This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New York City B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Higher education B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. National Register of Historic Places B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The mesh panels on the new academic building are never opened or closed to vent the building as was planned so I removed that from the green features. James Abbot has left the school so he has been removed from the faculty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.24.148 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added new statue photo that wasn't horribly photoshopped.

From the article: "Also working within the Chemical Engineering Department are Professors Richard Stock, the late Zikri Ahmed, and O. Charles Okorafor."

I imagine that Dr. Ahmed's lectures are rather brief. ;-)

Alright, so then you do not mind that we keep it? As far as I can tell you have given up that discussion. Which is fine by me, I am more then happy to consider this matter closed. I assume you agree with keeping it as non-doctoral then? The attitude is simply because I find this whole conversation to be strange. The source says one thing, and you and presumably others are trying to change it. Now to change the meaning of a source would imply some motive for doing it, I am trying to figure out what the motive is. According to you the motive is that people trying to choose an undergrad engineering school should consider Cooper Union (thanks for the heads up btw). This is fine, and I am inclined to agree. US News is inclined to agree, however as I have been trying to point out, there is a difference between a doctoral and a non-doctoral school. Students should not apply based off the assumption that they are the same thing, which is why US News rates them differently. This is also the reason why this wikipedia article should say the same thing, because they are not the same. Cooper Union is a top non-doctoral school, however if a student wants a doctoral school they should consider something else. It is plain and simple, but as I previously stated it seems that you agree now with keeping it as non-doctoral.

-Someone Else

At least we're getting somewhere now. The point I was trying to make with the "apples to oranges" statement is that that is the reason that US News doesn't compare them, which does not mean they defy comparison at all (which is a silly idea, isn't it?). No of course I didn't undertake my own "subjective empirical study." Again, man, whats with the attitude? That's what doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'm trying to have a discussion here that results in an agreement, but I'm not gonna keep doing it just to have you mock me with your responses. If that's what you're here for write on my talk page. If you "can't imagine" something about it, why don't you go there and check it out yourself? I'm sure Feynman's lectures were spectacular to witness first-hand, and Feynman's intelligence and research certainly had something to do with his ability to come up with them. There's also something to be said for Professors who devote their lives more specifically to teaching, a breed of Professors to be found more commonly at 4-year colleges. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with the US News article, which is something I guess I should have made clear before. To say that as a student choosing where to get his or her 4-year undergraduate engineering degree, The Cooper Union would (should?) probably appear in the top 10 choices (when choosing based on quality of the undergraduate education), is something completely different than what is contained in the US News article. Please stop second-guessing my intentions, I am not trying to falsely raise the reputation of my undergraduate college (a fact that is evidenced by my continuing this discussion w/o editing).

-Spudcrazy 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. it's "Cooper Union" or "The Cooper Union," not "Coopers Union" or "Cooper's Union."

Well, firstly, it was changed to 'non-doctoral' a month ago I believe, it was only recently changed back, so my changing it to non-doctoral was an edit to bring it back to its former glory. However the truth comes out it seems, you are a graduate of this school and so want to defend it. You my friend, are breaking wikipedia rules by stating something that is not supported by the article. I cannot imagine how self-important you need to be to imply that Coopers Union is not only one of the better non-doctoral schools in the nation (as the source says), but in fact is one of the better regardless of distinctions. Where do you base this off of? Do you base it off your own subjective empirical study that 'employers like Coopers Union', or do you base it off the fact that you got into grad school? I am sorry but these do not count as valid sources and are therefore ignored. Only what the source says is valid. And in fact if you want, hell, to bypass all of this arguing lets just put the name of the article in US News. Then there can be no argument any more, as everything stems from the source. So lets just say, 'according to the US News article 'Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (At schools whose highest degree is a bachelor's or master's)' Coopers Union is arguably one of the top universities' Is that fair? Because if that is not fair, then it is clear you are merely trying to upgrade the world view of your university, when such a view is I hate to say it, not supported. Id love to hear your response to this however.

Can Coopers Union students really do research as they see fit? For instance, as an undergrad I worked on designing Quantum Dots for Quantum Computing research with a famous professor in his field, I won't mention names but the school is top 3 in Materials Engineering. So could a Coopers Union student do something like this, and if so where are the facilities? Do the students then get free reign to go to Columbia to help professors with research? Forgive me if I find this unlikely.

