Talk:Texas A&M University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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.

	To-do list for Texas A&M University:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
History - full article at History of Texas A&M University. PD photos would be useful; expansion on 1900-1959 and 1970- needed. Rewrite really needed to insure uniformity between articles. Academics - More needed about the day to day academic lives of students. Athletics - full article at Texas Aggie Athletics; expansion on history of specific sports needed. Colleges - Every college of A&M (ex: College of Engineering) needs expanding and uniformity. Residential Life - Needs more expansion. Student Government - Complete history needs to be added including all the historical dates. Research - Research needs expanding, adding research in undergraduate research. Eliminate boosterism throughout. Ensure conformity with Wiki guidelines/policies, including NPOV, bolding, and pictures Convert lists to prose

Archive 1 March 2004—June 2006

Contents 1 Proper citation 2 History 3 Residential Life 4 Student Life 5 Merging History 6 Ranking Issues 7 Public Ivy? 8 Rankings 9 Public Ivy 10 A&M 11 Cloning cats 12 References 13 Enrollment 14 Aggie questions 15 Archive the talk??? 16 Images and commons 17 Archive 18 Pictures 19 Campus Master Plan 20 Recent Vandalism 21 Pictures 22 Portal 23 athletics

[edit] Proper citation

I begun to properly cite all of our references in this article as I rewrite every section. Hopefully this style can be used by everyone if they consider is userful. -- Hut101 03:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call on ensuring proper citations for this article, but rewriting every section concerns me. First, I don't think it's needed. Some minor organizational updates are always appropriate as information changes, but complete rewrites seem unnecessary at this time. Second, in my opinion, your edits have changed the tone of the Vision 2020 section to near the point of academic boosterism. It's essential that this article be as objective and matter-of-fact as possible and that it not become a marketing piece. I realize that probably was not your intention, I'm just letting you know that's how I read it (and it may just be me). My advice though is to simply state the facts in plain English with citations and move on. This page is a useful guide for future edits: [1]. I'll leave your edits and let you, other contributors, and/or a moderator decide if they should be changed or reverted; my vote is that they should be. One other point... each sub-section on this article is already fleshed-out pretty well (and the article is getting rather long). Adding more information would be detrimental, in my opinion. If you have additional information to add on Vision 2020, for example, create a separate Wikipedia article for it. --Ntmg05 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion that what I write can be "bossterism", it's slightly difficult to be a student and not consider my school better. That I will work on and attempt to correct within my writing. As for expansion of each section; Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia containing all human knowledge, which I’m certain, has been elaborated on considerably. Simply to exclude information because someone does not wish to scroll down is irrelevant but that’s just my opinion. I plan on moving Vision 2020 to the historical section once it's no longer an evolving situation. -- Hut101 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't need to put the sum of human knowledge relating to A&M on a single page. In this article, give a one or two paragraph summary discussing why something is relevant/important to A&M. That should be sufficient for most sub-topics. However, if you want to discuss a sub-topic in further detail, create a separate Wikipedia article for it and do so there. --Ntmg05 04:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few more references that need proper citation, but so far everything seems to be working correctly. Also, Ntmg05, great work on rewording those sections. -- Hut101 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Is there anyone who would be willing to help edit the History article. Best method would be for someone to edit the beginning while someone work from the end, sections about Robert Gates, Vision 2020, ... I would be willing to work on such a joint project if anyone is interested. --

I did lots of work on the history section, but most of it is aimed at the Pre-1970 history. The article still needs work for the post 1970 era. Karanacs 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Residential Life

Below is a suggestion for the Residential Life section:

"Housing on campus is split between two distinct sections, a north and south side. Lining the north dormitories span Crocker Hall to Clements Hall. Dormitories to the south of campus primarily center around the Commons, a gathering center of student activities and dining services. Also next to the Commons, is the Quad, dormitories containing the Corps of Cadets."

I'm hopeing for suggestions and improvements. -- Hut101 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and added it and then expanded on it. Hopefully someone who happens to actually live on campus can continue to contribute to that section. -- Hut101 03:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When I load the page the first sentence reads "Texas A&M University, often called A&M or TAMU or "home of the east texas white trash" for short, is the flagship[3] institution of the Texas A&M University System."

I have never heard A&M described as the home of the east texas white trash and even if it did I don't think that this "fact" belongs in the first sentence of the article.  It doesn't even make sense, but that's beside the point.  If that is a real nickname for the school then it should appear in some section at the bottom of the article under "Aggie Jokes".

Please fix this ridiculous oversight or hoax.

