Talk:Montgomery College

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rockville[edit]

The Rockville campus is not exactly geared toward liberal arts and fine arts.

How so? When I attended during 73-74 they had quite a bit for a community college including a little orchestra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.197.122 (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's verifiability policy at WP:V. If a good source says MC Rockville is geared toward liberal arts and fine arts then that should be cited, otherwise the sentence should be removed. Sumguysr (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

transitioning to a four-year college[edit]

I hear talk about this, but can't find a source. Is it just a rumor? -VJ 06:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it to be honest. I couldn't find anything about it on their website either. Would be cool though if a B.S./B.A. could be attained through MC instead of an associates. Might tempt me to go back. :) --JOK3R 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is true: transfering to UMD from Mont College Pat Semple (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Silberman Art Gallery Merger proposal[edit]

I second the motion for the merger. The Sarah Silberman Art Gallery is not notable in and of itself. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not notable and shouldn't have its own article. Sumguysr (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery College Libraries Merger Proposal[edit]

I second the call to merge the Montgomery College Libraries article with this one. I doubt there will ever be so much notable and verifiable information about the libraries that it won't work in a section in this article, and if such a time does come it wouldn't be very difficult to unmerge them. Sumguysr (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, time to merge the pages. Pat Semple (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Montgomery College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montgomery College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carver Junior College[edit]

Carver Junior College was established in 1950 as a post-secondary school for African-Americans, inasmuch as Montgomery Junior College was segregated. There's an existing Wikipedia page George Washington Carver High School (Rockville, Maryland), but there had not been any reference to Carver from Montgomery College, even though the Carver location would ultimately become the Montgomery College Rockville campus (and Carver Junior College refers to the school in Florida, without offering any pointer to the "Carver High School" page).

Here are some sources for Carver:

recent edits of 22 June 2021[edit]

There are a few problems associated with the edits of 22 June 2021:

  • issues with English mechanics
  • a significant problem with the coat of arms
  • issues regarding neutral point of view and undue emphasis

I consider each of the above items to be a significant problem, but I'll specifically elaborate on the "undue emphasis" issue. I am not here to try and defend MC. However, we don't need so much text to describe the fact that one person abused their travel expense privileges. The intricate details of the excessive spending are not needed; this could have been summarized in a sentence or two, particularly since a good citation was available. But wait, there's more! This is a story from 5 years ago. Sure, it absolutely belongs in the article, but instead of leaving us thinking that there's some ongoing brouhaha, the reader would like to know how this was resolved.

There's also a pretty glaring example of self-serving content in something which reads like a press release. I guess I'd call this both a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

Whether or not any representative of MC had anything to do with these recent edits, I don't know. Still, they're an embarrassment to the college. Fabrickator (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the controversy aspect being too long, when I had been editing it I had thought it was best to include a lot of details, but I think less is more. It's possible a full page could be made itself going deep into the investigate, but it doesn't need a lot of detail on the main page. Chrisisreed (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy issue is much better now, there are still the "English mechanics" issues (demonstrate that you understand the difference between "plurals" and "possessives").
Is the last sentence written as intended? (If I have to scratch my head, then something is wrong!) (Fabrickator) 18:00, 1 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisisreed: Just a reminder that the "English mechanics" issue is still present, along with the question of what is the intended meaning of the statement that "none of the charges were unjust." Fabrickator (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: @50.249.33.57: @Chrisisreed: This pertains to the content that had been in the "Controversy" section, now moved to the end of "History". This gives the impression that we are trying to hide the controversy, which raises the issue of NPOV. I feel it would be best to restore the "Controversy" section, albeit somewhere before the "Notable persons" section rather than after.
Aside from that, I have previously raised the question about the proper interpretation of the "charges" being "unjust", or after the most recent edit, "unjustified". There is no reason to force the reader to think hard about what the article is saying, and I find myself having to guess about it! Please explain this, and then perhaps you can proffer a better wording.
One last thing, I would ask what connections, if any, you have with Montgomery College. Speaking for myself, I attended elementary/junior high/high school in the Montgomery County Public Schools (that was in the 1960s), but I never took any courses at MJC/MC. Fabrickator (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the placement of this material, it might be helpful to take a look at this essay and our advice about college and university articles. In brief, controversies are part of the history of colleges and universities and should be presented as such with historical context and not segregated into separate sections as if they're isolated events disconnected from the institution's history. I am especially unsympathetic to placing controversies into a separate section at or near the end of the article as it does often appear as if editors are trying to downplay or hide them from readers.
I don't know much about this institution or this specific controversy so I don't really know if this is important enough to warrant inclusion in the article at all. I am concerned, however, that it may be undue weight to spend any time and space on something that has only one source especially if the news report had no significant, lasting impact. ElKevbo (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(subsequent discussion of the college president's reimbursed expenses has been moved to #college president's expenditures)

