Talk:Claremont Colleges

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Btittle1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pomona College

While I'm sure Pomona College is an enjoyable place to study in, I don't think it's NPOV to mention that in an encyclopaedia article. Gokul

The Pomona College article does claim that they were ranked as having the happiest students by the Princeton Review, but, having gone to Harvey Mudd College, I think that's just because they take almost no classes. I think I would've been much happier, too, taking a third fewer classes. --Laura Scudder | Talk 01:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Picture of Harvey Mudd

I'd like to add a picture of the Harvey Mudd campus, unless there are severe objections. Not sure why it's the only college left out, unless people confused the 'Honnald-Mudd' library with 'Harvey Mudd College'.

Seems to have gone well. Enjoy my first wikipedia upload. I'll remember to sign my comments in the future... -- Tythos Eternal 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that the picture is just old enough to show the campus as it clearly no longer is today. That sundial has been moved Eastward and there's now a flagpole there. ^L_Wizard @ 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Five Colleges (Massachusetts)

I've removed the following paragraph from the article on the Mass. Five-College Consortium:

The Claremont Colleges, also known as "the five-C's" may have been modeled after the five colleges, although the Claremont colleges did not account for five schools until the creation of Pitzer College in 1963. The Five-C's have their own variations of the Scooby Doo analogy, although they do not attribute the creation of the characters to their respective schools. One commonly held version of the analogy associates Daphne with Scripps College, Velma with Harvey Mudd College, Fred with Claremont McKenna College, Shaggy with Pitzer College, and Scooby with Pomona College.

I leave it to editors with more knowledge of things Claremont to decide whether this belongs in the article. The non-urban-legend part strikes me as a somewhat historically dubious claim ("may have been modeled"? really?) but, if true, could probably be sourced and cited. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it more brings to mind Yale with its constituent residential colleges located within a similar close proxmity and sharing the common organizational genesis and being so interconnected, whereas the 5 colleges in Mass are quite historically distinct and wholly orginizational independent insitutions (one being a public university) that allow students enrolled at any one school to take courses at the others. Who knows, maybe Yale's current system instituted mostly in the early 20th century will result in its colleges evolving into even greater independence with separate admissions and will become known as Yale Colleges. Already within the Yale community alums are increasingly identified as graduates of their constitutent colleges. -- Unsigned

The Claremont Colleges were modeled after Oxford, not Yale or the Mass. Five-College Consortium. James Blaisdell, an early Pomona president, spent time there and came back with the idea. Sdkb (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Total enrollment

What would it be? --JimWae (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision

The whole content has been revised. -- Wildcursive (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Pneumonic plague - trivia?

From Plague_(disease): "On August 31, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a case of pneumonic plague in Claremont, California. The CDC believes that the patient, a veterinarian, contracted plague from a stray cat. As the cat wasn't available for necropsy, this could not be ultimately confirmed." (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000394.htm) Claremont Colleges have been working with bio threats for a looong time. 217.144.100.18 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"All seven-institution Claremont Colleges system is supported by the Claremont University Consortium." This sentence is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.169.177 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Prestigious?

I removed 'prestigious' from the lead paragraph because of a lack of support from the source given. Although the word 'prestigious' was mentioned in association with the subject, it was not intended to be used as an absolute term, but a relative one ('seem to grow more prestigious every year'). TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 02:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Claremont College now redirects here

I redirected Claremont College to this article, as it seems a more widely used source than Claremont College (Tasmania) (a secondary school, equivalent to American high schools). I suspect that some of the incoming links to Claremont College may refer to Claremont Men's College (now Claremont McKenna College), and further link specification may be warranted, but at least the user following links is directed to the Claremont College system. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Colleges not listed in lede

It struikes me that the list of the five/seven constituent colleges should be prominently mentioned in the lede.104.163.141.141 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree there. Sdkb (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Scripps

The photo of Scripps is rather dull, given that it's such a beautiful campus. I'd suggest changing it to something else. Sdkb (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate infobox?