An anonymous user vandalized the page. The phrase was promptly removed. --Blueag9 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student Life

Proposal for expanding Student Life section. Sections to be included could be Organizations, Residential Life (On-campus living), School Sponsored Activities, and Student Government? -- Hut101 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've based the structure roughly on the University of Michigan and its setup. -- Hut101 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already made the changes and have attempted to add as much as possible but more is needed. -- Hut101 03:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging History

Should we possibly merge the separate history page back into this article about A&M. The history page is slightly more than twice the size of the historical information that is actually in this article. However, with maintaining a separate history page, the information will begin to diverge from one another. --Hut101 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep them separate because in the main article the history needs to be an overview and relatively short and static. Otherwise it will cause the main article to be too long. It's not bad if they diverge a bit in content (e.g. more details in history article), as long as they don't conflict in facts. --Claygate 15:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking Issues

The comment about the Washington Monthly rankings should be removed. It is not a scholarly article, gives no information regarding its methodology, and, frankly, appears to be biased in favor of A&M.

US News isn't a scholarly journal, the methodology is plainly stated, and of course it's biased in favor of A&M. It wouldn't have gotten a 5th place ranking if it wasn't. --Ntmg05 04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the comment about petroleum engineering rankings requires some clarification. There are only a handful of schools in the U.S. that offer this degree separate from Chemical Engineering. Most programs include it as a subset or specialization and are therefore not ranked in that category by US News. Also, Texas A&M is ranked third nationally, behind both the University of Texas and Stanford (tied #1).

The details regarding the organization of petroleum engineering programs is irrelevant to this article. However, the updated rankings do clearly show that A&M is ranked 3rd now, so the article should be updated. --Ntmg05 04:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   The school is NO LONGER ranked as the number 1 agricultural engineering school in the nation. We need to fix this. Just look at the US News website.

[edit] Public Ivy?

An anonymous user added a line about A&M being a "Public Ivy" and "best value in Texas," but gave no reference. I have removed this line until a reference can be provided (or I can find one myself). I think the "best value" claim is correct as I seem to recall seeing that in US News & World Report rankings, but I've never heard A&M referred to as a "Public Ivy." We'll see. --Ntmg05 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard A&M being referred to as a "Public Ivy" either. The user "Strstr01" might provide a reference, since he/she is the one who posted the statement on this article and the Public Ivy article. --Blueag9 05:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The school is NO LONGER ranked as the number 1 agricultural engineering school in the nation. We need to fix this. Just look at the US News website.

[edit] Rankings

Somone went wild adding Mays rankings to the A&M page. I'd suggest those be removed. This page is long enough without having rankings for specific programs and degrees added to it. The rankings are listed on the Mays college page, which is where they belong. Anyone have a problem with them being removed? --Texink 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I had the same thought this morning. It's just too much. I think noting the 1st place rankings and then simply making a link, "For more detailed rankings, see Mays Business School" is all that is needed. --Ntmg05 22:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The school is NO LONGER ranked as the number 1 agricultural engineering school in the nation. We need to fix this. Just look at the US News website.

[edit] Public Ivy

A Public Ivy is a term to refer to the nation's top public schools. The last published data referring to public ivy was in the year 2001. Texas A&M has improved dramatically since that time. There is no debate the Texas A&M is one of the top public schools in the nation, which has surpassed numerous colleges in the original “Public Ivy” listings. Some of schools listed on the top colleges were: University of Vermont (us new ranked 93), Indiana University – Bloomington (us news ranked 72), A&M is ranked number 60 (the same as Ohio State). The original source is not an accredited source, for his criteria he simply states that public ivy is a public college which offers a superior education at a fraction of the Ivy League cost (US News tends to be the most respectable college ranking guide). Therefore based on the criteria used to rate the original public ivies, A&M exceeds all of those qualifications at this time. It is only fair to include A&M in the same listing as the other public ivies based on today’s data. Rankings change every year, it is our job to keep the website updated. A&M is considered public ivy in Texas by many from its high academic rankings in the 2nd to the most populous state in the nation. A&M is always ranked as one of the top three universities in Texas. Sometimes it is ranked number one, sometimes it is ranked two (after Rice), and at other times it is ranked (three).

Other's included A&M as a public ivy in this discussion based website: http://www.collegeconfidential.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?4/51063

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/bestvalues/bvnatudoc_brief.php

A&M is ranked the 3rd to the best value for a public university in the U.S. after only the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill and University of Virginia! The great value for the education is what coined the term public ivy. Again, I supported the term for A&M to be called a public ivy. This is all that is required by wikipedia. This term is based on cost and education or should I say value.

