United States B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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.

The tone of this article, with its numerous boastful statements, is not consistent with the measured and objective tone of most other articles in Wikipedia about colleges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.163.3 (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can present some specific examples of boastful, subjective statements, I'd be happy to update the article appropriately. Npdoty (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the following paragraph from the entry:

Those in and around "Amherst" pronounce it without the "h" — Am'erst. However, "Amherst" is commonly pronounced as it is written, while Williams students and alumni often emphasize the "h" - "Am-HERST".

If you poke through the history, you'll see that there's been a sentence resembling the first one in the entry for a few months. The current revision smells a lot like vandalism, particularly given the questionable NPOV of the author. (And, to be fair, my own.)

I'd like to hear opinions about including information on the pronunciation of the College's name. Given people's accents are parsed and used as a means for social inclusion/exclusion (see [shibboleth]) there's an argument to be made for including the accepted pronunciation as a service to outsiders (so they won't recieve a frosty correction - but the frosty correction itself is open to derision like that above.) Pjmorse 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I go to Amherst, so let me weigh in my opinion. Most people from Western Mass. call the town, and therefore the college, "Am'erst", and I've never heard an exception from a town local. Amherst College students all call Amherst College "Am'erst" (in fact, it's a very common campus joke) but most call UMass "UMass AmHerst", and some also call the town "AmHerst", but fewer than do so UMass. Most UMass students who are from the general area call the town "Am'erst", but most are from wider regions -- inside Mass, it can go either way. Anyone from anyway southwest of Mass invariably calls it "AmHerst" (in all three cases) unless they've been corrected by a local (not particularly likely) or a student/alum (more likely). No, I can't source this, but if you ask the vast majority of AC students, they'll all tell you the same thing. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's wording in the town article (Amherst) suggesting that this is a local pronunciation (i.e. the College gets it from the town) so I've added wording to that effect to the article. - Pjmorse 14:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the wording in the town article, it's not very authotitative. It has a reference link that doesn't really settle the issue. I've lived all my life in the town, so I'm fairly certain that the H is not pronounced, but it would be great if someone made some authoritative reference for it. Anyone in the college have any ideas? -GlamdringCookies 03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those responsible for the referenced website, I'm amused. :) We're just two alums who weren't aware there was any question about the pronunciation. Seems like it would be pretty difficult to find written documentation for a pronunciation, at any rate; does anyone know how one would go about this? - Pjmorse 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This adds nothing to the discussion, but there is now apparently a radio show on WAMH with the name, "The H Is Silent." - Pjmorse 13:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RC Orientation show used to have a running "The H is for the peasants" joke. The original (British) pronunciation is no doubt "Am'erst" ... I believe both are in common usage in contemporary American. Don't think it matters overmuch, either. - CheNuevara 18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't proper pronunciation relevant and factual, regardless of the social connotations or impact? The "H" is silent.71.57.125.225 (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seal of the College is at least 20 years out of date. I can't find a decent image of the new one.

You mean like this? The seal was actually 45 years out of date. This one's current - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. I liked the other seal better--aesthetically speaking, i.e.

I wonder if "notables" should include the children of famous people? Did these folks do anything to merit a mention, or is their presence more an indication of Amherst's cache? If the latter, I'd delete.

Dwight D. Eisenhower II 1970, son of Dwight D. Eisenhower James C. Rehnquist 1977 and Nancy Rehnquist Spears 1981, children of Chief Justice William Rehnquist Margaret J. Scalia 2002, daughter of Antonin Scalia

I'm in favor of removing the "children of famous people" listings. Until they do something notable themselves, they don't necessarily reflect anything about the College the way its accomplished alumni do. They should also be allowed to make their own lives outside their parents' shadows. Here's who I've removed:

• Dwight D. Eisenhower II 1970, son of Dwight D. Eisenhower
• James C. Rehnquist 1977 and Nancy Rehnquist Spears 1981, children of Chief Justice William Rehnquist
• Margaret J. Scalia 2002, daughter of Antonin Scalia
• Elizabeth Jennings 2002, daughter of Peter Jennings

Pjmorse 15:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parker, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there are quite a few people who are famous, or became famous, solely because of who they're related to. -Rjyanco 19:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but that doesn't mean they add anything to one's understanding of the College, which I suppose is my point. (Of course, there's some question whether *any* list of alumni adds to one's understanding of the College - my current institution, Tufts, forked this list off into another page - but I'm not ready for that discussion.) Pjmorse

The Williams list became so unwieldy that I forked it myself. (If our list used their criteria for "notable," it would be twice as long as it currently is. e.g., elected to office = notable.)

When you come right down to it, forking the Amherst alumnus listing might be a good idea, because it would allow more focus on the College itself. I only hesitated to do it in the past because the list still seemed fairly selective. But now with Keats and Baker, Cariani, etc., none of whom seem notable, much less famous (alongside Coolidge, Stone, Meredith, Turow), it might be time for a fork.

