Talk:The College of William & Mary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia 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 Project's 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.)

Talk page for College of William and Mary

Contents 1 Secret Societies 2 Delis? 3 James Blair 4 Ampersand, 2nd oldest claim 5 Campus description box 6 Notable Professors? 7 Songs of The College 8 NPOV 9 Response to questions about William and Mary rankings, etc. 10 new article for James Blair 11 Continued improvements 12 Restructured 13 Continued refinements, additional needs 14 Dr. Blair, link to College of William and Mary on Wikipedia Main Page 15 Article size 16 "Old Campus" 17 Overhaul 18 "The College" and "The University" 19 Motto 20 "Value for money," not "affordable tuition" 21 Logo/coat of arms 22 Information box 23 Notable professors section? 24 Recent wording change by WWC. 25 "Marshall-Wythe School of Law is the oldest law school in the United States" 26 Yule log 27 The Oldest? 28 Merger Proposal 29 The "colleges" of William & Mary, including its junior colleges 30 Wren Building 31 19th Century Funding 32 Top Five Overlap schools 33 Edits re: political economy pedagogy and Jefferson 34 Jefferson's reform efforts & the University of Virginia 34.1 History and milestones 34.2 History and milestones 35 Second Oldest University in the American South 36 Admissions edits 37 Greek edit 38 Washington Monthly 39 selectivity 40 Commencement Speakers 41 Notable Professors: Maximilian de Gaynesford 42 Notable Professors: Criteria? 43 "accessible professors"? 44 Feeder colleges 45 First University? 46 Best small public university 47 Drunk Soldiers 48 Year of founding

[edit] Secret Societies

Secret societies at William and Mary rarely have much staying power. I believe the only one of note is the 13 Club.

LegCircus 00:45, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Not much staying power? The FHC started in 1750, the Bishop James Madison Society started in 1812, the 7 Society, the 13 Club, and the Alpha Club all started in (or before) the early 1900s. All of those societies are active today. There were breaks in activity in the mid-to-late-20th century, but all of those societies are currently active.

There are some upstart societies as of late, and time will tell if they last beyond a few semesters. But the ones mentioned above have, I think, withstood whatever litmus test you would suggest for "staying power."

But the school didn't even exist during the mid-1880s; how could any club that started before then and was revived afterward be said to have staying power? The phrase implies continuous existence.

The phrase "staying power" might imply "continuous existence." It might not. But the point is moot. The phrase "staying power" isn't used in the main article itself, only here on the talk page, in that one comment. The comment itself was asking, in effect, "should these societies be mentioned in the article." Considering that William and Mary is the home of Phi Beta Kappa (initially a secret society) and the F.H.C. (still a secret society; arguably the first collegiate fraternal organization [that is, "fraternity-like organization"]), it seems appropriate to include that information in the article about the school.

This article says that the Seven Society is a W&M original, while the linked Seven Society page says that the W&M Sevens are off-shoots of the UVa Sevens. Which to believe?

[edit] Delis?

I just read that the local hangouts at William and Mary are called deli's instead of what they more closely resemble; bars. A student there explains...

“Williamsburg has three main bars, although we like to call them ‘delis’, for reasons beyond my understanding. They are all right across the street from Old Campus, so they’re very convenient. All serve food, but mostly function as bars. The College Delly is your typical college bar, very popular with the Greeks (it has nice patio for warm weather), Paul’s is more of a sports bar and has the best food (it’s my favorite), and the Green Leafe is like a pub, including lots of weird beers. Lots of professors go to the Leafe, so if you like seeing your teachers blitzed out of their minds, that’s the place to go.”

It seems that not even the students know why

from the College Prowler guidebook, College of William and Mary - Off the Record

The places are called delis because, well, they're delis. Their signs read "College Delly," "Paul's Deli," and "Green Leafe Cafe." All three of them have full menus and serve a large amount of food every day - I've worked in the Leafe's kitchen and my roommates currently work at Paul's. They do have variously nice bars, but they're hardly bars exclusively. --George 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Liquor laws vary enormously from state to state and from county to county within states... I'm thinking that perhaps in some parts of the country it's relatively hard for a "deli" to get a liquor license, hence unusual, and perhaps in Williamsburg and/or Virginia it's relatively easy, hence usual? Where I live, ordinary supermarkets do not carry beer... but they do carry non-alcoholic beer... but they card you at the checkout line when you buy non-alcoholic beer (!!!). (And by non-alcoholic I mean non-alcoholic, not 3.2% "near beer.") Dpbsmith (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we call them "the delis" because it sounds nicer than calling them "the bars". It's most likely a concession to the Colonial Williamsburg tourist ethos...the town doesn't want to say "we have bars that serve the College clientle", they want to say "the students eat at the delis." Similarly, all the alcohol/food/entertainment establishments further from campus are taverns, not bars. We're a tourist town, we have an image to keep up? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What you are seeing in naming conventions is statewide. As resident of Virginia for almost 50 years, I can tell you that the words "bar" and "saloon" were once fordbidden by the state ABC laws and regulations, which even now, require that a majority of the establishment's business be food, not alcohol, for an ABC-on (comsumption on-premises) license. It has only been a little over 10 years since it was unlawful in Virginia (under ABC regulations) to serve alcohol to a homosexual person. I was a child in Chicago, and the lack of neon beer signs in restaurant windows here after we arrived in 1958 always puzzled me. We have come a long way, but the saying is "things take time on Virginia...". Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (and proud of W&M), Vaoverland 10:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Very interesting. Thanks! Dpbsmith (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that they are still called "Delis" today is perhaps in some part due to the reasons already mentioned, vis a vis liquor laws and the desire of the community to present a nice facade; however, I think in large part it is just a tradition of retaining familiar names of places that still have sentimental appeal for alumni. Paul's Deli, for instance, used to be located several blocks from where it is now, but when they moved they kept the name. Back in the late 70's, when I was a student a freshman at W&M, Paul's was much more like a traditional deli (now it's decidedly more like a sports bar). During the day, and most weekday nights, they were and mostly still are, more delis than bars. Due to the zoning controls in the historic district, these delis were the ONLY places near campus where you could get something to eat that wasn't college cafeteria food. For a late night study break, they were the only place to go for a good cheap sandwich or a pizza (but the sandwiches were the best). True, Friday and Saturday nights they surely sold more beer than food, but they still fed a lot of students even on those nights. For the most part, all that is still true today. On campus, the Green Leafe was always considered a bar - the only bar within walking distance - and all the others were delis. (And, yes, if you wanted to get sloshed with your prof, the Green Leafe was the place to do it.)

