edits in one session, so I'm not sure if s/he will come back. Mamawrites 09:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a real thing, even if a stupid one. Any philosophy professor or grad student in the English-speaking world can probably tell you about it, but anyhow it is now linked to. Pitt is renowned for John McDowell, Robert Brandom, Nuel Belnap, Nicholas Rescher, Anil Gupta, Michael Thompson and no small number of now-dead people including Wilfrid Sellars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.209.26 (talk • contribs)

Other athletics

Someone (with better current knowlege than I) needs to add info about the so-called non-revenue (or Olympic) sports. Track and field has had numerous Olympians; swimming and diving have dominated the Big East (winning 20 Big East championships in their first 23 seasons); women's volleyball has been a consistent Top 25-type team for years; and baseball has its moments. This page just reads like there are only two teams at the university (though those two, admittedly, are by far the most newsworthy. Flyers13 03:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and university projects/Pitt-Societies-2005

I'd like to invite all Wikipedians, especially thise connected with Pitt, to join this project. I am attempting to expand it from single subject to a template usable for various lectures/TAs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Football

The suggestion that Pittsburgh has won 9 NCAA national football championships is at odds with the wikipedia article on the NCAA title which gives them 5. [[3]]

  • The university has consistently claimed 9 national football championships (some people want a tenth in 1980, but, by then the AP and UPI were recognized as the only 2 big polls). The NCAA article isn't wrong, per se; to make the two articles match, the other polls that were done in the 20s and 30s need to be added; these other polls were just as "legit" as the ones being cited. The AP poll starting in 1936 subsumed some of these smaller polls and helped clean up the issue a little. Now we just have BCS nonsense to deal with (and the people claiming USC is going for a "three-pete", when LSU won the 2003 championship, alone; and no, finishing first in the AP poll, one of the three components of the BCS, is not the same as winning the National Championship). Flyers13 21:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The NCAA doesn't certify national champions, but they do list the organizations by year. In 1934 no organization listed them for champ. In 1980 4 did. The NCAA also doesn't count Davis, thought they list many others. We should specify who picked whom. Rkevins82 05:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that there are many different organizations that have picked champions over the years and the list could be very varied. I'm going with the Pitt Athletic Dept. because it is easy to cite without having to break down the way champions have been picked over the years (which is an article in itself). Also, I don't know about 1934, but I was around in 1980. And despite the fact that 4 organizations picked Pitt champion in 1980, only AP and UPI were the "polls of record" at that time. Sadly for the Pitt faithful, they went with Georgia.
Again from the above link, Parke Davis only awarded a championship in 1933 - and not to Pitt. Anyone know more about this? I am concerned that if we simply report how many championships a school claims, those that are reasonable in their statements would be underrepresented. Rkevins82 02:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)