Back to the question that you wish to impose, instead of the real question which is of course if saying it is a top school in general is supported by the source, is Coopers Union a top school in general? Once again I cannot imagine that it is, look at the top 5-10 engineering schools. There is a reason why they are on that list, years and years of solid research coming from their professors, professors who write famous books that are then used in every classroom across the country. Just look at Berkeley, when Kittel wrote his Intro to Solid State Physics, that soon became the standard bible for solid state physicists. When Feynman wrote his lectures on physics for Cal Tech, this too became extremely famous. University of Illinois is an incredible school, the first LED's were invented there and from then on they have a reuptation of immense EE and ME research and teaching. MIT has many fine books that are extremely well known. Stanford also. Georgia Tech also has many books, and much research that is world renowned. These are some of the top 7 according to US News for graduate engineering, (I didnt comment on Carnegie Melon as I figured it was redundant). There is a good reason why they are included in the top 7. Just because Coopers Union might have decent professors, does not make them in the class of these schools. Kids all over the world know these schools and some even aspire to travel to the US to study in them. It is silly to me, and arrogant to try and imply that Coopers Union somehow fits into this top 5, especially when US News clearly has the caveat that Coopers Union is a top school not supplying doctorates. Do your professors ever come in and start off a lecture with a research problem they are current working on? Do they ever get feedback from the students on how they would solve this particular threshold current density problem he is having with his solid-state laser? I doubt it highly. I realize once again that you wish to raise the level of your school up, but you got into a top 10 graduate school, be pleased with that as that is no small accomplishment.

To close, you keep pointing out that it is hard if not impossible ('apples to oranges') to compare Coopers Union with doctoral schools, so then why are you trying so desperately to do just that?

-Someone else

Again, I have to disagree. I'd like to note also that in my disagreement I am not going to immediately edit the main page, as you have done. Please respect the wiki process by discussing first THEN changing.

Your statement is prefaced by "I am a grad student, I know what schools are good." Thats semi-true. I too am a grad student. I too know what schools are good. I have been a grad student at both a top 10 university and at Cooper Union, so I can compare. This is not to say your opinion is without standing. That was part of what I was trying to say - "reputation" has a value that cant be pinned down with certainty. That having been said, the source in question notes that amongst non-doctoral institutions, Cooper is awesome. It doesn't compare non-doctoral institutions to doctoral institutions. So yes, giving the impression that the source would support that statement would be misleading. That doesn't mean, however, that its not true, and its difficult to find a good source for such an intangible thing.

As to your particular argument: yes, there are infrastructure-related issues that result in cooper, like any college, not drawing Nobel Laureates to the faculty. No, it doesn't soak up tons of research money and offer major research facilities. That doesn't mean that research isn't going on or that students don't get experience. If they didn't they wouldn't be going on to major research institutions all over the US. They wouldn't have received 10 NSF fellowships in the past 3 years. Thats a huge number for such a tiny school. Any student that wants a research project at Cooper needs only say so and they'll have research dumped on their laps, not tedious meaningless research but publishable work. I think Cooper's ability to get students into grad schools speaks for itself, and I think (and many would agree) that in its ability to succeed in its mission, as a college, Cooper compares to almost any other educational institution in the country in succeeding in their own missions (as whatever - a college, research university, whatever).

So again, please respect the process by discussing before editing. I'll watch the page for your reply (and change your edit if you don't). One final note: I'm not Dean Baum, and this isn't "propaganda." Try to choose your words with a greater degree of care.

-Spudcrazy 19:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a grad student, I know what schools are good. One basic thing about a good school is that there is current research going on there. Undergrad students can work with professors and perform cutting edge research with them, this has always been an important aspect of a university. I'm sure Coopers Union is good at teaching students information, and probably has decent labs to teach them lab work. However it is not the same thing, and this is an important difference. Going to MIT or Stanford or another top 10 school as an undergrad is a much difference experience merely because their professors are world famous in their fields and are established experimentalists. This comes through during the teaching, and also when the undergrads get into their junior/senior years they can work with these professors, thus getting experience for grad school impossible to get at a Coopers Union. Also I am not sure why we are having this argument at all, the SOURCE says that it is in the top 5 non-doctoral engineering programs. To imply otherwise is propaganda and reading into the list,something that is not supported by the source.