My kids are now old enough they've started scouting colleges and I took them for a tour of W&M recently. They thought it was way cool that I could take them into the same delis where would go when I was in college, places they had heard stories about all their lives, that are still there, and still go by the same names as in the stories. Very smart marketing, actually. Any place starting out new just won't have that benefit of history. Most of the places have probably changed owners a few times over the years, but they wisely have kept the same names and changed very little. - BL 02/15/06

[edit] James Blair

The James Blair hyperlink is incorrect.

That was true. I changed int link to the wrong James Blair to a new one (now red, needs article). Vaoverland 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ampersand, 2nd oldest claim

Isn't the proper name "College of William & Mary"? Should that be fixed?

• No. From http://www.wm.edu/news/nomenclature.php:
  • Formal Name: The College of William and Mary in Virginia
  • Appropriate First Reference: The College of William and Mary
  • Abbreviation: If an abbreviation is needed in headlines or TV chyrons, William & Mary or W&M would be appropriate.
  • The Ampersand: The ampersand was used extensively in 17th-and 18th-century documents, specifically in a Latin copy of the original William and Mary charter. While it is used in the College's logo and is appropriately used in abbreviations in headlines (W&M), the ampersand should not be used in text.

On an unrelated note, what's this "The college considers itself the second-oldest post-secondary school..."? Is there dispute of this? --BDD 16:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It is the second oldest in the nation, considering the category of Colonial Colleges. However, if you count the attempt at establishing the University of Henrico, in 1618 (which never became more than a basic school for Indians, despite its ambitions at being a fully-functional degree-granting post-secondary institution), the idea of it "considering itself" is possible. No one counts Henrico (the plan for which is thought to have become CofW&M). The other possibility is that St. John's Annapolis, founded in 1696 as a basic secondary school, could be considered more functional than William and Mary as W&M took a few years after 1696 to literally get started. However, I would restate definitively as "the second-oldest institution of higher learning in the United States." I wouldn't even qualify it with "post-secondary." No one counts St. John's Annapolis in the colonial colleges because it wasn't chartered as an institution of higher learning with the privilege of granting degrees until after the Revolution. —ExplorerCDT 17:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• P.S. They don't put an ampersand on the diploma. —ExplorerCDT 17:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that it "considers itself" such implies that their claim is based on shaky ground. I, for one, visited St. John's College in Annapolis (in addition to being accepted at WM), where they proudly claimed themselves to be the third-oldest in the country, after, of course, Harvard and William and Mary. Unless anyone has any strong objections, this should definitely be updated.

• Already done yesterday. —ExplorerCDT 00:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason that W&M "considers itself" the third oldest is that it is a nineteenth-century university occupying the campus of a colonial college. Its claim to age is based on the royal chartering of a school that lasted from 1693 to 1882. The present state university is a distinct institution that chartered by Virginia around 1888. --P, 10/2/05

• • I think William and Mary's claim to be "second oldest" is on pretty good ground. Now, I don't know whether it's fair to factor this into the "age" of St. John's, but given that it lost its accreditation in 1936, and basically restarted from scratch with the now-famous and unique "New Program" in 1937, there's a case to be made that the present-day St. John's really only has institutional continuity back to 1937. (Naturally, the founders of the New Program asserted that it was pretty much a return to the original St. John's tradition... but I don't think I buy it). Of course, once you start playing that gameeverything is up for grabs. Still, Harvard has been governed by the same corporation, the "President and Fellows of Harvard College," since 1650, if not quite back to its traditional date of founding. I haven't checked but I believe William and Mary has similarly venerable institutional continuity. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campus description box

I think the fact box at right ought to place the campus in a "small city" rather than "suburban" setting. Williamsburg is not a suburb of any other large city, and the College is right in the middle of Williamsburg (rather than outside the city limits). Thoughts?

-Actually, an environment may be "suburban" (i.e. less than urban) wherever it is located. There are suburban environments within Manhattan. The gateway to campus, you are right, is in a small city, but part of the campus (the bulk of it) is itself suburban in character. This probably should be emphasized to prevent visitors from expecting an entirely colonial campus in keeping with Colonial Williamsburg. --P, 10/2/05

---

Fourth oldest in North America behind Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo (1538), Harvard University (1636), and Université Laval (1663).

[edit] Notable Professors?

Okay, so what here counts as a notable professor? Someone recently added like 15 people, one of which is apparently Carl Carlson from the Simpsons, and some others are obscure british philosophers. If I get a chance I can check some of these names, but is this just suppsoed to be a faculty list, or a list of actually notable professors? I guess Carl Carlson would be pretty notable, since he is a cartoon character. Midas 14:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Carl Carlson is a real person. See here: Carl Carlson I'll put him back.

[edit] Songs of The College

This section is rather poor and needs to be cleaned up, the lyrics are inappropriate and should be replaced with a discussion of the songs and their history. TheChief (PowWow) 17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I am working to cleanup this article to meet WP standards. A lot of that I can handle, including checking out such obviously inaccurate statements as "In 2006, US News and World Report ranked William & Mary #6 of all public universities." I will try to verify the statement and correct the date, if at all possible.

However, this article also needs a NPOV cleanup to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view standards. As a resident of the Williamsburg area, I am very proud of and admire the history and accomplishments of W&M. However, Wikipedia articles should not be full of adjectives and adverbs which some would call the "sales puffery" of phrases like these:

• renowned lack of grade inflation
• prestigious league of Presidential alma maters
• its regal history
  • WM was chartered by King William and Queen Mary with a royal charter, hence the regal history. I'm not sure it's exactly NPOV, but it's certainly the only US college where one could use the adjective. --Orang55 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• one of Virginia's most-cherished universities
• ranked among the premier public universities in America.
• one of the more touted "Public Ivies"
  • I moved the "public ivy" reference out of lead and added a footnote to make it NPOV. Lovelac7 22:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I put the Public Ivy ref back into the lead. University of Michigan includes a reference to it being a Public Ivy, and it is a Featured Article. Saying WM was one of the "more touted" public ivies was POV, but not just saying that it is one.--Bkwillwm 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, didn't see public ivy in the first part of the Michigan article, but I still think saying Public Ivy is POV and should be excluded needs some explanation.--Bkwillwm 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's POV, "Public Ivy" is still so very... meaningless. A guy referred to W&M -- and a battery of other schools -- as a "Public Ivy." This was not some ground-breaking book -- in fact, until Wikipedia, I'd never even heard of it. On every page on which "Public Ivy" is mentioned, it simply seems like a self-conscious, desperate attempt to shove near the Ivy League, a desperation that fine institutions such as W&M simply don't need and obviously shouldn't exhibit. JDoorjam 23:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was kinda right about the Michigan page. Public Ivy was mentioned in the lead when Michigan appeared on the main page (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 11, 2006). And I have heard of public ivies in many places outside of Wikipedia.--Bkwillwm 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Public Ivy sentence did indeed appear on the Main Page on January 11. This, and a few other areas led to U-M being listed as a Featured article removal candidate. Moving the public ivy comment out of the lead and adding a footnote has gone a long way to reaching an NPOV consensus on the article. — Lovelac7 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• much-revered "old campus"
• the much-beloved W. Samuel Sadler

I would assume that someone who attends or attended William and Mary wrote these phrases, and perhaps for use elsewhere. However, in Wikipedia, this writing style detracts from the credibility and quality of the article.

