Talk:Berklee College of Music

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.

I propose moving the list of prominent alumni to its own page. This list could get out of hand pretty quickly. I think it's already long enough to warrant its own article. Please vote either support or oppose and state your reasons. I'll give this two days. --malber 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 No introduction 2 Entrance audition 3 Berklee Acceptance 4 Mass Ave 5 University info box

[edit] No introduction

Someone, please, add an introduction... --84.249.252.211 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entrance audition

There have been several insertions by anonymous editors that Berklee now requires an entrance audition. The most I've been able to find is that prospective students are required to demonstrate basic music skills such as the ability to read music. This was not required when I attended, so this is an obvious change, but I haven't been able to find any sources to cite that an audition is required. If someone can find a citation, please include it. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true, I added the source. Also, the actual acceptance rate for this semester was ~34% according to Roger Brown himself at this year's freshman orientation, but I can't find any transcriptions of that speech or websites that are up to date in that regard.

[edit] Berklee Acceptance

--Zetsuie 13:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC) i was wondering about the acceptance for audio engineering major like what is required to apply for that im currently a senior in high school and i have chosen this career path and i was hoping to find out more information about berklee's acceptance standards from an indepndant source

[edit] Mass Ave

I think the main picture should be of the 150 or 130 mass ave buildings, not the 1140 building. the 1140 building is a generic looking building with a lame little flag; the 150 building has the massive flags and the distinctive overhang, and the 130 building has unique architecture. Thoughts? 192.136.22.4 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree; and although it seems that someone has already added a picture of the building's rear, I think the lede picture should probably be the front of 150 Mass Ave — if not the main entrance, then maybe the building's distinctive corner on Mass Ave and Boylston. And a photo of the Uchida entrance wouldn't hurt, either. Cribcage 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The 1140 building is historically the original Berklee building. This is where the first classrooms and the first dorms were. It's currently the administrative headquarters. It's also, IMO, an architecturally better looking building than 150 Mass Ave or even the Uchida building. However, the article does need more free images. Next time I go to Boston I'll try to remember my digital camera :-) —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree about its architecture. However, as campuses expand and develop, I don't think it makes sense to necessarily select a lead picture based on whether a building used to be that university's headquarters. Also, your information is a bit out of date: Berklee's administrative offices (registrar, bursar, career development, dean's office, etc.) are located in the Uchida building, not 1140 Boylston. Cribcage 09:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University info box

Why in the world would we change from the standardized University info box to a non-standardized table? --ElKevbo 17:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you asked. The answer is that another user was kind enough to spend his time creating a nicer version of Wikipedia's stark, bland infobox for some other colleges (see here) — and, appreciating his contribution, I decided to implement it on a few other pages. He was careful to design a template that satisfied WP:MOS, and he cleverly chose a very slightly offset color to draw the reader's eye to the pertinent summary without making it appear ostentatious.

If you compare pages, you'll find that no information or content has been changed or removed: The new infobox matches exactly the old one in every detail except appearance — it's just an opportunity to present a cleaner look, thanks to the careful work of a fellow editor. Cribcage 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the change needs to be made to the template, not to a few scattered articles. Your intentions are good but you're going about this in the wrong way. --ElKevbo 17:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion; and if you want to propose it, I'll vote to support. In the meantime, I'm not inclined to wade into Wikipedia's bureaucracy; thankfully, there's no policy against improving a few scattered articles. (To the contrary.) Cribcage 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacing a handful of infoboxes without bothering to suggest that the replaced template be improved is quite lazy and (to a small degree) harmful in that it increases the administrative overhead for what should be consistent articles. If you'd like some help in figuring out how best to propose some changes to a template, please let me know. --ElKevbo 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've returned 3 months later to revert the table format again. I wish you would find a more constructive way to spend your time; myriad articles need copyediting and sourcing, for example, and there are many more yet to be created. In the meantime, please try to remember that we try to avoid reverting non-controversial edits unless they violate specific policy. Thanks. Cribcage 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You've provided no compelling reason not to employ an infobox that provides uniformity among university articles. --ElKevbo 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)