-Someone else

As editors keep going back and forth on the general reputation of the engineering school in their edits, it is probably a better idea to simply have the discussion here. I will open with this: we're attempting to state definitively something very vague - the caliber of an institution's reputation. US News and World reports do not compare Cooper to major research (i.e. doctorate-granting) institutions for a very good reason: its like comparing apples and oranges. So no, there's not much published research that says Cooper's engineering school is better or worse than, say, MIT. Even if there were, who could agree on the basis for such an assessment? I'd settle for saying this: the Nerken school does an incredible job at training undergraduate engineers. A high school student deciding where to get his or her engineering degree should place it right up amongst the top engineering schools in the nation, regardless of whether or not they offer major research programs and grant doctoral degrees.

-Spudcrazy 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody want to explain how this makes sense? "The Cooper Union began with adult education in night classes on the subjects of applied sciences and architectural drawing, as well as day classes for women on the subjects of photography, telegraphy, typewriting and shorthand. Discrimination based on race, religion, or sex was expressly prohibited." [Emphasis mine] elnerdo 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (By the way, am I supposed to add my edits to talk pages to the top or bottom of the page?)[reply]

Explanation: at the time, most women couldn't enroll for schooling due to discrimination. To call it a "day class for women" is not to be exclusive of men, but to point out the fact that unlike in most other classes at the time, women are indeed encouraged to enroll. Moreover, the subjects being taught were tailored to areas that women could learn and then expect to earn money. It provided a service to a group that needed help.

The academic requirements listed for the engineering school include 51.5 credits of electrical engineering. Surely these are only the requirements for E.E. majors and not for the entire school.

Yea, that was only the Electrical Engineering curriculum. Fixed it. Wow this page should really be updated with the other majors. --Syxed 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah somebody needs to step up and add ChemE and CivE. And you're totally right the architecture school deserves at least its own paragraph if not its own actual page. -Spudcrazy

I made an attempt... anyone else wants to carry the torch? I haven't studied there so I can't say much about how awesome it actually is :-) Blahm 06:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main article lists Felix Frankfurter as a distinguished alumnus. Another article in Wikipedia shows him as an alumnus of City College. Which is it? If it's City College, better not claim credit for Cooper.

I believe he was a dropout or a transfer. To be an "alumnus" one needs only to have taken a class, not graduated. Hence many schools claim "alumni" that never received a degree from that institution.

Best information available is that Frankfurter used the library and attended open lectures at the Great Hall but never attended a class. Therefore he neither dropped out nor transferred, since he was never a matriculated student. Continuing to list him as an alumnus is specious, and not in the best interests of the institution, which continues to make the same claim on their web pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.183.15 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is interested, this [1] is the source. --Syxed 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this article and did a minor copyediting sweep. I noted that the section about the Engineering program is very long and most of it is not encyclopedic, but rather a summary of the course catalogue. As a casual editor unfamiliar with the subject, I'm not going to delete it myself, but it probably ought to go. 121a0012 01:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could provide a definition of "encyclopedic"? I'm a fairly novice editor (not signed)

Much of this information is copied directly from the CU webpage. I am a novice too! and am not sure when it's appropriate to just start rewriting entire sections of text. any advice? I think the engineering sections of this article can be more briefly summarized and links added to the CU webpage. especially the more flowery language that has been pasted. Karinajean 04:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the recently added sections on CivE and ChemE, but someone should add a section about CURF or maybe another article

maybe someone should add s/t about life in cooper

I don't know where the information for the interdisciplinary B.E. degree section in [[Cooper_Union#Other other] comes from. it's not on the website and to the best of my knowledge the only interdisciplinary degree offered is a bachelors of science in engineering. is there a reference for this? Karinajean 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find a reference. Like most schools, the website is not very up-to-date. Those references to an interdisciplinary BE degree or IDE degree are indeed true for the time being, although the program is being re-evaluated I believe.

I just added the stuff about the National Historic Landmark designation. Could someone more knowledgeable than me add something about the building itself ... its architecture, construction etc.? If it's a landmark we should explain why. Daniel Case 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common mistake to leave out the "the" in the college's name, "the Cooper Union." Prior to my edit, contributors freely swung back and forth, randomly, between remembering to use the "the" and not, so it wasn't like I had to go in there and insert "the" everywhere. I added a prepositional phrase about how the college was originally intended to be called "the Union," which explains the requirement.