Have a good Thanksgiving. -Rjyanco 11:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just yanked the link to www.umasslinks.com (or some such) with "All the Amherst delivery menus." I doubt it was maliciously spammed, but it seems awfully thinly connected to the College. Any comments? Pjmorse 02:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the name of the water polo team? Pjmorse 13:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm going to keep reverting additions of "YoHo" in the water polo team name unless someone can explain to me why they, in fact, know the correct name. There was a good explanation for the removal; I want to see a good explanation for its reinstatement. Pjmorse 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the Water Polo team is the "Yo-Ho Penguins," not the "Penguins." I can give you no other reason for why this is the case than that I am a current member of the water polo team and, as such, I know what the team's name is. The name may seem slightly ridiculous to you, but I assure you that it is real.

Good enough. Thanks for the explanation. Pjmorse 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Dickinson was not an alum of Amherst College, so it's odd to mention her in the first paragraph of the entry. There are many more illustrious alumni to mention off the bat, including Calvin Collidge, Daniel Webster, Francisco Flores, Harlan Fiske Stone, the Merrill and Smith that founded Merrill Lynch, etc.

Emily did attend Amherst Academy, but not the College (not coed at the time, obviously.) She spent a year (or less? A semester?) over the Notch at Mt. Holyoke, but then came home to be a recluse. So, you're right. Emily's grandfather was one of the College's founders, though. (And her brother Austin was one of those responsible for bringing Mass Aggie to Amherst... the things you learn as a Dickinson House guide...) Pjmorse 02:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it should be noted that the Emily Dickinson Museum, which consists of the house she was born in and the house her brother lived in, is owned and operated by Amherst College - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a graph on "Amherst College and the Dickinson family"? I'm only half joking. (Until the late '90s, the Homestead was actually faculty housing, excepting the rooms open for tours.)Pjmorse 19:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Williams alumni are fond of an apocryphal story ascribing the removal of books from the Williams College library to Amherst College, but there is no contemporaneous evidence to verify the story.

How about books in the basement of the AC library which say "Property of Williams College" in them? I've heard a lot of AC students mention them. I can't personally vouch for this, but I'll try and find someone who's seen them (I'm abroad this semester, otherwise I'd look myself). - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those books are part of the myth. Anyway, any book that's been in the library since 1821 is most likely in Special Collections, not in the stacks of C-level. (Though that assertion might be easier to disprove than my assertion that the Williams books are a myth.) If one could be found, that might be accepted as "contemporaneous evidence," but I'm betting that the Williams president who denied the story probably did this kind of research.

So, short summary: it's a great story, but it's just a story. Pjmorse 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't know anything particular about it, just heard the story like everyone else. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 20:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Jeffrey Amherst is now notorious for his comments, in a letter to a peer, about spreading smallpox-infected blankets among Native Americans.

I'm actually pretty sure that's not true. Can someone source it? UMass Amherst's fokloristics specialist told me he doesn't think there are any sources. A similar story is told about Pittsburgh, Easter Island, and several other places. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 09:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion of this at Jeffrey Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst, as follows:

The hostility between the British and Native Americans ("Indians") after the French and Indian War led to the first documented attempt at biological warfare in North American history. In response to the 1763 uprising known as Pontiac's Rebellion, Amherst suggested using smallpox as a weapon for ending the rebellion. In a series of letters to his subordinate Colonel Henry Bouquet, the two men discussed the possibility of infecting the attacking Indians with smallpox through gifts of blankets that had been exposed to the disease. Apparently unbeknownst to both Amherst and Bouquet, the commander at Fort Pitt had already attempted this very tactic. Although Amherst's name is usually connected with this germ warfare because he was the overall commander and because of his correspondence with Bouquet, evidence appears to indicate that the attempt was made without Amherst's prior knowledge. (See Pontiac's Rebellion for more details.)

There's more in the links for that page, including a link to a page with primary sources. - Pjmorse 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was devoid of photographs of the campus. I've uploaded an angled shot of College Row, and I think it adds a tangible sense. Objections? I'm waiting for copyright permission of a truly gorgeous photograph of Johnson Chapel, which I think would significantly add to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AWBridges (talk • contribs) 12:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More pictures would be stellar. Great idea. I should check with Sam Masinter (see doubleshotphotography.com) in the Public Affairs office; maybe he has some he'd be willing to put in the Commons for such use, unless you have some specific ones in mind. Also see the "Amherst College" group on Flickr; many of those images may have Wikipedia-friendly license terms. --Pjmorse 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can count on AWBridges (talk · contribs) to supply all the tangible sense this article needs, and more. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that photo, but unless there's more text I feel bad uploading others. It might look like a picture gallery. -AWBridges

I reworded a recent addition which asserted that men's and women's swimming and diving had won more individual national titles than any other sport at Amherst. Checking here and here suggests that the swimming and diving teams have indeed won quite a few titles, but it's unclear about "most." This page asserts that five athletes from the track teams have won thirteen national titles between them, but that spans two seasons - is that "four" teams? The swimming record shows several relay wins: are they counted as four or as one? (Or even not as individual titles at all?) How many wins to how many athletes? And in which other sports are individual titles available? (Golf, tennis, squash, skiing, wrestling, what else? Yes, Amherst once had a wrestling team.)