BTW, the top value in texas is at this site:

http://www.tamu.edu/tamunews/News/stories/06/012006news-11.html

Texas A&M is the top-ranked university in Texas and the Southwest in Kiplinger's 2006 list of the nation's 100 "best values in public colleges."

Kiplinger's list is headed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The only other schools in Texas or the Southwest included on the 2006 list are the University of Texas at Austin at 27th and UT-Dallas, 66th.

By the way, how to I message someone? --- strstr01

"Public Ivy" is a term coined by an author and refers to a specific group of universities that he designated. While A&M may indeed exceed the rankings of those universities, that author nor any other known source has identified A&M as a public ivy. Until that happens, it would be incorrect to refer to A&M as a public ivy. --Ntmg05 03:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (I keep forgetting to put my sig today. doh)

I wrote many consider a&m to be considered a public ivy. Which it is... I never wrote an unknown author wrote a book half a decade ago on what he considered public ivys, therefore nothing I said was wrong. If you like I'll publish an article if that makes you feel better.

Who is "many?" Where do they say this? Yes, I would like to see an article. That's what I've been asking for all along. If you can find one reliable source that includes the phrase "A&M is considered a public ivy," then it will be considered. Until then, you're doing original research and determining on your own that A&M is a public ivy. That is generally against Wikipedia policy. --Ntmg05 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I dont believe A&M should EVER use the term "Public Ivy". Texas A&M was founded as a land grant school, seperate from the main state university. As such, it was founded under the principle of practical education for the masses rather than a liberal arts education for the children of the state's elite. Public Ivys are known for their quality education and Texas A&M is certainly ranked higher in terms of academia and value than many of them, however the key missing criteria is what the original author termed "look and feel" of an Ivy League school. Texas A&M and the students who go there are, in my opinion, the antithesis of an Ivy. Our schools emphasis on practical subjects like agriculture, engineering and science along with our core values of patriotism, religion and family, all stemming from a history of being military school, mean that we will NEVER have the "feel" of an Ivy and frankly I hope we never do.

[edit] A&M

I noticed there was a citation missing for the statement that A&M no longer stands for "Agricultural and Mechanical." So I searched the 'net in hopes of finding a valid source to verify it, and got these websites:

• Aggie Athletics (read definition for "A&M")
• Texas A&M Communications Advisory Board (read definition for "Texas A&M University")

Which site is more appropriate to use as a source? --Blueag9 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

They're both official university publications, so either would be fine. The second is probably more "official looking," tho. At one time, there was also an explanation in the "About A&M" section on the main web site, but I don't know if it's still there and frankly I'm too lazy to even open another browser and go look. heh. --Ntmg05 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cloning cats

Hey, I added a little information about A&m' cloning program, not sure where I should place it. I thought it was interesting and added the the University's prestige since it was the first animal to clone a pet.

There's a note about cloning in the "Notable Buildings" section, but I agree, this deserves more prominence than that. A&M is pretty well known for its cloning research now... perhaps a subsection on it in the "Research" section? Thoughts on that? --Ntmg05 00:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an informative and interesting thing to add. I'd agree it should probably be put in the research section rather than the intro. -Texink 01:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I added some additional information pretaining the cloning research A&M does to the Research section. However, it still needs to be expanded with additional information about actual "research" as a result of cloning, and what current cloning is taking place. Hut101 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I fixed the whole article using the <ref> and </ref> format. I am unsure on how to properly cite each source using this format. If anyone knows of a page where I can get that information, please post it here. --Blueag9 19:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enrollment

Okay, the article cites two different enrollment numbers... one in the infobox and the other in "Academics." What's up with that? --Blueag9 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone fixed that, however, I've updated the enrollment numbers based on the head count on the 12th day of classes.Hut101 08:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aggie questions