Basically, the use of "the Cooper Union" is similar to the use of "the New York Times" and "the Times" but never "New York Times" or "Times," except when it is used as an adjective ("Times reporter," etc.). No one would have considered referring to the college as "Union," it would have to be "the Union," although "the Cooper Union" became standard from the day the college was established, due to how beloved and esteemed its founder was. "Cooper," as shorthand, is acceptable ("the Cooper" would make no sense), although it is only context which clarifies the use in the article of "Cooper" to refer to the college as opposed to Peter Cooper himself, which does also occur.

I continue to encounter copy, from the college itself, that similarly randomly wanders between use of "the Cooper Union" and "Cooper Union," to my chagrin. While I was an editor of the Cooper Pioneer (the school newspaper), I did my best to stop the improper usage. As a side matter, I always felt the rare term "Cooperite" (which is the real name of a mineral, and I have sometimes seen used to refer to Cooper alumni, students, etc.) should be replaced with the cute "Cooperunian," but that has never been adopted, and I don't recall having an opportunity to use it myself, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.81.220 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna do it, but after looking through this, and reading about the engineering department and a little further, I noticed what I thought was a lot of missing commas. I had to read a lot of sentences twice to get their meaning, and I'm pretty sure commas would remove any ambiguity. Anyone agree? Clopnaz —Preceding comment was added at 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, feel free to correct me here, but although Wikipedia is based on "sources," to purposefully add information you know to be incorrect just because you have a source for it isn't right either, is it?

Spudcrazy (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. I don't know the information is incorrect, nor do the majority of editors here on Wikipedia. It was at that point hearsay that this professor was replaced. The webpage shows the six professors, and those are the ones who should of be listed. If one has been changed there should be a reference to back it up. Simple. I know it sounds like a conservative/slow approach, but it is how Wikipedia works. Thanks for providing the reference that shows there is a new mechanical engineering professor at the school. Was it so difficult afterall? :)

The section on the new academic building sounds like a cut-n-paste from a publicity brochure. The "vertical campus" part in particular seems way too much like something taken without proper citation from preexisting documentation. Might I humbly suggest rephrasing with NPOV or removal of the offending section?

74.66.230.83 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from somebody else: Like the bit on the New Academic Building, the entirety of this article reads like a self-published propaganda piece or something from Cooper's student viewbook. One would think the Cooper Union is a flawless, idyllic Mecca of vocational education mixed in with the best, most beautiful parts of a modern, American liberal arts curriculum. As an ex-student of the Cooper Union, I have to say that this portrayal is patently false and very misleading, despite the extremely exciting and arousing bullet points like "full-tuition scholarship" and "less than 10% admission rate." Unfortunately for Cooper and its students, impressive admission rates (resulting from Cooper's romantic selling points, not least of which are a central Manhattan location and minuscule admission percentage derived from the school's freeness and not a merited prestige, and not, I think, from pedagogical and instructive competence) do not a healthy school make. Articles shouldn't serve as biased recruitment tools for organizations or causes, which this piece relentlessly demonstrates. Some major housekeeping is required for this piece to maintain any sense of integrity and veracity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.240.67 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take pains to focus your comments on the article and not on the subject. This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cooper Union's faults or virtues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed some very major revisions, additions, and cleanups of this page. Details are in the revision comments. I intend to continue over the next few days.

Issues this editing addresses:

• Spelling/grammar mistakes EVERYWHERE. C'mon, people. (in progress, probably forever)
• Old info in "Modern Changes" section. Ironic. (DONE)
• 'Unencyclopedic' and 'POV' issues in Modern Changes section (DONE, please review)
• Poorly formatted and short Great Hall section. (DONE)
• Numerous Engineering section problems, including direct copying from school website and poor organization. (DONE)
• Out-of-date Engineering info (DONE)
• Lack of images. (working on it, have added 7 so far)
• Out-of-date "Facilities" section (working on it right now)
• Lack of info on Art and Arch schools compared to Engineering (Art done as of today , Architecture next.)