I'd like to add an infobox to this article, but I'm not sure what the appropriate one to use would be. Any thoughts/suggestions? - Sdkb (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

History section revisions

Thanks for adding all the additional info in the history section, Btittle1 (talk · contribs)! From here, I'd say the next step in improving the article will be to tighten up the wording: right now, it reads like a narrative/story, whereas the tone for Wikipedia is normally very get-to-the-facts. Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Joint science department" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Joint science department. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 27#Joint science department until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:HIGHERED REP follow-up

Following up from WP:HIGHERED REP, here are some potential sources that we could use if we wanted to try to synthesize the reputation of the Claremont Colleges:

References

I couldn't find the Fiske description in the current edition of the guidebook, and it was sourced to the CUC, but I did find it mentioned in one secondary source, so I switched to that; I don't really have reason to doubt its authenticity, but since reputation descriptions tend to be contentious, it'd obviously be best to be able to link to Fiske itself directly if if anyone can find which year that quote came from.

Overall, I'm guessing there are some scholarly sources out there that'd give more comprehensive reputational descriptions than the brief ones above, but at least the ones above come from some very respected newspapers, not trashy PR sites.

The Washington Post story uses the "crown jewel" description for Pomona if we need that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Resource for expansion of history section

See this article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

References

People section

@WilliamJE you have edit warred to repeatedly [1][2][3] remove the links to notable people for Pitzer College and Keck Graduate Institute. There are seven Claremont Colleges, all of which have notable people associated with them, so it seems to clearly make the most sense to me to include all the links, even if some of them still go to e.g. Pitzer College#Notable alumni since the Pitzer College people list has not been spun off yet. I could see why you removed the links when they were redlinks (WP:WTAF is a common philosophy, even though it's one I think is often misapplied), but now that they are proper redlinks, I'm not sure why you're continuing to dig in your heels. What is your position here? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

They are the equivalent of see also links. (A see also section is where most of them belong). You're directing readers to lists ('Coverage of them is divided into articles by college:' as the article says) that don't exist. You've replaced redlinks with redirects. In either case there is nothing for readers to see. As I often edit summarize[4][5][6] 'what is there to edit see also when no article exists'. Make the list articles or alumni sections, then link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I made the list article for Scripps. For Keck, the redirect goes to the noted people section. For Pitzer, there are two relevant sections, "Notable alumni" and "Notable faculty", and since we can't point to both, I just pointed to Pitzer's page. The redirects are marked as {{R with possibilities}}, indicating that they can be turned into articles by anyone who wishes to do so. The links do not belong in the see also section, since the article already has a people section (as is standard for higher education pages) where they fit. You appear to be quite intransigent here, so I will request a 3O to try to break the gridlock. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring is counterproductive. Linking to redirects is acceptable, as reflected in policy WP:R, and repeatedly reverting is creating unnecessary drama. On the other hand, rather than exhibiting the same bad behavior, the editor who is trying to expand the articles could take the easier step of creating the target articles. This exchange is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND, which makes all of us look bad when viewed from the outside. Please be considerate of other editors: 1.) quit reverting obvious good-faith edits and 2.) just create the articles. A lot of time will be saved and the atmosphere would be more appropriate and encouraging for new editors. I went ahead and created the Pitzer article, since it was possible to do a simple cut-and-paste to get it started. I'm restoring both links, and am asking WilliamJE to play nice, and allow User:Sdkb some time to expand the target article, and that User:Sdkb do so in a reasonable amount of time. Is this acceptable to both of you?Jacona (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

WilliamJE, these are not equivalent to See also links. The list is arguably valuable to readers with or without the wikilinks. A See also list, not so much. You're going to have a more pleasant experience with Wikipedia if you can adopt a live and let live approach to whether the list contains links to actual articles, redirects or redlinks or no link at all. ~Kvng (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both for the third opinions. And thanks Jacona for starting the people list for Pitzer. I wasn't deliberately putting it off, but the Scripps list took a little while to do justice to, so I hadn't gotten a chance to get to it too yet. I'll hopefully find time to work on improving that and the Keck list in the near future, although as ever I can't guarantee. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)