It's cute trivia, but unless the numbers can be enumerated, I move the numbers stay left out. - Pjmorse 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wrestling team only disbanded in 1991 -- it wasn't that long ago. Oh crap, it was!! -Rjyanco 11:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first intercollegiate baseball game was played between Williams and Amherst on July 1, 1859. Amherst won, 73-32.

I can not honestly believe that over 100 combined points were ever scored in a single baseball game. Is this the wrong sport, or the wrong score? - Che Nuevara 17:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that baseball games then were played under, shall we say, slightly different rules, and running up the score was one of the results. A score like that is not uncommon in cricket - actually, I think it would be a low score for cricket - that being the game baseball is usually compared to.

It might take some research to confirm my hunch here, but the score seems plausible to me.--Pjmorse 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some minor changes in the intro graph in the last few months which seem to be aimed at finding a balance between NPOV and communicating the College's "elite" status (e.g. removing "elite," then having it later replaced with "highly selective.")

Personally, I come down on the side of NPOV-caution here. The article already mentions selectivity (first sentence of the "Academics" section) so putting it in the intro does come off, in my mind, a bit too close to bragging. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to make an edit, and I'd like to see other opinions. --Pjmorse 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think that "elite" is POV. Amherst is widely considered to be one an elite college (now, if it made the claim that it was the best then that would be a problem). However, I wasn't quite prepared to revert the removal of the word elite. I added "highly selective" in an attempt to mirror the Williams intro (which doesn't seem to be causing problems). Lordjeff06 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet if we had a citation (e.g. USN&WR) "elite" would fly. --Pjmorse 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added "elite" back in and added references to both the PBS documentary "Best and the Brightest" which describes Amherst as elite and to a Newsweek article which lists Amherst amongst the generally recognized premier colleges. It may still be POV, but it's a pretty universal POV. Lordjeff06 16:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking through, and noticed this - "but the two groups tend to socialize separately at the Club since the Williams alumni are demonstrably more attractive and successful." Does this seem POV to anyone else?

You're right. I axed the whole paragraph, since the sharing of the alumni club (while accurate so far as I know) doesn't seem important enough to keep relative to the vandalism-bait it represents. --Pjmorse 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid a well-meaning edit which equated the Little Three (Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan) with the so-called "Little Ivies." Since Tufts University is also claiming membership in the "Little Ivies," with a citation no less, that seems unlikely.

I would have corrected the statement and swiped the cite from Tufts, but frankly I think the whole "little Ivies" label is a silly categorization hyped by admissions officers of colleges and universities with inferiority complexes. (Tufts' institutional inferiority complex about Harvard is, well, elephantine.) Schools like Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, and (even) Tufts aren't mini-Harvards, Yales and Princetons; they're something entirely different, and they should be regarded as such rather than reduced to some kind of younger siblings (or second string). So if someone else thinks the Amherst article needs a mention of "little Ivies", well, they can put it in themselves... --Pjmorse 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps I should clarify that by adding: "Someone else" == "registered user" and that I will continue deleting any un-cited suggestion that the so-called "little Ivies" and the "Little Three" are the same thing. --Pjmorse 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was at Wesleyan, Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams were essentially referred to as the "Little Three". You also heard the term "Potted Ivies" every so often to describe the three schools. I certainly much prefer "Little Three".

Anthropologique 22:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, while I still feel that "elite" isn't really POV and that it ought to be included in the article (obviously I'm biased as to Amherst's greatness), I'm done reverting its removal. If anyone else thinks it should be included, you can go ahead and re-add it. Lordjeff06 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amherst, I feel, is certainly in the "elite" category, as is Wesleyan, Williams, Swarthmore and a tiny handfull of other small liberal arts colleges. It seems that the site monitors at WIKI are not allowing use of such terms as "elite" or "highly selective" to describe any college that ranks in the "most selective" category. Some of my contributions to one college article that included such terms fell victim to the delete key. Seems there are growing complaints of creeping college boosterism...

Anthropologique 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the athletics section has been re-written, but now includes no mention of the College's many club teams, such as Rugby, Water-Polo (see discussion above) or Ultimate. What is the rationale behind this? These teams are an important part of the athletic culture on campus, and merit either inclusion in the athletics section, or else at least their own section. As it stands now, there is not one mention of them in the entire article.