MC Shield[edit]

There are two Montgomery College shields on Wikipedia File:MC SEAL.jpg and File:Montgomery College Shield.png. I uploaded the second one because I found one of bigger and better size. But I just want to make sure they're appropriate. Chrisisreed (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm being too obscure with some of my comments. The problem with the coat of arms is there aren't any arms! There's no swords, no shield, no armor, no horses. A "lamp of knowledge" doesn't cut it. (This issue actually goes back to the June 1 edits.) Fabrickator (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

A. If everybody on the list has a wiki page, then why would it be required to include "additional citations"?

B. It seems weird that "Notable people" precedes "Controversy".

Fabrickator (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

college president's expenditures[edit]

@ElKevbo: @50.249.33.57: @Chrisisreed::

I thought any further discussion about the college president's expenditures should not continue in a section titled "recent edits of 22 June 2021", so I have created this new section.

I particularly wanted to address a statement which left the impression that there was "only one source" for this story. It's true that this was NBC 4's story. However, the story was picked up on by other local media (such as Montgomery County Sentinel and Bethesda Magazine). More significantly, a report was issued by the Inspector General, which, though finding nothing "wrong" with the decisions, made recommendations to improve transparency.

I think many students (and the general public as well) would wonder about the president of a publicly-funded institution receiving a "housing allowance" on top of a seemingly generous salary, and whether travel may sometimes be motivated by the desire to serve the interests of the college or by the opportunity for travel on the county's dime.

Perhaps the nature of this "controversy" sets it apart from other types of controversies, perhaps not. One point I would make is, if there's no mention of this in the article, it seems likely that somebody will periodically "discover" this story, adding it to the article, resulting in revisiting this discussion, presuming that it is omitted from the article. Fabrickator (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide those additional sources? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go (these are arranged in no particular order):
Fabrickator (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: I agree that the controversy should be naturally be worked into the history section of the article. There were plenty of news sources the covered the scandal since MC is one of the largest community college in the DC Metropolitan area. Off hand I know even the Washington Post ended up covering it. In regards of lasting effects nothing really changed at the college. I know this probably sounds biased but as a student who was attending at the time of the scandal it was very apparent that the school was just trying to keep their head down until it passed.Chrisisreed (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuition[edit]