Ci-Daemon (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the Cooper Union's oldest departments are not mentioned; chemistry, mathematics and physics. Can someone add sections describing these departments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.158.79 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is something you can do yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. There used to be descriptions on this page but someone has deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.98.16.84 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - new section added. Hope this will serve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qflib (talk • contribs) 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised and expanded the citations on Richard Sarles for inclusion in Cooper_Union#Notable_alumni section. As the reason for previous removal was "not notable", I have satisfied criteria for WP:SIGCOV, WP:NRVE, WP:NTEMP and WP:Source list with information back to 2000 from the Washington Post, New York Times, Scientific American, etc. Additionally, there is a nice article from Star-News, 15 Aug 1999 pages E1-E2 if we want to go further back :-) Lent (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are about him only in regard to his position as the head of the Washington Metro, but that is not enough to show that he is notable, since anyone who was head of the Washington Metro would get the exact same mentions. There are X number of urban rapid transit systems in the U.S. and the head of every single one of them would get coverage in the local press that's exactly equivalent to the coverage you've presented for Sarles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the citations do mention more than his current position, with notable accomplishments, [2] like getting the fastest train in the Western Hemisphere, the Acela Express, running from New Haven to Boston, only a dream since Turbotrain. Getting the ARC_Tunnel project off the ground might be another. Particularly, at a college whose founder built the first US locomotive, Tom_Thumb_(locomotive). Additionally, we see that other transit system heads, particularly those of large metropolitan areas and capitals of nations, are notable for their positions, such as NYC's Jay Walder , San Fransisco's Richard_A._White, Hong Kong's Chow Chung-Kong , Baltimore's Otis_Rolley, Delhi's E._Sreedharan, as are heads of other public and private rail corporations like Amtrak's Joseph_H._Boardman, Union Pacific's James_R._Young_(UP). Admittedly, Toronto's Robert Prichard background is a bit more varied, and was probably needed with Toronto transit's merger and subsequent acquisitions :-)

Lent (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that all those other names you cite have something that Sarles doesn't, which is an article on Wikipedia -- however, the point you make about his past accomplishments is valid. I'm going to restore the listing with the WaPo ref as a supporting citation. You might think about putting together an article about Sarles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has vandalized this page. The curriculum section has been rewritten to purposefully tarnish the reputation of this institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.7.38 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the edits in question, but you should know that you can revert vandalism yourself in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has edited the beginning paragraph, adding the following phrase without any substantiation: "Since 1902, initially with support from a gift from Andrew Carnegie, and later with gifts from Cooper's descendants as well as income from real estate holdings, the College has admitted students based on merit alone and provided each with a full-tuition scholarship. In the school's early years (1859-1902), more affluent students paid tuition to help support scholarships for those who needed them." As far as I can tell this statement is not correct. The statement should be eliminated unless a specific reference is invoked to substantiate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qflib (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, while essential to Cooper Union, is sadly not a school. :-( Also, there is no citation for the change. 38.122.225.42 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Mr. Drogin has scanned a reference, a history of the college compiled by Cooper Union assistant librarian Virgina Weimer-Vogl, written for At Cooper Union in celebration of the 125th Anniversary of the institution in 1984, and posted it to his website. Ms. Weimer-Vogl relates that, from the archives, when Edwin Burdell, former Dean of Humanities at MIT, became president of Cooper Union in 1938, he added Humanities courses, and in 1939 established a Humanities Department with William S. Lynch as head. There is a later entry that in 1984 the Department became a Faculty. The reference claims to be edited, most likely there was identified a date when the Humanities Department became the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, the editor of the publication probably edited that out to save on space, as it says. The scan of this historical document by Mr. Drogin and posting to his unfortunately named website, Not Nice Music (an eye-catching music business name for the very nice man) is a significant contribution to the Internet. ACU84.pdf[reply]

As per http://cooper.edu/academics,

The Cooper Union is comprised of Schools of Architecture, Art, Engineering and a Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

The difference is that no degrees are offered in Humanities and Social Sciences. All three schools mandate students take a core Humanities and Social Science curriculum, along with recommended electives.

The question is how to integrate the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences into this early part of the article.

The existing sentence

The college, which is divided into four schools – the Irwin S. Chanin School of Architecture, the School of Art, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the Albert Nerken School of Engineering – offers internationally-accredited undergraduate and Master's degree programs exclusively in the fields of architecture, fine arts, and engineering as a member of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD).

is difficult at best. Too much information is being presented in one sentence!