FashionNugget 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are some different opinions about the section. I am afraid I've started the editing by this edit: My impression has been that the text

1. was biased before because it talked about "purported comments" and "possibility" when in fact there is

• evidence ...
• that Amherst has supported...
• an idea (one could call it a plan, but I found that term too strong).

1. only mentioned the comments/approval while Amherst is, to my knowledge, controversial for his general attitude as well as for his specific letter (other documents talk about not having enough dogs to hunt down Indians, etc.)
2. was simply too long - this article is about Amherst College. The entire discussion about what exactly Amherst did and didn't should - if at all! - only be summarized here because it really belongs into the article about the person, not about an article about some college named after a town named after that person.

I guess my attempt to change the text backfired: The most recent version (which I've fully reverted because the author has not even attempted to use the discussion page to find a consensus) was:

Amherst Academy and Amherst College were both named for the town of Amherst, which in turn was named for Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst, commanding general of British forces in North America and British hero during the Seven Year's War. Lord Amherst's reputation is now somewhat blemished by his comments, in a letter to a peer (in reponse to the 1763 uprising known as Pontiac's Rebellion) about the peer's idea of the possibility of spreading smallpox-infected blankets among attaking Native Americans to end the seige of Fort Pitt. There is no historical evidence that Lord Amherst either implemented the ruminations contained in the correspondence or had prior knowledge of any such actual course of conduct. Nor is there any historical evidence that Lord Amherst either sought or took any action to "eradicate" the Native Americans besieging Fort Pitt or to "eradicate" all Native Americans or that any Native American besieging Fort Pitt was infected with small-pox. (For a confirmatory historical analysis and reference to some purported original documents, see Jeffrey Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst.) Lord Amherst's attitudes toward Native Americans and African-Americans were widely held views at the time. Thus, unlike Amherst College, many distinguished American institutions of higher education benefitted directly from slavery or were founded by or named after famous Americans who were, in fact, slaveholders. (William S. Tyler, A History of Amherst College (1895))

Beyond the criticism mentioned above ("comments", "possibility", length of text), I think the text has become

1. straying from the topic when it talks about slavery etc., which are in no way related to Amherst College
2. is talking about what isn't true (in the author's view), not what is, when talking about historical evidence and eradication
3. is factually incorrect when disregarding historical evidence (cf. this page)
4. generally trying to persuade rather than give encyclopedic facts.

Accordingly, I cannot agree with the changes leading to the abovementioned version. I'll be happy to hear your criticism of the version that I had suggested instead. (Yes, I do mean that!) I'm looking forward to finding a good solution that suits us all.

Finally, I would like to ask again to use the preview function (the button to the right of "save page") rather than saving every single change. Saving a document just once 1.) costs less space on the servers and thereby requires fewer funds to run Wikipedia; and 2.) (and in this case arguably more importantly) makes the history of the article easier to read because one look at the history shows everything that has recently changed. (If you have questions about the preview function, feel free to ask me or some other Wikipedian, e.g., at the Wikipedia help desk.) Thanks for your help! --Ibn Battuta 03:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you don't seem to come forward with any suggestions, here's my opinion - how about simply taking out the entire section? All it actually says, above and beyond talking about Jeffery Amherst (who has his own article anyways), can simply be included in the section on the Academy. The pronounciation (second "paragraph") does not have a relation to the origin of the name anyways, so that shouldn't be in the same section either (besides, it would make more sense to put that to the very beginning of the article, where pronounciation is usually mentioned).

Given that the beginning of the "History" section merits an overhaul as well (all but three words of the first sentence have nothing to do with history, and some of it is plain POV; the 2nd sentence is too long) and, in my view, the "Amherst Academy" section does not strictly start in an encyclopedic style, I'd suggest:

== History ==   Founded in 1821, Amherst College developed out of the secondary school Amherst Academy. The college was intended to be a successor to Williams College, which was then struggling to stay open.

== Amherst Academy ==   In 1812, funds were raised in Amherst for a secondary school, Amherst Academy. The institution got its name from the town, which in turn had been named after Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst, a veteran from the Seven Year's War and later commanding general of the British forces in North America. On November 18, 1817, ...

Please let me know if and where you disagree, otherwise I'll go ahead and make the respective changes. Thanks, Ibn Battuta 06:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC) PS: I'd like to suggest again using the preview button and doing without saving several dozens of versions a day. Thanks a lot![reply]

I don't really think there's any need to talk about J. Amherst's tainted reputation at all. A brief mention at most, but not a whole discussion like that. College named for town, town named for guy. There's really not more to say that than. - Che Nuevara 17:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of removing the discussion of Lord Jeffrey's reputation as well, not because it's necessarily irrelevant, but because it's discussed in his Wikipedia article, and this article is about the College. The proposed edits look solid to me. --Pjmorse 13:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While, like I said, I support removing the text, I have to disagree with you, Pj: I don't think the small pox blankets are any more relevant to AC than the Massacre of Glencoe is to The College of William and Mary. (If, however, the Amherst Fight Song -- which contains the line "To the Frenchmen and the Indians he didn't do a thing" -- were discussed in this article, it might be a relevant mention.)