I do not know enough about the College to tackle improving the article as I am suggesting, and it deserve a high quality of effort to do so. With such knowledge, the article could be improved and still stress aspects insiders feel strongly about, but perhaps stated a bit more subtlety. If the school is as fine an institution as I (and probably who ever wrote these words) think it is, the facts presented in an interesting and concise manner will stand strongly enough to make a very favorable impression with a bit more modesty in the article. Vaoverland 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to questions about William and Mary rankings, etc.

Hi Vaoverland,

Thank you for taking the time to clean up the W&M website. It is a little wordy, but the underlying accuracy is intact.

The #6 ranking you were curious about is indeed accurate (and has been for the last few years) as is the part about W&M being named the "hottest small public university" -- here are the verifying links.

US NEWS http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/natudoc_pub_brief.php

NEWSWEEK http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8939242/page/2/

Good luck.

PS -- I am a history buff and am not biased about W&M, it's pre-Revolutionary history is unique and very important in the history of university education in the US.

(above was contributed from unregistered use)

What I was challenging was the statements, "In 2006, ... ranked (etc.)." Since 2006 isn't even here yet, the statements seemed suspect. I was able to determine that both claims were regarding the 2005-2006 school year, so I adjusted the wording to reflect that. Perhaps in the collegiate community, a school year is referred to by only the ending year, much as Class of '06. I have added your sources after each ranking claim in the article.

As I said earlier, I think the facts themselves give W&M lots of bragging rights, so I hope someone intimate with W&M will tone down the POV rhetoric such as "much-revered", etc., which tends to detract from the credibility of the article. I plan to continue to work on the structure and presentation, although I have a lot of other irons in the fire. Thanks (and I hope you will register as a WP user). Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia, Vaoverland 20:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new article for James Blair

I have created a new article of the College's founder the Reverend Dr. James Blair. while researching it, I found the Cypher Society plans for improving his gravesite on Jamestown Island to be a very positive reflection on W&M, and included mention in the article. Any por/con feedback on the new Blair article would be appreciated!

Does anyone have a PD image of founder Blair? It would enhance that article. For that matter, the W&M article could use some photos, which need to be realeased for PD to be used.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia. Vaoverland 01:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, You are doing a terrific job and a great service to William and Mary. The Cypher Society plans are historically interesting and there really should be more attention (and photos) of James Blair, the College's founder. There is large statue of James Blair in front of the Wren Building, perhaps by contacting the Public Relations office at W&M at (757) 221-2630 you could get additional photos for the website. The College website also may have some information (www.wm.edu) -- I'm sure current students or folks at the Colleg's newspaper The Flat Hat could also help. Thanks again, and please post if you need any help with your redesign of the W&M site.

[edit] Continued improvements

It is good to see others making continued improvements. Some additional guidance:

When there are sections, the lead section of a WP article is supposed to basically and briefly summarize. I believe that the way this one got like it is was that someone added a lot to an originally smaller article, most of which is still in the lead.

1. The lead needs to be condensed. It is OK to repeat the points and internal links below. In fact, when starting from scratch, I find it works best to write the lead last.

2. History is so much of the article, it needs subsections. Some of the text about the College which is current needs to be moved out of the history section, and moved into a new section.

Keep up the good work. this article is improving.

Vaoverland 00:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restructured

I have just completed a major restructure, with new sections. Most non-duplicative content was retained. Editors familiar with the College are requested to review this work, and give me a chance to improve it (or do so yourselves). Now that I think it flows more logically, areas of interest we have missed or over-emphasized may become clearer. 312 years is a lot of history.

One question I have is whether the notable alumni and and faculty lists should be presented in nay particular order.

Ready for feedback, folks. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia. Vaoverland 04:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continued refinements, additional needs

I really think we are "getting there" with this article. Two items which need attention:

1. Article could use some more post-Civil War pre 1980s history content. The last sentence in the history section is all we have.

2. We still have not addressed the excessive use of adjectives and adverbs (see above section) which generated the NPOV flag. I was hoping someone close to the school could work on those, as the most significant (i.e. one or two) would be reasonable to retain, but the many instances in the current text take away from the credibility of the article. I will take a shot at this if no one else does..

One other comment, which is: It is harder to work with editors of WP who haven't registered as users. Please do. It is free, you don't have to reveal your true identity, and you won't be bombed with spam. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more reasons than you can shake a stick at. Most importantly, all your edits will be attributed to your User name.

Thanks for all the continued help. Vaoverland 20:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Blair, link to College of William and Mary on Wikipedia Main Page

I was just notified that an article I wrote on Dr Blair will be featured on Wikpedia's Main Page for October 3, 2005. The main page item includes a link to William and Mary article.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article James Blair (clergyman), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

I was thinking about moving the list of alum to its own page to keep down the article size. Any thoughts?--Bkwillwm 15:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Old Campus"

The article refers to the Wren Building, the Brafferton, and the Presidents House as "old campus" -- as a student at the college, I'd like to comment that the college currently refers to "old campus" as the section of campus containing the 3 aforementioned buildings in addition to those surrounding the sunken gardens. Some refer to the triangle of the Wren, Brafferton, and President's House as "ancient campus," although I don't believe this is the "official" terminology. --Orang55 03:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 13:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article lists "old campus" as being constructed in the 18th century. I haven't been able to locate an exact date of when buildings began to be constructed on the south side of the Wren Building, but the 1700s seem FAR too early for this... can anybody locate a more accurate date?

This link [1] suggests that most of the buildings in "Old Campus" are from the early 1900s. It doesn't talk about Tucker Hall, but I found something else suggesting it was made a little earlier but not much (c. 1909). "Ancient Campus" (Wren Yard" buildings are 1700s though.--Bkwillwm 22:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

McGlothlin-Street Hall is very recent - it was originally called Tercentary (or perhaps Tricentennial) Hall, dating it to approximately 1993, and then rechristened. Several professors still call it T-hall. I'm pretty sure there was a building there before it got built, though. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the Wren building was completed in 1699 instead of 1716. Virginianivy 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a source, so we can WP:CITE it in the article? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 20:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to come see the plaque on the building you are more than welcome. As for "ancient campus", the Brafferton and the President's House were built in the 18th century with the Wren being built in the 17th. The rest of the campus was built in the 20th century with ongoing construction in the 21st.