The ideas of Schools, Degrees Programs, Accreditation, and Organizations are all trying to fit into one sentence.

The Architecture [3] and Engineering Schools [4] do offer Master's degrees, but the Art School does not. The sentence is incomplete as it lacks the accreditations from Middle States and National Association of Schools of Art and Design.

Some history...The sentence evolved from: 22 July 2003

Currently, Cooper Union offers programs in architecture, fine arts, and engineering to a total of nearly 900 students.

and

Cooper Union evolved over time into the current form of four-year college with three schools (architecture, art, and engineering).

Which evolved into the three schools, followed by association membership details 3 April 2008

The school offers degree programs in architecture, fine arts, and engineering. The Cooper Union is a member of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD), a consortium of thirty-six leading art schools in the United States.

This was mashed into one sentence 4 April 2008

The school offers accredited degree programs in architecture, fine arts, and engineering and is a member of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD), a consortium of thirty-six leading art schools in the United States.

A later form gets ABET tagged on :-) 13 November 2008

The school offers accredited degree programs in architecture, fine arts, and engineering and is a member of ABET and the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD), a consortium of thirty-six leading art schools in the United States.

Lent (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, fix it! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 "Peter Cooper," 1891, Columbia University Libraries, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_5655304_000/pages/ldpd_5655304_000_00000042.html
 "Henry Whitney Bellows Lecture," 1999, Cooper Union Engineering Faculty, http://engfac.cooper.edu/pages/topper/uploads/peter_cooper_lect_wbib&ed_Final.pdf

  "Letter to the Trustees," 1859, Cooper Union Library, http://library.cooper.edu/archive/letters/pc_letter_2.html
  "Autobiography of Peter Cooper," Vol. VI, No. 147, p. 465, Old South Leaflets (Harvard College Library), url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tysPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA488&lpg=PA488&dq=%22Old+South+Leaflets%22+%22open+and+free+to+all%22 +1864&source=bl&ots=dNCHxMWvPY&sig=LoPIvznYewAceM3N00ZymCRLFS0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yP3HULiJHcfV0gGumIDYBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Old%20South%20Leaflets%22%20%22open%20and%20free%20to%20all%22%201864&f=false
  "Heroes of Peace," 1877, Internet Archive, http://www.archive.org/stream/heroesofpeace00bost/heroesofpeace00bost_djvu.txt
  "Newport Daily News," 1900, http://newspaperarchive.com/newport-daily-news/1900-03-16/page-3

  "At Cooper Union 125th Anniversary Special Issue," 1984, Cooper Union, http://www.notnicemusic.com/ACU84.pdf
  "On Amateurs and Access," 2012, WordPress, http://sangamithra.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/on-amateurs-and-access/

 "Henry Whitney Bellows Lecture," 1999, Cooper Union Engineering Faculty, http://engfac.cooper.edu/pages/topper/uploads/peter_cooper_lect_wbib&ed_Final.pdf

  "At Cooper Union 125th Anniversary Special Issue," 1984, Cooper Union, http://www.notnicemusic.com/ACU84.pdf

  "On Amateurs and Access," 2012, WordPress, http://sangamithra.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/on-amateurs-and-access/

  "At Cooper Union," 2010, Cooper Union, http://www.scribd.com/doc/30247316/Cooper-Union-s-Continuing-Education-program

  "Commencement Speech," 1902, Cooper Union Library, http://cooper.libguides.com/content.php?pid=388387&sid=3183137

  WNYC, http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2012/dec/04/cooper-union-students-protest-possible-tuition-fees/

  "Peter Cooper," National Park Service, 1971, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ny/ny0300/ny0359/data/ny0359data.pdf

In the phrase "more pointed solicitation of alumni donations and research grants" is "pointed" the right word? It struck me as rather odd. Billlion (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source says Fred A. Petersen designed Cooper Union. Should this be noted in the article? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's confirmed by the Guide to New York City Landmarks and the AIA Guide to New York City, so it's a wonder that Petersen hasn't been added to the body of the article before this. I se you've already added it, although I've moved it down a but into the article into a separate section for the Foundation Building. (Which is the buildng you're referring to, the one on Astor Place at Cooper Square.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is mostly about the school I wonder if there shouldn't be a separate article about the building? Candleabracadabra (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Feel free, though, to expand the new "Foundation Building" section if you have new sources and new information. Beyond My Ken (talk)