For the sake of disclosure, by the way, I attended 'herst, and I think Jeff did support the idea. - Che Nuevara 17:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I agree with you both - it depends on the meaning of J. Amherst for the institution, their reactions etc. As you say, Che, it might be quite an interesting topic... though I'm afraid, with all the dedicated college kids patrolling Wikipedia, it would be near impossible to write something critical, but fair about topics like a US Alma Mater... Oh well. I've made the changes in the article, and we'll see whether Bridgeport answers. --Ibn Battuta 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, point of interest: In my experience, most Amherst students and recent alums believe the story. (There's a folklore professor at UMass who disputes it, though ...) - Che Nuevara 16:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, one cannot conclude logically, based upon a reading of the four corners of the "Constitution of the Charity Fund" (the "corner stone" and "the sheet anchor" of the new college--Amherst) (William S. Tyler, A History of Amherst College(1895), chapter one), that: "The college was intended to be a successor to Williams College...." (Wikipedia article) "No document sheds so much light on the motives of the founders of the institution as this Constitution of the charity fund. It therefore merits careful consideration." (William S. Tyler)

The most telling Article in this regard is the first. "The first article fixes the location of the Institution at Amherst, and provides for the incorporation of Williams College with it, 'should' it continue to be thought expedient to remove the institution to the county of Hampshire and to locate it in the town of Amherst [emphasis added]." (William S. Tyler) The removal of Williams College was not made a condition precedent to the founding of Amherst College. Nothing in the other Articles is inconsistent with the first Article. The Constitution is the primary and authoritative source regarding the founders' intent at the time, not a third-party interpretation of their intent or a subsequent reinterpretation of their intent. Moreover, more than a year before the creation of the Williams College petition (11/1819) and almost two years before the petition was laid before the legislature (2/1820), the board of trustees of Amherst Academy -- also the trustees of Amherst College (William S. Tyler) -- began building Amherst College on 8/18/1818 (William S. Tyler). In sum, Amherst College was not intended to be a successor to Williams nor was it founded as a successor to Williams. Neither the Constitution, William S. Tyler, Amherst College, Williams College, nor any analytical reference (other than Wikipedia or which relies on Wikipedia) that I can find adheres to Wikipedia's position. Omitted from the text in the Wikipedia quotation (from Tyler) is the following (after the Williams' petition for removal to Northampton had been rejected by the legislature): "The trustees of Amherst Academy, who had been quietly awaiting the issue of the application, judged that the way was now open to proceed with their original design according to the advice of the convention...." (William S. Tyler) This advice was based on the Constitution and had nothing to do with Williams or the removal of Williams to the town of Amherst. (See Tyler) (In an effort to bolster Wikipedia's position, bracketed matter has been inserted in the text -- in the quotation from Tyler -- that the proposed removal to Northampton [was near to Amherst]; in fact, the convention had determined that the new institution would be in Amherst and not in Northampton. (William S. Tyler)) The actions and intentions of the Williams' president (president Moore) or of the Williams' trustees must not be confused with the intent of the founders (the trustees) of Amherst College as expressed in the Constitution.

(Even if Wikipedia's misrepresentation -- Amherst was intended to be a successor to Williams -- has been a mainstay of Wikipedia since the inception of Wikipedia, the position is wrong, does not reflect well on Wikipedia, and I am advised is libelious per se as to Amherst College. The position must be reexamined and removed.) This misleading position in the Wikipedia article now stands in bold relief in that many other facts have been deleted.

Second, the omission of Noah Webster, an integral part of Amherst's founding and history, makes other subsequent references to him in the quoted text (by his last name only) puzzling and incomplete. The same argument--to a lessor extent--as to Emily Dickinson.

Third (since the "History" and "Origin of Name" sections have been collapsed), there appears to have been a straw man set up with respect to the editing concerning Lord A. The edit and re-edit, the removal and reinsertion included five or more edits containing a single short sentence reference or two short sentence references to this Brit with no mention of his efforts to "eradicate Native Americans"--who by the way were not a monolithic entity or a monolithic people or a monolithic adversary to Lord A. (who had Native American allies in the The French and Indian Wars). These edits were ignored in the posting on this page, yet the final result as to Lord A is at best what was already in the text before (and after) the long incomplete edit posted on this page. In any event, as with the statement that "Amherst College was intended to be a successor to Williams College....", I think there never should have been anything more than a bare mention of Lord A.; there never should have been an overreaching assertion that Lord A. sought to eradicate "Native Americans" without further specificity (if indeed the assertion was that he sought to eradicate all or any Native Americans). Although this question is now moot, I hope that in the future broad claims in general would be carefully examined both as to their necessity and validity.