[edit] Overhaul

This article has gotten pretty messy. The order and break down of categories makes no sense and random facts have been inserted ad hoc. I'm going to do a massive edit soon. Any thoughts beforehand?--Bkwillwm 03:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a section on Tribe Athletics.
• I gave it a little bit of work. WWC 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is much improved, but I think some changes could still be made to improve the structure. The "Priorities" section sticks out. Perhaps it should be combined into a trivia section with other facts that stick out randomly.--Bkwillwm 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say kill the "Priorities" section entirely WWC 13:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got the article on Michigan State University featured. Here's my two cents:

• Move all of the lists of people to the "People/Alumni" page and rename that page List of College of William and Mary people.
• You can add the "recent developments" section to the history section, though the history section needs to be spun off into a daughter article itself, so that you can whittle the history section down to something more readable (if you want to put the time in to get it up to FA status).
• The "Wren Building" can move to the "Campus" section
• The "ΦΒΚ" "Secret Societies" sections can go with "Traditions" into a new "Student Life" section.
• "Team nickname controversy" can go into an "Athletics" section.
• "Leadership", "Founders of educational institutions" and the link to the Alumni/People page can go into a combined "People" section.

This are just my suggestions. Feel free to take them or leave them. Lovelac7 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think those are good suggestions. Here are some more of my own, which I will execute in the next few days unless someone objects:

• Kill the "Educational Best Value" section and trim the other ranking information. Noting W&M's prestige is one thing; mentioning every single award it's gotten is another
• Kill the "Graduate Placement" section
• Kill Charter Day 2006 and 300th anniversary sections, as well as the Desmond Tutu section. We can't have a blurb for every single notable speaker

The article is really just too long at this point (and consequently hard to read). A lot of frivolous information--this is a general encyclopedia, people! WWC 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some pretty heavy editing. Here are my explanations for some of the major bits--I welcome comments!

• Wording adjustments to "History" section, stripped out some recent history. Removed unnecessary references to recent charter day ceremonies
• Killed a lot of the Thomas Jefferson stuff. It belongs in/already exists in the Thomas Jefferson article.
• Replaced "William & Mary" with "William and Mary" everywhere I saw it. [2]
• Killed the bit about having a pre-revolutionary coat of arms. Unnecessary in a general encyclopedia
• Killed paragraph about William Barton Rogers. Same reason.
• Killed "Notable Royal Visits." Unnecessary and self-indulgent.
• Killed "Priorities" for the same reason.
• Stripped down "current rankings" section. Left enough to get the College's prestige across without listing every single thing anyone ever wrote about us
• Killed "Friends of the College." Self-indulgent.

Again, this was not meant to undo others' work. Rather, it was an effort to get the article down to a more readable size and remove extraneous factoids that didn't contribute to a good overall understanding of the College. At this point, the student life and academics sections could probably use some expansion.

Please comment here. WWC 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Priorities are useful information in an encyclopedia. I've been bold and merged them into the Wren Building article and provided a link within this article at the end of early history. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but I think putting the info. on another page and linking to it is a good compromise unless/until some other folks weigh in. WWC 12:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The College" and "The University"

Is William and Mary called "The College" to distinguish it from "The University," i.e. the University of Virginia?" Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, William and Mary's original charter said that it would forever be known as a college, so that's why its refered to as a college rather than a university (which WM is). I think "The College" is a semi-colloquial term related to the charter. I'm pretty sure that it has nothing to do with UVA being an univeristy or anything else about UVA. (I'm a WM student btw).--Bkwillwm 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

I'm a student at W&M, and I was unaware that "Alma mater of a nation" was the College's motto. I thought it was an unofficial moniker that is used more by those outside the school than within it. Any thoughts? Dcteas17 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mills Godwin coined the phrase, so it's at least semi-official. Email someone in administration? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The "motto" is usually the words that appear as part of the seal. Seems easy to me: mention it in the lead section but don't claim it's "the motto." Unless of course someone finds a citable source that says that it is. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Value for money," not "affordable tuition"

Kiplinger was not saying W&M is particularly "affordable." Their table shows many public universities with lower total-cost-after-aid, certainly for out-of-state students. For example, compare W&M's out-of-state "total cost after aid" of $20,340 to Texas A&M's $13,864. Minnesota-Morris $10,603. In-state, W&M does better, but for in-state costs one would presumably compare against other Virginia university's and UVA's $4,272 is meaningfully lower than W&M's $5,070.

The rise in costs at public universities in just the past five or six years is nothing short of terrifying, and it a national scandal which is going to bear bitter fruit in a decade or so. I wouldn't characterize $20,340 as particularly "affordable," even if it is meaningfully less than private-school costs.

In-state, OK, $5,070 isn't bad, but, dammit, that is not affordable for everyone and is definitely high enough to make some students pass on college, or drop out with cost playing a factor.

I wouldn't quibble with "affordable in-state tuition" if someone prefers that as a section heading. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo/coat of arms

I do not have any experience with graphics/copyright/fair-use on Wikipedia, and so I'm asking that somebody with more experience tackle this issue (naturally, I'll watch the changes to learn). I feel the graphic/coat-of-arms on the information box needs to be changed based on some observations. All of the stationery, banners, and plaques that represent the college (I am a current student) do not appear in that format, but rather, show up as in the following page: http://www.wm.edu/it/images/wmimages/buscard.gif. More graphics, including the one that currently appears on the page, are available here: Archive of W&M Images for the Web. In addition, W&M's public relations nomenclature page indicates that "The College's primary identity is the College's wordmark "The College of William and Mary" combined with the coat of arms, which is placed to the left. Used together, the wordmark and seal make an excellent graphic when visual representation is needed." Given this and the general observation that W&M seems to favor using the logo as in the image linked above (colorless and in that format), the image on Wikipedia's article ought to change to reflect that. I'd do it myself, but as I said, I'm unsure about how to upload images and tag them properly. Some help would be appreciated, as would any comments or opinions. Thanks. Daniel 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information box

Is anybody willing to retackle the information box? One glance at the University of Virginia reveals a much cleaner-looking, better-organized information box. Why not make W&M's in a format like this (and all of Va.'s public school sites, while we're at it)? Thoughts? Daniel 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable professors section?