An editor is trying to add this information to the financial/tuition crisis section of the article:

In 2015, Cooper Union was ranked #31 in New York State by average professor salaries.^[1]

I do not understand what this has to do with the specific subject of the school's tuition/fiscal crisis, since the referenced article isn't an analysis of CU's money problems and whether their professorial pay scale impacts it in some way, but a list of instituions in the state and what they pay to their professors, so I removed it from the article. The editor has edit-warred to keep it in, and has refused to open a discussion here, despite WP:BURDEN, which requires editors who wish to add disputed material to overcome the burden of doing so, and WP:BRD, which requires a Bold edit that is Reverted to be Discussed, and the article left in the status quo ante while the discussion is ongoing.

Despite the negative implications of their question in one of their edit summaries, I am not an alumnus of Cooper Union, and, in fact, have no connection with it whatsoever. I started editing the article because I took some pictures of Cooper Union's buildings. I have been an editor of this article since 13 December 2012,[5] and am, in fact, the editor with the most edits to it by number. I have contributed 4.1% of the article by amount of text,[6] so I believe I have a good understanding of the structure of the article. BMK (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that the editor proposing this change is attempting to insert this factoid as an ironic comment concerning the salaries paid to faculty of a school which experienced a financial crisis only a few years before. However, this is a classic trojan horse scenario and does not maintain neutral point of view. Perhaps this information belongs in the article, but not in this section. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it belongs in the article where it was only if supported by a citation that explicitly ties the professorial pay scale to the fiscal/tuition crisis. It might be able to go in in another section, but, again, it's just a stray fact with no context provided, and would need to be related in some way to other institutions of its type in New York City. BMK (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This factoid should not be used merely to make a point that (thus far) none of the article's sources have made, as that in effect makes it an editorial. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, I asked you whether or not you are an alumnus in good faith because I saw that you have made plenty of edits to this article. However, I would like to note that this article doesn't seem neutral to me. Unsourced non-neutral sentences such as "Cooper is considered to be one of the most prestigious colleges in the United States, with all three of its member schools consistently ranked among the highest in the country," and "Alumni of the Cooper Union win a vastly disproportionate share of the nation's most prestigious awards," should be removed. This article is full of puffery, and unlike most other colleges, doesn't read like a neutral encyclopedia article. Cooper Union maybe very selective (due to the fact that it doesn't charge undergraduate tuition), like City College of New York. But its professors are not that good. Given the fact that external research funding is very low etc. This article has to be written in a neutral way.--Cryptjohson (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Beyond My KenDwpaul[reply]

