Talk:Southampton Solent University
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. |
Regarding this entry, it should be noted that a critical remark on the ranking of Southampton Solent University in the Guardian newspaper from '05 (this former polytechnical college was only very recently awarded the title of a university) was removed from the article on 22nd May 06. The current ranking is still rather low, around 100th place. One may argue that this is probably a result of the UK government's push to award many colleges the status of a 'university', giving this title a rather inflationary problem, and putting the former colleges under a lot of competition in the rankings. JPThomas, Thu Jun 8 16:36:45 BST 2006
Regarding the reinsertion of the above comment, the current Guardian rankings place this university substantially higher than last in the rankings. [Guardian_ranks]. As the statement is no longer true, it was again removed. MRM 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to get into another "discussion" here but I fail to see your ability to judge here, you have admitting that you have no knowledge of UK Academic Institutions previously. I think the facts now speak for themselves and the language is right. Ralphthebear 06:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a statistician with over 20 years experience. If I saw any list where an institution went from dead last to the 14th percentile, I'd call that a substantial improvement. The rankings are based on an aggregate score. SSU's score on this measure was 54.18 (Mean=61.69, SD=7.37). This is well within the 95% confidence interval of not being different from the mean. This score is significantly different from the bottom placed institution's score (Z=2.19, p<=.05). Reverting the wordingMRM 09:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I would not describe that as substantial, if it had broken through the top 100 barrier, you may have more of a case, but its still way down there and hardly a great leap. You attempt to over complicate this basic fact with statisical analysis. This language is a far more appropriate assesment and was written by another member and I agree with it. Ralphthebear 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If we can't agree with the adjective, then let's remove it. Both statistics are in there- let the reader decide. Not sure if the WP:LIVING rule would apply here. For an encyclopedia entry, is the former rank relevant? Don't we need to go beyond just putting in facts aimed to instill a derogatory POV and instead aim at quality, relevance and conciseness? Studing WP guidelines for an answer.MRM 21:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] University ratings
(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)
There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