---

• Dear Wikipedians, I am a freshman at Texas A & M (AAAAAAA!!!!) and was perusing your article on A & M to see what you had. I found it to be quite thorough, but was curious about a few things: 1) Is there a reason that the fact that A&M enters more commissioned officers into the American military except for the service academies is not included. I don't have the exact source readily at hand, but could produce it if need be. Also, on the Traditions of Texas A&M University page, there are a few more things I was curious about: Why is the Sul Ross statue not mentioned? Why is "corps" not capitalized in the Reveille section and why is Junior E-walk not mentioned? I attended Fish Camp this past year and learned about Junior E-walk and can provide excerpts from the handbook we were given. "Humping it" in terms of the yells is also not mentioned, but I wasn't sure if that was as big of a deal. I could also contact the Traditions Council at A & M if necessary to verify my sources. Also, I heard a much different story about the wildcats from my counselors- much different from what is on the article. Last question: I've seen numerous pictures of the Red, White, and Blue Out at Kyle Field. Would it be possible to get an image? I'm a 2k+ edit member of another wiki, so I didn't want to look like an anon screwing with an established page. As we say in A & M, thanks and gig 'em. 128.194.66.132 02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi anon - welcome to Wikipedia. We would love to see these articles expanded more, especially if you can provide sources for the additions. I'm not familiar with every single TAMU tradition, but if you provide sources I'd be glad to help you incorporate them into the articles if you need any help. Johntex\^talk 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize you guys tend not to favor bulleted talk text here. I spent a little time looking for sources on the traditions and found a basic explanation on most of them:

Boot Line: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/bootline.shtml

Replant: http://replant.tamu.edu/

Replant history: http://replant.tamu.edu/whoweare/history.html

Big Event: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/bigevent.shtml

Corps stuff: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/corps.shtml Also has the fact about A&M entering more officers into the armed forces except the military academies.

Junior E-walk: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/jrewalk.shtml

Aggie band: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/band.shtml (Also known as the “pulse (or heartbeat) of the spirit of Aggieland”)

Red, White, and Blue Out: http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/02/100202-1.html

Memorial Student Center: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/msc.shtml

Ring dance: http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/ringdance.shtml

http://traditions.tamu.edu/main.asp Another great site that corroborates much of what the other sources say.

RWB Out pic: http://www.replayphotos.com/Red++White++++Blue+Out-10-1-692.html

The part about the Sul Ross statue can actually be found on Wikipedia's article about Mr. Ross, so I didn't look that up. I included a corroborating site because I didn't know the policy on that here. There was a RWB Out pic on the last site, but I was unsure of how image policy was here, so I just left the link. I have e-mailed the Texas A&M University Traditions Council about the history of three other parts of A&M culture: 12th Man towels, Sergeant Rock, and the Horse Laugh. I also asked them about the origins of wildcatting. I'll reply whenever I can. If that doesn't work, I do have a class with one of the yell leaders. I probably will not become a major Wikipedian, as I already have another wiki to edit and classes and such, but I hope this helps and follows your manual of style. I'm undecided on acquiring an actual username. Thanks and gig 'em. 128.194.66.132 05:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for the great sources. I started out by adding the fact about more commissioned officers than any other school, along with citing the reference you provided. Some of the traditions may fit better over at the Traditions or History sub-articles. We try to keep articles from getting too big. I've gotta run for now. Thanks again for the sources and, oh yeah, Hook 'em! Johntex\^talk 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, most of the traditions I listed would fit much better on the traditions subpage, but there wasn't any discussion there. I already knew you were a "sip." Thanks and gig 'em. 128.194.66.132 13:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive the talk???

This is getting to be one of the largest Talk pages I've seen that wasn't archived. I don't know enough of the technical aspects to do it, but it seems high time that someone archived the discussion here ... it goes back to 2004 (!) and is now at 65KB long. Lawikitejana 07:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Johntex\^talk 05:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images and commons

Hello, I added a photo from a football game to this article. I also created a page on the Commons to collect free images related to Texas A&M University. Please contribute your photos (must be freely licensed) to this page. As the collection grows, it will be a great resource for all articles pertaining to the school and its traditions and history. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Can someone please archive this talk page as all topics have been addressed and it's now necessary to move on to new discussions. -- Hut101 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

If any of you have any specific sites on campus where I should take pictures, let me know. I am planning to take pictures this weekend of Research Park, Northgate, and the Rec. Let me know if you can think of any others, or want me to take better pictures of the ones already on the page. Blueag9\^talk 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're planning to get some landscape shots, it'd probably be a good idea to wait til spring when there's more sunlight and color. PS, thanks for the barnstar. :) -Texink 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it might be better to wait until spring for landscape shots however, there is a need for pictures of buildings on campus. A picture of the inside of Wehner Business School would be nice. New pictures of the MSC, and Arches. Also, if you could get pictures for subsections within the articles. Ex: Picture of Northside dorms and Southside dorms(The Commons) for the Student Life Section. Pictures of each notable building listed on the main article. Also a picture of The Association Of Former Students building would be nice for that article. -- Hut101 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campus Master Plan

Information about the Campus Master Plan should be added. Here is the website. The executive summary report was written nicely, and also has nice pictures of the campus.[2] I really like the aerial view of the campus picture on page 16 of that report, would it be fine to add it to the article? A reason to use it would be that no free alternative can be found (prove me if I'm wrong).Blueag9\^talk 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As a product of a state government agency, the document should be in the public domain. And since there's no attribution in the document noting that specific picture is copyrighted material while the rest is public, I think it's safe to assume that photo is also public domain. --Ntmg05 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ntmg05 assesment of the copyright situation. Also, I beleive the information about the university, what buildings are scheduled for demolition, and how the university plans on coping with expansion should be added to the history article under Future Goals. Also maybe some parts that are actually under way now can be added to sections such as Vision 2020, Athletics article, and the Student Section.