You believe that you're in a position to judge the neutrality of the article; "But its professors are not that good. Given the fact that external research funding is very low etc." I don't think so. BMK (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See List of research universities in the United States and Association of American Universities. The professors get paid very low salaries for a reason.--Cryptjohson (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have once again missed the point. We can neither say nor infer that Cooper Union is an inferior institution (nor that it should pay its professors less than it does) based on the fact that it does not appear in a list here of research universities or is not (apparently, though a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for other articles, especially in terms of omissions) a member of the AAU. We can only say these things, even if one or both are true, because a reliable source says so. Attempting to combine facts to imply something which none of the facts' sources say is called synthesis, and is not permitted here. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, you already violated the three-revert rule, but since no one warned you, you will probably not get blocked. If any admin does block you, I will request the admin to unblock you.--Cryptjohson (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that nice of you? But you really should take a closer look at the article's history. BMK (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, no need to be sarcastic. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines before editing this article. Thank you.--Cryptjohson (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I recommend that you don't tag bomb the article again, since you clearly have a POV problem in regard to the institution. BMK (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation has no veracity. On the contrary, you seem to have the POV problem!--Cryptjohson (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are mechanisms to address it if you think another editor is failing to abide by WP:NPOV. In the mean time, consensus so far is clearly against you on the inclusion of the information on professorial salaries in that section, so please do not reinsert it unless and until a different consensus is achieved. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And would you please stop accusing other editors of edit warring, when you clearly have not yet taken the time to understand what it is (and what it is not). (Please do.) Reverting edits you have made or favor does not constitute edit warring merely because you made or favor them. There are also mechanisms in place to deal with that if you think it has occurred, but beware the boomerang. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwpaul, please read what I wrote above, and see what actually happened before jumping to support your friend.I've not incluced the information on professorial salaries in that section, and the tags you removed unjustly, were totally justified to be there. I made these two edits: [7] and [8] just to put finger on some of the many reasons why those tags were justified.--Cryptjohson (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've (already had) read everything you've written and was here from the start of the discussion (so I know exactly what happened), and I'm still not convinced. And you have asserted that I am somehow biased in favor of BMK's edits (I am not, and thoroughly capable of independent thought and judgment), once again violating Assume good faith. We can agree to disagree about edits (as long as you do not edit against consensus), but you need to stop your accusations. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dwpaul, At the beginning there was a separate discussion, of which you were part of, about whether or not to include information on professorial salaries in a certain section. Then BMK reverted my adding of tags, and accused me of being a POV editor[9]. I added the tags long after justifying it on the talk page here. After you removed the tags unjustly, I made these two edits: [10] and [11] just to put finger on some of the many reasons why those tags were justified.--Cryptjohson (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know; and I then removed those tags, as I was in agreement with BMK that they were inappropriate and unnecessary. The mere fact that certain improvements can be made to an article does not always justify tagging the entire article, especially if other editors disagree and/or if an editor is already working on those improvements, and any editor may remove tags they consider inappropriate. Thus far, I have not challenged your subsequent edits to the article, but I reserve the right to do so in the future. If I do it will be because I disagree with them, not because BMK does (though if BMK and I and/or other editors agree, we may renew a discussion about consensus). Dwpaul ^Talk 22:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the edits I've reviewed so far, except that I updated the alumni awards section with current information from a current link. So far, the edits made have (for the most part) improved the article -- although they hardly justify the previous tag bombing. I'll continue to monitor the changes made by Cryptjohson and discuss here any issues I feel need to be reviewed. BMK (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, I don't've, and never had any personal issue with you or your edits. I just want the article to be in line with Wikipedia standards. Since you are the editor who had most edits on this article prior to me starting to fix it, as a friendly advice, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines as well as Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Cheers!--Cryptjohson (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, I see that you once again added Wikipedia:Weasel word [12], I also fixed your stray edits and capitalization errors[13]. Please read the guidelines I suggested you to read. Some of your edits to this article are unintentionally disruptive. Cheers--Cryptjohson (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a clue what you're talking about. In your edit following mine you mentioned above, in which I assume you fixed the terrible "weasal word" I added, all you did was remove an extraneous square bracket. Thanks for that, but... huh? BMK (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor seems to be objecting to the word "Recent", which I've never thought of as a weasel word. While I agree that the source did not say "recent" (some of the award recipients were Class of 195x), I'm not sure why the editor thinks they have to come back here and point out every disagreement they have with your edits, unless they're just trying to be provocative. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be provocative at all. I removed the word "recent", but BMK sneaked it in again while updating the link to which I added a "dead link" tag. I'm trying to take the article to "featured article" status. It can't be done overnight, and makes it all the more harder if someone keeps undoing my fixing. BMK has made most edits to this article prior to me trying to fix it, and he remains a frequent editor. That is the only reason why I'm cautioning him. I'm doing it in good faith. Cheers--Cryptjohson (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm trying to take the article to 'featured article' status". Sorry, I don't believe you, and if you keep lying like that, we're going to have a really serious discussion about the way you burst forth two days ago like Athena from the head of Zeus, fully formed and well-versed in the ways of Wikipedia -- and we both know full well what that means. (And no, it's not "I've been editing as an IP for such a long time that I learned it all" - that dog don't hunt.) So, if you want to keep bullshitting like this, I'm happy to oblige you and open up the discourse to all sorts of other interesting things, the majority of which will see you indefinitely blocked from editing for the forseeable future. BMK (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, I'm not lying at all. I removed the word "recent" with this edit, while you readded it with this edit, possibly by mistake. We can both learn from each other. Teachers at times do learn from students. My intention was never to demean you or piss you off. In fact I believe you had a huge hand in building this article in the first place, and your and Dwpaul's help is crucial in taking this article to featured status. I'm a perfectionist, but I guess I shouldn't've disregarded your seniority after all.--Cryptjohson (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]