Fourth, my last point concerns Amherst's endowment. The amount of the endowment was changed from 1.33B to 1.66B (to reflect the 6/07 sum). The entry in Wikipedia indicates that these amounts are approximations. In fact, they were virtually exact amounts. My attempt to round up the amount to 1.7B as reported in numerous news articles (and as done for other colleges in Wikipedia--including Williams) was immediately reverted to 1.66. The goose-gander rule or consistency appears to have no application here.

Having carefully researched and revised (and added to) 80-90% of the Amherst article and the list of Amherst people, I will leave these and any futher matters to the editors of Wikipedia. However, I shall not permit the misrepresentation discussed above (in the first, second, and third paragraphs) to stand (even if this means taking action outside Wikipedia). Wikipedia is too precious a (burgeoning) resource to allow such a significantly defamatory and damaging remark to remain in the text. Thank you. (Neimanx 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So, the Notable Alumni section includes the following sentence:

Even though Amherst College is a small institution having 1,648 undergraduates (and fewer students, approximately 900, when Amherst admitted men only), the college has a small but distinguished group of alumni.

Is it really an "even though" the college is small, it has a small group of alumni? I mean, isn't it predictable that a small number of students would yield a small number of graduates? I think the point (which is probably POV) is something more like: even though the college is small, its alumni are disproportionately notable. Lordjeff06 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at improving it (I don't think the enrollment numbers should go here in any event). The List of Amherst College people is fairly large at this point, though some on it are probably more distinguished than others. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it isn't too hard to get rid of this trivia section. Edward Jones, William H. Hastie and even Raymond Smith Dugan (516 Amherstia) can be moved to the notable alumni page. The Ultimate Frisbee comment (do we have a source for this, by the way?) can be moved to athletics. That leaves just the alumni society (which if we want to keep it can be moved to notable alumni section) and the Latin honors comment, which I'm sure we could find a more appropriate place for.

Any objections? Npdoty (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In making these changes, I removed the asteroid comment (after making it slightly more prominent in the List of Amherst College people article, but User:Ckatz still think it's relevant. I think as a piece of trivia, it isn't important to the Amherst College article. Any comments? Npdoty (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does relate directly to the main article as the asteroid is named after the institution. While the note in the "list of people" article is relevant, people reading the main article are less likely to go there. (BTW, I've removed the "trivia" template as it is not needed for small lists.) I'll see if I can find a good place for the note. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the cleanup, by the way. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "elite" since I'm not sure it's encyclopedic, and there's already a lot of contention (here and on Williams College) about the term "highly selective". It doesn't seem to add much to the sentence that isn't covered by "highly selective" and what isn't covered by "highly selective" seems to me to be POV. If you think we should add "elite" or should get rid of "highly selective", please put your arguments here. Npdoty (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that including "elite" is a matter of fact rather than opinion. Still, if the standard here is verifiability, not truth, a quick google search yields references to Amherst as elite from NPR, the New York Times, Newsweek, Businessweek, and Bloomberg. Still, if that's not sufficent, I think that highly selective should certainly remain. Amherst is classified by US News as in the "Most Selective" category and an article in Bloomberg on selectivity (and the increase in wait lists) puts Amherst (along with Yale, MIT, and Princeton) at the top of the list. JEB90 (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed highly selective from the lead as a WP:PEACOCK and WP:BOOSTER term. I don't know why the liberal arts colleges (Williams and Oberlin, too) are so hung up on this stupid metric when the rest of the articles for the American Association of Universities, Ivy League, and so on have moved on. Keeping people out doesn't make you "good." Madcoverboy (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're right that the term "highly selective" doesn't make you "good" and is simply a verifiable statement of fact used by numerous college guides, then I'm not sure if qualifies under WP:Peacock or WP:BOOSTER. All the "wide consensus" at WP:BOOSTER regarding highly selective is simply your addition to the page there. JEB90 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So being highly selective is the MOST important thing to know about the university? I mean before knowing it is a liberal arts college, where it is, how big it is, or what people do there, we have to know it's hard to get into? Basically what you're trying to say falls into two versions: either "Amhert College has a 15% acceptance rate and is a liberal arts college in Amherst, Massachusetts" or "Amherst College is liberal arts college that lots of people try to get into and is located in Amherst, Massachusetts." Which is it? I'm not gonna make a point, but the reference quotes the acceptance rate which is what should just simply be stated, so go ahead and state it like that — hopefully one recognizes the tackiness then. WP:BOOSTER reflects the consensus and fact that every Ivy League institution, Stanford, MIT, UChicago, and institutions of similarly well-recognized preeminence don't assert their "selectivity" in the first sentence, or even first paragraph or the lead as a whole even if they have similar (or greater) selectivity. The difficulty of gaining admission to a university is a tiny part of describing the institution as a whole and WP:BOOSTER exists to ensure that undue weight is not attributed to this or similarly narrow, but over-represented, metrics. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead at reply to you at Wikipedia talk:Avoid academic boosterism. JEB90 (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's keep the conversation there for the benefit of future consensus and precedent. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage anyone interested in this conversation to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_academic_boosterism where a group of editors is trying to come up with a consensus that could apply to all the articles in this category. In the meantime I've tried to create a compromise discussion of selectivity and ranking in the lead, but not in the first sentence. Npdoty (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to mention that a former president graduated from Amherst. Maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.230.226 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coolidge is noted in the List of Amherst College people article. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ElKevbo has undone my change of undoing the bot that undid an anonymous user's significant contribution which happened to add a link to the YouTube archive of AAS (student association) meetings. I have read WP:EL and believe that this link qualifies as "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" and provides value to the article.