I am a current student and naturally browse the article frequently. What I've noticed, however, is a gross expansion of the "notable professors" segment of the article that seems more based on authors deciding that their research professors or major advisors deserve mention on the article than actual notability. I just re-alphabetized the list and erased some redundant information, but I want some opinions on the section in general. Putting somebody there with the explanation "expert in (blank)" is not justification for mention. College professors are innately experts in their respective fields. I cannot explicitly comment on departments outside of my own (biology), nor do I want to presume to state who is notable and who is not. However, some changes need to be made. I added Bill Starnes because he recently patented and licensed technology in PVC stabilizers that will likely bring the college millions and perhaps revitalize the PVC industry worldwide. However, I see many names that don't appear in the news, even in W&M's papers. For instance, Anthony Zinni is most certainly notable as a political figure in the national spotlight. Joseph Scott and Brian Holloway, on the other hand, don't seem to be so notable. Are they masters in their fields (phycology and nanotube chemistry, respectively)? Certainly. That doesn't make them notable. I feel that for someone to appear in the list, they should more than warrant an independent article on Wikipedia - if you want to add somebody you don't have to write an article, but they should at least merit one. Opinions? Anybody willing to help me tackle who is notable and who is not, and anybody want to justify those already on the list? Thanks. Daniel 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a good set of criteria be that either A) the professor already HAS a Wikipedia article, or B) enough information is added with the entry such that a reasonable stub could be written. If the professor meets neither, I say remove them from the list - If they deserve to be there they should have their own article anyway. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; however, I want to caution against one point. I do not feel that enough information should appear in the section with which to write a stub. The segment is supposed to be a list of notable professors, not a list of the accomplishments, criteria, and credentials of notable professors. Enough information should be available to write a stub, I think, but it ought not appear in the entry itself. Daniel 06:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha! There is a guideline for this! Wikipedia:Notability (academics). -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent wording change by WWC.

Recently,

"In 1854, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities presented a large plaque listing the Priorities of the College. The plaque, now on the Wren Building, lists notable academic firsts at the College."

was changed to

"Given its long history intertwining with that of early America, William and Mary has the honor of a number of other notable academic firsts"

without explanation, and I changed it back. I've now been asked for an explanation, which is fair, so here goes. The language used to replace the first sentence removed information about the APVA, the plaque they put on the building, and the year they put the plaque on the building, and replaced it with less informativepeacock language—"long history intertwining with that of early America... has the honor of..."—which it is Wiki policy to avoid. Other than that the only difference is that the wikilink to the "Priorities of the College" was moved from one set of words to another, which I don't have an issue with. JDoorjam Talk 13:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I see now that WWC did give an explanation in the "Overhaul" section above. I apologize for not seeing that earlier. I would say that, more than any debate about this particular sentence, that the priorities belong back in this article. However, as that requires significant trans-article changes, that I will not be so bold as to start moving stuff around willy-nilly before discussing the matter here. What do other people think about moving the priorities back into the main article? They seem significant to me... JDoorjam Talk 15:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; the wording I used was sub-par. My issue with the original paragraph is that noting the priorities of the College is important (conveys information about the school's quality to a general audience), but that we need not list them all. Also, I do not think it is necessary to note in the general article that these priorities are listed on a plaque. I think that information (along with the APVA mention and the date) belongs in the Wren Building article. Per my comments in "Overhaul" above, I think some of the Priorities are worth noting and others are just boastful ("peacock language," as you might say). I think the best solution is to mention the College's important firsts in the history body copy, and leave the full list (along with the mention that they are on a plaque) on the Wren Building page. WWC 15:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A new suggestion for the disputed paragraph:

William and Mary achieved a number of notable academic firsts.

Actually, that's just one sentence that we could stick somewhere appropriate in the flow of the "History" section. It's not boastful/"peacock language," and it links to all the information about the Priorities, the plaque, and the APVA. Thoughts? WWC

The language present in the current version of the article: "In 1854, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities presented a large plaque listing the Priorities of the College. The plaque, now on the Wren Building, lists notable academic firsts at the College."

The language in Wren Building#Priorities of the College: "A large plaque was presented by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities in 1854 which lists some of the notable firsts for William and Mary:"

The language that once graced the intro to the Priorities section of this article: "(From the Wren Building plaque presented by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities in 1854)"

Since the APVA information is in Wren Building, I have no problem with reducing the link to something along the lines WWC's suggestion immediately above, so long as all the info currently in Wren Building#Priorities of the College is kept ~somewhere~ and linked to from this main article. (I agree that the Priorities as they are are a bit large for this article.)

As an aside, does anyone think a picture of the plaque would help? It would have to be a very large picture to preserve the legibility of the text, so I'm not sure it's a good idea, but I can try to borrow a camera and get one... -- stillnotelf has a talk page 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stillnotelf's comments on this, and the general sentiment that, so long as they're linked to and explained sufficiently, if briefly, here, that should be fine. I also think a picture is a really good idea. Remember, you can take a gigantic photo of it, and we can include it as a thumbnail, so readers interested in seeing a larger picture can click on it and take a gander. JDoorjam Talk 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree re: a picture of the plaque. But I'm not concerned about the Wren Building article so much as the general W&M one. Thanks for your input on the APVA issue above. I've changed the page to have just the link. WWC 00:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Turns out the plaque dates to 1914, not 1854. In fact, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities was founded in 1889... -- stillnotelf has a talk page 02:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact-checking so often turns up interesting details. Personally, I have begun to feel that the very existence of a marker, any marker, is a red flag. It often seems to be an attempt on someone's part to take a questionable assertion and give it the appearance of solidity... to carve it in stone. The relatively small amount of text on a plaque never seems to allow for footnotes and source citations. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, this one does... yet, for some reason, the society that produced it did not see fit to include any.

I think the plaque is charming, by the way, and would strongly support including a thumbnail of it the article... without, however, including the claims therein or citing the plaque as a reliable source for them. I love the repeated appearance of "First" in small caps and "First and ONLY" with ONLY in ALL CAPS. Am I the only one who thinks the composers of that plaque must have been very tired of hearing William and Mary constantly referred to as "Second?" I wonder whether they could also have added, as a "priority," "FIRST to erect a Priorities Monument?" Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, with regard to the original question: the existence of the plaque is a good, solid fact, and the plaque seems like a reasonably notable bit of campus lore thus worth mentioning. It is more justifiable to mention and include a thumbnail of the plaque then it is to reproduce the full list of claims. Only the important individual claims should be mentioned, and they should be accompanied with better source citations than the plaque. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The text of the plaque is reproduced at http://www.wm.edu/law/about/firsts.shtml although unfortunately it does not identify the list of firsts as being that of the plaque. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember that not all facts can be found by searching the internet. Take a trip to the Wren Building at the College and you will see all the proof you could ever want as to the validity of the Priorities.