I think it might be appropriate to create a new Wikipedia article for the Notable Buildings section and photo gallery. That section is getting really long, and now there's a suggestion to expand on the topic even more by adding future goals. Just a thought. --Ntmg05 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the page's size is about 49 KB now, and it should be less than that (according to Wikipedia's article size policy). --Blueag9\^talk 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To save space these sections should be reduced by as many links as possible: Notable people, See also, External links

I agree "Notable buildings" section can be moved to a seperate article while a summary remains here to explain the general history of buildings on campus. Everything about Robert M. Gates and finding a new president can be moved to the history section. Also, "Vision 2020" can be moved to history, though I believe it needs to stay on the main article or at least another year since it's very recent, and effects the university on a grand scale. Should the Campus Master Plan be mentioned in the main article or the history article? -- Hut101 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism

I find it sad that people from Texas Tech have nothing better to do than vandalize the A&M wikipedia pages. If this continues, I propose restricting edits on this page to registered users with a talk page only. Thoughts? BQZip01 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They are easy to discipline, just put one of those vandalism templates on their talk pages, and they'll stop. At least in my experience they did. --Blueag9\^talk 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I'll keep that in mind BQZip01 07:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Please try to vary the pictures a little. They don't all need to be on the right side of the screen.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.91.174.88 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2007 March 29 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

Looking at ut's page, they have a university of texas portal. maybe we should have one for texas a&m.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.91.174.88 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2007 March 29 (UTC)

We're not trying to be like them...--Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I love that, BQZip01. Very true, and very funny! Karanacs 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Aviation has one and so do others? However, for whomever added this, keep in mind that Aggies are resistant to change (see the top of my user page) BQZip01 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we would have enough dedicated users to make a portal worthwhile. -Texink 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who wrote this suggestion. I could help out i guess. i am about to graduate, and leave this wonderful school, but i still am here. . . . .

Hi, you should sign up for an account (takes less than 20 seconds) if you would like to help out. Also insert {{user aggie}} onto your userpage when you get the account. --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• A WikiProject would be an another idea to do either instead of or alongside a portal. I'd personally be more interested in helping with a Texas A&M WikiProject than with another portal. If there is uncertainty about getting enough contributors for an A&M-specific project perhaps a Big12 WikiProject would be a good idea? A Big 10 Conference WikiProject was started a couple of months ago but it does not look like it has accomplished too much. The trouble is that looking at all the portals and wikiprojects, there are very few that seem to be able to maintain a great momentum over the long-haul. The University portal is completely dormant. The UT WikiProject is less active than I would like. Even the Texas WikiProject suffers from a lack of activity. One might suppose that there are enough Texans to easily keep such a project going, but maybe it is too big a topic. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] athletics

i feel we could eliminate boosterism in the atheltics section. i feel the athletics section could be more vague. history should be more about the highlights historically, instead of the recent events. tu didn't even mention their recent national championship in theirs. i feel we don't need "only team that had both a womens and mens team in the NCAA tournment" the recent stuff should be moved to the football pages and the basketball pages. just my thoughts. still haven't joined yet. don't have time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.91.172.167 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2007 April 02 (UTC)

• Hmmm... I just read the portion on Athletics and it doesn't seem to me to be full of boosterism at all. Defeats are mentioned alongside victories. Perhaps just slightly tilted towards the positive/recent. For example, the recent victory over The University of Texas at Austin is mentioned, but the over-all record is not. I don't think that's too bad since this is just a summary. Also, I don't know who tu is (grin), but you will find the UT article does mention their most recent football championship at University_of_Texas_at_Austin#Varsity_sports. Johntex\^talk 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with the unsigned user, but it's difficult to not put a positive spin on an overall view of an athletics program since victories are far more memorable and important to a school than defeats. For example, compare the athletics sections of A&M and UT. UT takes your approach and is more vague, but only highlights positives. -Texink 04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)