In any case, it's very frustrating that this entire edit has twice been reverted because of an objection to one small portion of it. I guess I can do the editing to remove the link from the rest of the valuable content so that people/robots will stop reverting the whole thing, but given that I think the link is valuable, I think the burden should be on those reverting. Npdoty (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the prose but the link doesn't seem to me to be in line with WP:EL. I'm sure that it's a fantastic link but I don't think it really adds to this article. We have to be careful to ensure that these articles remain encyclopedia articles and not directories of links so I usually err on the side of excluding links. If there is a consensus to include the link them I'm certainly open to going with the consensus assuming the link is moved to the "External links" section where external links belong. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article on Emily Dickinson says: "Emily Dickinson's paternal grandfather, Samuel Dickinson, had almost single-handedly founded Amherst College.[7]"

However, his name is not mentioned in the article about Amherst College.

BlueSkies999 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work at Curriculum, including making sections for the different types of curricula at US colleges. Any work that people can do to expand the section on open curricula there would be much appreciated.

- Mgcsinc (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link from Amherst College to Curriculum#Open curriculum and added Amherst College as an example to the open curriculum section of Curriculum. It's a start. Npdoty (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute whether the admittance rate needs to be mentioned in the lead, particularly in comparison to other institutions. It's not a very meaningful statistic and it's notoriously open to manipulation by institutions seeking to inflate their USN&WR ranking. Even if it were not, I would still question whether it belongs in the lead. It seems POV and boosterish to place such a questionable fact in the lead and I believe that it should be removed. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Acceptance rates are not "open to manipulation by institutions seeking to inflate their USN&WR ranking." Acceptance rates are due to two factors: the number of students who apply, and the number of students who are accepted (essentially, the size of the college and how likely it is that accepted students will choose to attend). It is very difficult for colleges to manipulate them. If there were actual evidence that Amherst College manipulated the acceptance rates, I would be inclined to agree with ElKevbo, but he did not cite any. It is true that colleges can manipulate the acceptance rate by shrinking the size of incoming classes, but Amherst has been steadily increasing the size of the classes it admits. Colleges can also manipulate the acceptance rates by accepting too few students to make up a full class and filling the rest of the class with students off the waitlist, but Amherst College appears not to accept students off its waitlist (see the admissions section on the official website).

Furthermore, acceptance rates are the best measure of how difficult a school is to get into--something a potential user of this page might well want to know. The US News rankings attempt to measure the quality of the school overall, not necessarily how hard it is to get in.Rppeabody (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the easiest way to manipulate acceptance rates is to encourage more people to apply to your institution. You're probably going to turn them away because they do meet your admissions standards but you've successfully lowered your acceptance rate and potentially increased your USN&WR ranking. So it's pretty easy to manipulate and it's well known among IR folks that this has happened at many institutions. I understand if you don't believe me because these manipulations are not widely discussed or documented but here is one of the most recent and public discussions of how institutions manipulate the rankings (I don't think that article discusses admittance rates as I don't recall that being one of the things that Duke allegedly manipulated but the point still stands).

If you really believe that applicants are a good measure of quality - which is very, very dubious to me - then it seems that yield would be a much better measure as it's very hard to manipulate and represents a much more significant commitment on the part of both the institution and the applicants. "Summer melt" is a real but relatively minor phenomenon. The New York Times just published an article about yield; it might be interesting reading for you.

Finally, the idea that "US News rankings measure the quality of the school overall" is laughable and naive. You can't measure quality by relying on input measures and nebulous, manipulable things like "reputation." You have to measure process and output. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I must have been a little unclear. I fully agree that the USN&WR rankings are heavily biased, and I am well aware than numerous schools (such as Amherst, in fact) have publicly complained about how corrupt and unfair the rankings are. However, acceptance rates per se (as opposed to the USN&WR rankings) are not open to cynical manipulation, which is why the article you cited did not discuss manipulating them. Yes, it is true that all colleges try to encourage students to apply to the institution, but this is primarily with the goal of getting better admitted students. The more students you have to choose from, the better the final class will be. It is true that lowering the acceptance rate is one additional incentive to encourage colleges to get more students to apply, but I don't think it is fair to call encouraging students to apply to your school "manipulative." What is manipulative is all the games schools play to get higher USN&WR rankings, as described in the article you forwarded.