Actually, the Internet is not the standard. The verifiability policy is. And according to that policy, not all facts are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Fmust have been previously published. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Marshall-Wythe School of Law is the oldest law school in the United States"

Someone changed a weasel-worded "one of the oldest" to "the oldest." I'm feeling lazy right now, and don't want to track this down myself. I have no idea whether this is in totally-undisputed territory (like "William and Mary is the second-oldest college in the United States") or whether it is in highly suspect territory. I'm hoping someone can put in a good source citation for this. Is there a rival law school that claims comparable antiquity and, if so, which is it? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

William and Mary's law school was the first to have a chair of law in the US. [3] That fact is what the school uses to lay claim to being the oldest law school in the nation. This is not disputed amoungst the nation's law schools. In fact, Harvard actually claims to have the second-oldest law school, recognizing William and Mary's as the oldest.

[edit] Yule log

Doesn't the president read "Twas The Night Before Christmas" at the Yule Log ceremony, and the Vice President for Student Affairs (aka Sam Sadler) read "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", rather than the other way around?

• Never. It's always been the other way 'round. I should know - I've sung at the ceremony four years running. --AlbertHerring 08:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Oldest?

Harvard was founded as a seminary. William and Mary was the first secular liberal arts institution. If it's "higher learning," yes, Harvard is the oldest. It depends on classification and terms.

• Now we're really splitting hairs, perhaps. W&M has never claimed to be the oldest, why would WP? -Jcbarr 01:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. Unless someone can site a source indicating why one ought to consider W&M the oldest American college, we should stick with calling it second-oldest. WWC 02:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• HMM...well, William & Mary has often in the past claimed itself to be the oldest. In fact, the original idea for the College goes back to the university first proposed at Henricus, which was charted in 1618. In fact, the list of priorities of the College, displayed on a plaque on the Wren building itself, states that the College is the oldest institute of higher learning in the US, going back to the University of Henrico, and that it is second-oldest in operation only to Harvard. While the question of being the oldest college if one defines college as a "liberal arts institute" or anything else beyond simply a seminary is an interesting proposition, the College today does recognize Harvard as the oldest. So while I agree that Harvard should be considered the oldest, I simply wished to correct Jcbarr's mistake of saying that WaM has never claimed to be the oldest because it has. Spwicy 05:36, 06 May, 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the "oldest" college is how we define it. William and Mary's roots start in 1620 with the original Anglican college in Henrico, but that school was destroyed in a Powhatan raid. Harvard actually was the first in operation in 1636. But W&M has the oldest standing building from 1695, whereas Harvard's original facilities are no longer standing. Either way, the two schools don't have a serious rivalry over these dates. As one visiting professor from Harvard once told me "at this age, both schools are just really old." mwcob

[edit] Merger Proposal

For the rationale behind the merger proposal, see the Talk page for List of presidents of the College of William and Mary. --TommyBoy 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is being discussed on the other article's Talk page. --TommyBoy 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As an alternative to merging, I have replaced the List of Past Presidents in this article with a link to List of presidents of the College of William and Mary. --TommyBoy 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "colleges" of William & Mary, including its junior colleges

Mentions of W&M's junior-college outreach seem to get removed from this page. Why not put on these facts?

1925 W&M established the Richmond division of the College of William and Mary (adopting the Richmond School of Social Work, founded 1917), later making it the Richmond Professional Institute of the College of William and Mary (1939). It separated in 1962 and later became Virginia Commonwealth University

1930 W&M established the two-year Norfolk Division of the College of William and Mary, Norfolk College, which became independent in 1962 as Old Dominion University.

1960 "The General Assembly altered the College's name to "The Colleges of William and Mary," an administrative entity embracing the senior colleges at Williamsburg, Norfolk and Richmond, in addition to the new junior colleges, Christopher Newport in Newport News and Richard Bland in Petersburg." (http://www.wm.edu/vitalfacts/twentieth3.php)

1960 W&M established Christopher Newport College, a two-year branch in Newport News, later Christopher Newport University.

1960 W&M established Richard Bland College of The College of William & Mary, still a two-year junior college in Petursburg.

• These should probably be put back on the page.

• Added this information under the headline "The Colleges of William and Mary"

I put the section back for now. Fellow who removed it, would you like to discuss why here? WWC 12:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I ask again: would the anonymous folks who keep deleting this section please discuss their reasoning here? Will add back in in the next few days if no response. WWC 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wren Building

The history of the Wren Building on the William and Mary page is entirely wrong. It was infact not built in 1931 as the page says, but it was merely restored to the form it was given after the 1705 fire. In fact the building was first erected between 1695-1699. So saying that the Wren Building was built in 1930 is completely wrong. Also, the section does not even mention at all that the Wren burned three times: 1705, 1859 and 1862. The building's exterior remianed after each burning and the vast majority of the bricks used on the exterior today are original to the building.

-- Actually, the history does not appear to be entirely wrong. Historic preservationists debate the meanings of the terms that describe trying to make something that exists look more like something that existed in the past, and these are the general senses they have come up with (quotations from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_10.htm)):

"Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period."

"Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location" The Governor's Palace at Williamsburg is a complete recreation of 1927-1934 designed by Perry, Shaw & Hepburn. There had been a building on that site earlier that looked something like the building there today, but it burned in 1781. Similary, the Capitol (same architects and period) is a reconstruction. The original was destroyed in 1747. The 1930s Capitol of today is demonstrably different from the original in some key aspects despite the architects' effort to reproduce an eighteenth-century building.

Today's Wren Building seems to be more than a reconstruction (because it is claimed to contain some amount of original wall fabric) but it clearly is not a restoration. No building on that site merely had elements removed and added to take it back to an earlier appearance: Perry, Shaw & Hepburn used the foundation and limited evidence of some facades (in the form of the Bodleian Plate, making their work largely conjectural) to design a reconstruction that also incorporated some of the wall fabric remaining from a building that had been remodeled in 1862 and itself likely contained materials from a 1705 predecessor.

"The Wren" can't have burned in 1705 because Christoper Wren's supposed remodeling did not take place until after the fire of that date.

---

Saying Wren's involvement is "perhaps apocryphal" or that "historians dispute" whether he designed the building now standing (or even the remodeling after 1705) is a bit like saying historians depate the Holocaust -- sure, you can find someone to take the other side, but he has a clear agenda and no credibility or evidence.

[edit] 19th Century Funding

How was W&M funded after the Revolutionary War (when it severed formal ties with England) and prior to 1888?

[edit] Top Five Overlap schools

I know that S&P listed a "Top Five Overlap Schools" for W&M, but does anyone have any idea where S&P got this information? Is there any reason to believe this isn't second-hand information copied without verification? I presume this is from Fiske, but I don't have a copy to check.

[edit] Edits re: political economy pedagogy and Jefferson

1. Is there any source that "William and Mary developed the teaching of political economy"? I looked a little, but I did not find anything.

2. Mentioning only Jefferson's reform efforts and not his dissatisfaction with the results is not NPOV because it suggests to the reader that the results carried Jefferson's imprimatur. For sources, see, e.g., http://www.missq.msstate.edu/sssl/view.php?pid=18928, http://www.uvaguides.org/resources/historical/jefferson.asp, http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm.