User:ElKevbo — Can you elaborate on the reasons for removing information on tuition that appears to meet NPOV, NOR, and V? Other than it’s not encyclopedic? See WP:UNENC. CUA 27 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT. We are not obligated nor do we want to include all information in an article even if it is well-sourced and neutral. There is a lot of information, particularly detailed information that is complex and frequently changes, that we omit from articles and leave to the subject's own publications. A broad overview of costs may be helpful for readers; detailed information that quickly falls out of date is not. ElKevbo (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying. But I don't see how it applies here, as the information I added is neither overly detailed nor complex, nor outdated. Contrary to your apparent view, WP:UNIGUIDE says it is appropriate to include information on costs. Since your view appears contrary to consensus, I will plan to add that back in, but not right away so as to give you the courtesy of some time to respond if you so choose. CUA 27 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That portion of the advice appears to be out of step with practice as few articles include information about tuition and fees. It's information that quickly becomes outdated. More importantly, it's usually much, much more complicated than most editors and readers realize with most institutions charging different students different tuitions e.g., tuition discounting. ElKevbo (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does WP:UNIGUIDE endorse including information about tutition costs, some of the best articles in the WikiProject do the same. See, as just one example, the featured article Pomona College, which appeared on Wikipedia's main page earlier this month, and which the WP:COLLEGE WikiProject considers a showcase article. It describes tuition and costs, while mentioning the availability of financial aid (discounts). Further, if you think information is complex (which this isn't really), the better approach is to explain it in the text rather than remove it from the text. CUA 27 (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely encourage you to look at more articles about US colleges and universities; very, very few of them include this information. To the best of my knowledge, the only significant outliers are articles about law schools as one editor has spent a lot of time adding information from the information that their accreditor requires to be publicly available. Most other articles omit this information. (I think the Pomona article is a particular outlier as it was the recent focus of a push to get it cleaned up for its inclusion on the front page; take a look at the articles that were recently demoted from Featured status and note that outdated information and a general lack of maintenance were primary factors in the decisions to delist them.)
Further, in most cases this information is complex and much of that complexity is intentionally hidden by the institution. Please take a few moments to explore the concept of tuition discounting, the practice of publishing a "sticker price" but then giving various discounts to so many students that the average cost is only about half of that advertised price (it's called a "sticker price" as an explicit parallel to the practices of selling cars, another famously opaque interaction). You also need to consider fees and typical cost of living, two other areas that are often opaque and sometimes misleading. All of this, of course, has been the subject of scholarly study and much criticism and you shouldn't have any trouble finding examples of that.
I do think it's worthwhile, as it is in all cases, to include information about tuition and fees that is relevant and meaningful for readers. If, for example, the institution has a needs-blind admission policy (for all applicants or perhaps for all applicants whose families make less than a particular threshold), a commitment to meet all financial need with grants and work study instead of loans, or a commitment to keep tuition and fees constant for some period of time, that is information that is important, clear, and unlikely to fall out of date any time soon and thus something we should include. But we should not be misleading readers with information that isn't meaningful for most of them - see, again, "tuition discounting" - nor should we be setting ourselves up to fail readers by including information that we are unlikely to keep updated (this is an encyclopedia, not an admissions brochure). ElKevbo (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Coming from the notice at WT:HED) @ElKevbo: I have to side with CUA 27 here—a college's tuition price is pretty essential information, and even at the risk of it becoming outdated (which is the same for e.g. the endowment), I think we ought to include it.
For updating, we can take a few approaches to mitigate the risk. First, we can use {{As of}} and/or {{Update after}} so that out-of-date information will be tagged. Second, we can source it (at least mostly) from Wikidata, where it can be updated annually in bulk from databases, as I did for Pomona's article. I agree that it's complex information, but we have the ability to contextualize and to summarize to make it simpler. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you square this with our policy about what Wikipedia is not: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." ElKevbo (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote follows from the topic sentence of "Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article". That clearly has no applicability to this discussion, as no editors suggesting inclusion of the information are attempting to use this article for that purpose. CUA 27 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Local consensus cannot override project-wide consensus; the essay WP:UNIGUIDE cannot override the policy WP:NOT. I recommend a wider discussion and perhaps an explicit RFC to definitively settle the matter.
Those who wish to include this kind of informaiton may find it helpful to focus on the second part of the quote included above: "...unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." That means that simply referencing the institution's own materials is not sufficient; you need to find where others have explicitly discussed this information. ElKevbo (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CUA 27 and I seem to interpret WP:NOT differently than you do, ElKevbo. And overall, I think we should focus more on arguments for what readers will/won't find useful. We could discuss at WT:HED if you'd like to move to a broader forum, and hopefully we won't need an RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A question of focus[edit]

I think it's time to review the weighting of the different areas covered in this article, including both information about current operation of the college as well as historical information. Speak up if this is of interest to you. Fabrickator (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montgomery_College&oldid=1201125282"