The list of priorties on the Wren Building says that William and Mary was the first to teach political economy. See the image of the plaque on the Wren Building article page.--Bkwillwm 14:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I added that back in (with a link to the plaque). Cka3n

[edit] Jefferson's reform efforts & the University of Virginia

I wanted to solicit the opinion of others as to the history text regarding Jefferson's reform efforts.

The uncontroversial portion of the text is this: "Beginning with his 1778 Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, Thomas Jefferson was involved with efforts to reform the College. Jefferson guided the College to adopt the nation's first elective system of study and to introduce the first student-adjudicated Honor System."

However, although the reform efforts are certainly part of W&M's history, and although Jefferson's involvement is worthy of notation, "[m]entioning only Jefferson's reform efforts and not his dissatisfaction with the results is not NPOV because it suggests to the reader that the results carried Jefferson's imprimatur. For sources, see, e.g., http://www.missq.msstate.edu/sssl/view.php?pid=18928, http://www.uvaguides.org/resources/historical/jefferson.asp, http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm."

Vaoverland confirmed the underlying facts, adding "as a biographer notes, 'Jefferson would one day sharply criticize William and Mary, and eventually he designed, built, and administered the University of Virginia in open opposition to his alma mater.'"

Cka3n 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I added the "as a biographer notes" sentence and the Willard Sterne Randall reference. I thought it would go better as a direct quote from a biographer than as a simple assertion. In any case, I agree completely that it is not neutral to invoke Jefferson's famous name in connection with William and Mary without at least indicating "the rest of the story." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the revisions are continuing, I thought it might be better to move the text here until we can find a stable version.

Sorry, I didn't understand what you'd done. There is a notable lack of edit comments in many of the recent edits... I just tried pushing down the entire "But" comment into a footnote. Let's see if that is a satisfactory compromise. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History and milestones

William and Mary is the oldest university in the American South. The College was the first to teach Political Economy; Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was a required textbook [4][5]. In 1781, William and Mary became the first college in America to become a university by uniting its law, medicine and arts faculties; it was also the first college to establish a chair of modern languages. Chemistry was taught beginning in the nineteenth century; alumnus and future MIT founder William Barton Rogers served as the College's Professor of Natural Philosophy and Chemistry from 1828-1835.

Beginning with his 1778 Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, Thomas Jefferson was involved with efforts to reform the College. Jefferson guided the College to adopt the nation's first elective system of study and to introduce the first student-adjudicated Honor System. Also at Jefferson's behest, the College appointed his friend and mentor George Wythe as the first Professor of Law in America in 1779. John Marshall, who would later go on to become Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was one of Wythe's students. The College's Marshall-Wythe School of Law is the oldest law school in the United States[6] and is named after these founding jurists.

Other version --

[edit] History and milestones

William and Mary is the oldest university in the American South. The College was the first to teach Political Economy; Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was a required textbook [7][8]. In 1781, William and Mary became the first college in America to become a university by uniting its law, medicine and arts faculties; it was also the first college to establish a chair of modern languages. Chemistry was taught beginning in the nineteenth century; alumnus and future MIT founder William Barton Rogers served as the College's Professor of Natural Philosophy and Chemistry from 1828-1835.

Beginning with his 1778 Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, Thomas Jefferson was involved with efforts to reform the College. Jefferson guided the College to adopt the nation's first elective system of study and to introduce the first student-adjudicated Honor System. But, as a biographer notes, "Jefferson would one day sharply criticize William and Mary, and eventually he designed, built, and administered the University of Virginia in open opposition to his alma mater."^[1]

Also at Jefferson's behest, the College appointed his friend and mentor George Wythe as the first Professor of Law in America in 1779. John Marshall, who would later go on to become Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was one of Wythe's students. The College's Marshall-Wythe School of Law is the oldest law school in the United States[9] and is named after these founding jurists.

Cka3n 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Oldest University in the American South

Wouldn't it be either "Oldest University in the American South" or "Second Oldest University in America"? Erechtheus 23:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

and the question is... ? Vaoverland 01:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. For a short period of time I had mistakenly had it reading "second oldest university in the American South" but I fixed it pretty promptly.

The straightforward, factual way to express William and Mary's status is to call it the second oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. This avoids all sorts of possible minefields regarding the meaning of the words "college," "University," and "America." But there's no major problem with the way William and Mary states it: "America's second-oldest college."

I don't like the boosterish business of avoiding the word "second" by creating an artificial category within which the college is first. And personally, I think "second-oldest in the United States" is a lot stronger than "oldest in the American South." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this "oldest...American South" construct if the institution is very attached to and identified with the subdivision. I don't think that really applies to W&M, though. Does anybody really think of W&M as a distinctly southern institution? I spent a couple of years there, and it doesn't seem to fit to me. I guess I'm taking the long way around of saying good call. Erechtheus 01:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admissions edits

Regarding the recent edits, the information regarding matriculation rate was deleted without explanation. As it is sourced, it has been reinstated. Although I would certainly invite other opinions, I think the matriculation information is relevant -- just off-hand, I would note that it follows the immediately prior claims that most W&M applicants are not offered admission and that most W&M applicants also apply to US News Top 25 universities. Also, I am considering adding matriculation data for the "overlap" schools, where W&M leads Vanderbilt.

The claim that W&M is the most selective public university in Virginia has been removed. W&M is has a ~6% lower admissions rate than U-Va, but it has a higher admissions rate than, e.g., Washington & Lee (not a public school in Va, but a Virginia college and, for a reasonable number of in-state high school students, a W&M peer school). Moreover, W&M has a higher admissions rate than Duke, Georgetown, and Cornell (which schools, in addition to U-Va and Vanderbilt, are apparently W&M's "overlap" schools) (data from nces.ed.gov). To me, and I apologize if I am reading things wrong, the inclusion of the admissions rate information seems mostly designed both as a slight to in-state U-Va (certainly a fun game with an easy target, but perhaps better suited for other fora) and to include W&M in a group with schools like Duke, et al.

My concern here is particularly highlighted because there have been consistent deletions or changes recently (e.g., Jefferson's legacy, these changes) which serves to booster W&M's image but which are not explained parenthetically or here on the talk page.

Cka3n 20:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek edit

I removed Pi Kappa Alpha from the list of greek organizations, because they got kicked off campus and their charter revoked this past semester.

No. The Gamma Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha at William and Mary retains its charter. You are correct, however, in stating that there is no on campus lodging (for this year at least).

[edit] Washington Monthly

I removed the reference to the Washington Monthly ranking. First, there are many, many college rankings, and I am not sure why the Washington Monthly rankings in particular are worthy or encyclopedic notation, especially given their regional scope. Second, the Washington Monthly rankings are clearly inconsistent with the general understanding (e.g., South Carolina State > Harvard), so any reference to the rankings seems to need context. As the context keeps getting edited away, it appears that the reference to the WM rankings is most likely boosterism (and, to boot, boosterism in the form of a slight to in-state UVa). Cka3n 21:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] selectivity

For the 2005-06 academic year, 31.0% of applicants were admitted to William and Mary, ahead of peers University of Virginia (37.7%) and Vanderbilt University (35.3%) but behind Georgetown University (21.5%), Duke University (21%), and Cornell University (27.1%). Of those admitted to the 2005 enrolling class, 40.9% matriculated at William and Mary, a yield that leads Vanderbilt's (39.4%) but trails those of the University of Virginia (52.8%), Georgetown University (47.2%), Cornell University (46.5%) and Duke University (43.2%).

This needs to be reworded to remove subjective/qualitative language. Admitting fewer students does not place W&M "ahead" of UVa. --Orang55 04:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does.

Why would we need to delete this discussion from the Talk page? Cka3n 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commencement Speakers

Sources: Earl Greg Swem Special Collections University Archive Commencement Speakers Roclar 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)roclar

[edit] Notable Professors: Maximilian de Gaynesford

I removed him from the list of notable professors, given that he is now at the University of Reading.

[edit] Notable Professors: Criteria?

It seems there are no criteria for what professors are deemed "notable," I propose that something must be written in about them, such as an award or honor, besides their title at the college. Also, there seems to be a male bias in the professors that are chosen. I removed sam sadler, because he is neither a professor nor notable.

No basis/relevance

[edit] "accessible professors"?

The article currently states that W&M is distinguished from larger research universities by its "small university environment, accessible professors and undergraduate enrollment of 5,635". It seems to me that the first and the third items are very similar and could be combined (e.g., "small university environment, with only 5,635 undergraduates enrolled"). In any case, I have no doubt that W&M's small size does in fact distinguish it from larger universities.

However, is there any source for the claim that W&M is distinguished from larger research universities by its "accessible professors"? Google only turned up the wiki text, and the language seems to be the sort of language that populates promotional brochures.

I am going to revise as noted in my first paragraph. If there is a source, please feel free to revert.

Cka3n 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feeder colleges

I have some concerns about the Feeder College section. The current text reads:

Similarly, in the early fall of 2003, The Wall Street Journal published the results of a survey of the alma maters of entering students at the nation's Top 5 professional programs (e.g., Yale Law School, Harvard Business School and Johns Hopkins Medical School). William and Mary placed second among Virginia's state public universities and seventh among all public universities [31] for elite graduate placement. The The Wall Street Journal sometimes refers to William and Mary and similar institutions as "feeder" colleges, in recognition of their success at feeding their graduates to Top 5 professional programs.

My concerns:

• This is rather outdated article.
• The linked document does not refer to "the nation's Top 5 professional programs" or to any of the programs cited in our text. (Nor does the related top 50 ranking [10].)
• Because of the rankings of West Point and the Naval Academy, I believe the text should read "amoung all state-supported universities," not "among all public universities."
• The article is a ranking of schools, not of universities (e.g., it includes Williams).
• I don't see any evidence that the WSJ "sometimes refers to William and Mary and similar institutions as 'feeder' colleges." Obviously, there is the reference in this article, but have they ever otherwise used to the term to refer to W&M?
• Also, saying that the WSJ refers to W&M and similar institutions as "feeder" colleges b/c of their placement success needs to be in context. Who, exactly, does the WSJ refer to as a feeder college? W&M is ranked #82 overall. That is a long way from #1 Harvard and #2 Yale. Moreover, the ranking list that includes W&M also includes Stony Brook (SUNY), Georgia Tech, Florida A&M University, Concord College (W.Va.), and Univ. of Md., Eastern Shore. Without further evidence regarding the WSJ's use of the term "feeder" college vis-a-vis W&M, it would be hard to argue that W&M is a feeder college and those others are not.

My suggestions:

• Delete the passage.
• If not, replace with:

In the early fall of 2003, The Wall Street Journal published the results of a survey of the alma maters of entering students at the nation's elite business, medical and law schools. William and Mary placed 82nd overall, 2nd among Virginia's public universities, and 7th seventh among all state-supported universities for elite graduate placement.[11]

Cka3n 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First University?

The introduction - "Although considered one of the first universities in America (if not the first)," - conflicts with the History and Milestones section - "In 1781, William and Mary became the first college in America to become a university". I know the second cites a W&M page. Is there any reason to doubt this (as per the first quote), or should both quotes be in accordance with the W&M page? Cka3n 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best small public university

The statement "It is often ranked as the best small public university in the nation." is not supported by the cited link [12]. Accordingly, we can either change the statement to match the link, i.e., delete "often ranked as" (trusting W&M's evaluation of itself) or we can delete this phrase and rely upon the ample accolades included within the article itself.

Cka3n 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drunk Soldiers

Is there any evidence that the 5th Pennsylvania Cavalry soldiers who set fire to the College Building were actually drunk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnosticdogma (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Year of founding

This used to be a point of contention with regard to the University of Pennsylvania, which—shortened and non-neutral version—changed its date of founding from 1740 rather than 1749 in the late 1800s, which not incidentally had the effect of making it older than Princeton (1746). The neutral thing to do is to give the founding date stated by the university itself, with any needed explanations in a footnote, for several reasons:

• The university's self-reported date is, as far as I can tell invariably the date that is given by other reference books and encyclopedias.
• It is easily referenced to a source and potentially stable. If we present Penn's self-reported date, well, everyone can agree that the University of Pennsylvania says it was founded in 1740. If we try to second-guess the institutions and report what Wikipedia editors judge to be the "real" founding dates, then Penn will edit-war between 1740 and 1749 forever... and W&M will edit-war between "1693" and "1693, 1888" forever.
• The reason founding dates are important, and why universities try to push them back as far as possible, is that they govern the order in which university delegations march in academic processions and are generally a point of institution pride.
• I put in an email query to someone at Princeton as to where Penn marches in academic processions hosted by Princeton, and got a reply that hosts invariably accept whatever year is stated by the participating institutions. If universities do this, so should we.

So, I'm leaving the single date 1693 in the summary box, because it is what William and Mary reports, and pushing the details into a footnote where they can easily be found by anyone wondering what the little superscript is about. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

P. S. Interesting questions of institutional continuity pop up whenever the history of almost any venerable university is examined in great detail. They tend to be like the straight razor that has been in the family for six generations. "Really? The very same razor?" "Yes, and it's so well made that in all that time it's only needed to have three new blades and two new handles." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)