I read the New York Times article you referenced. (I actually discussed this issue in my original post when I wrote that "colleges can also manipulate the acceptance rates by accepting too few students to make up a full class and filling the rest of the class with students off the waitlist.") However, as I mentioned, the article says that Amherst doesn't really play this waitlist game--it only accepted two students off the waitlist this year (compared with 32 for Williams). And I don't think this means that yields are better than acceptance rates because yields actually go up, not down, when colleges do the waitlist manipulation, since yields are much higher for students accepted off waitlists.

Personally, I feel that the USN&WR rankings are not particularly objective or valuable. When I said that they "measure of the quality of the school overall" I was discussing what they are trying to measure (I did not comment on how poor a metric they are because I wanted to limit my editorializing). The point I was trying to make was that, regardless of your opinion on whether and how schools should be ranked, we can all agree that acceptance rates are an accurate metric of how difficult a school is to get into, and that is a very valuable piece of information--certainly something I would want to know if I were considering which schools to apply to.Rppeabody (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we don't need the exact admittance percentage in the lede, and I also think the comparison with randomly picked institutions sounds boosterish. Looks good as is (as of ElKevbo's latest revert). Npdoty (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Senor ElKevbo summarizes my seniments exactly. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Why are the statements questionable? proofallgames 29 April 2010

I'm not questioning the factuality of the statement that Amherst had a lower acceptance rate this year than Johns Hopkins (although your claim states that it's been consistently lower, which the citation does not verify), but that the comparison isn't particularly relevant to the article, and certainly isn't so important to understanding Amherst College that it belongs in the lede. Furthermore, why compare to just these three institutions? And why not compare to Harvard, which had a lower acceptance rate this year? That's why WP:BOOSTER and WP:NPOV are being cited. I believe ElKevbo's point, echoed by Madcoverboy, is that the exact admission percentage can fluctuate over time and so probably doesn't demonstrate something particularly important. Npdoty (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I think it was just confusing us, I've made the change from "as" to "among": we can continue to debate the admission percentage comparison a little longer, but "as the top liberal arts colleges" is simply ungrammatical and "as the top liberal arts college" would be simply incorrect. Npdoty (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Let's take a deeper perspective:

Isn't Amherst College ranked as the top liberal arts college about ten times since the inception of USNWR college ranking? "Consistency" and "repeatedly" doesn't translate to Always.

I guess I think ten times out of 26 (and we should really try to track down a reference that shows this historical number; there used to be a citation to a table of USNWR ratings, but I don't see it any more) isn't consistent. I think people who read the sentence as is ("consistently") will believe that Amherst is almost always, or at least more often than not, listed first in those rankings, which isn't the case. Anyone else care to chime in on their interpretations of this sentence? Npdoty (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think "repeatedly ranked as the best liberal arts college" is neutral or describes the situation as well as "consistently ranked among the best liberal arts colleges": Amherst has been repeatedly ranked second and third as well as first, why not cite those instead? Also, I think "repeatedly ranked" first would imply to many readers that it is ranked first now or was recently (which, as I understand it, it hasn't). Also, we still need a citation for these past rankings so that others can verify.

It's clear that User:Proofallgames and I disagree on this. Would any other editors care to share their opinions? (I see that at least one IP editor switched the article back to "consistently ... among".) Thanks, Npdoty (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And according to your logic, Npdoty, the entire second paragraph of the Amherst College article must therefore be removed since "consistently ranked among the top liberal arts colleges" and "a most selective institution" aren't quite pertinent to the wiki entry as well. If so, why haven't people, including you, dispute those sentences?

The sentence on admissions rates is give an idea why Amherst is a "most selective institution." Thus, the words according to its admissions rates are used.

Moreover, references to the few schools are given to qualify the sentence.

Agree Nonetheless, perhaps the sentence in question does feel out of place.

There actually has been a significant dispute about whether the college's selectivity is important enough to be placed in the lede. I think rankings or selectivity can show the category that the college is in, which is useful for the lede, but that the exact details about admission percentages belong elsewhere, which it sounds like you agree with.

I still think the comparisons to selected schools (and only schools that happen to have a higher admission rate) is POV and not particularly helpful to the article. Npdoty (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the fundamental problem with admission rates as a metric of quality or prestige: it's both easy to manipulate and known to have been actively manipulated by institutions looking to lower their USN&WR ranking. It's relatively easy to increase the number of applicants to any institution simply by changing application, recruitment, or marketing practices. So it's an incredibly naive and simplistic measure that isn't taken seriously by those knowledgeable of higher education. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that the actual admissions rate is fairly irrelevant (as well as the arbitrary comparison to other schools). If nothing else, the measure of "selectivity" ought to be based on the quality of those accepted, not the number. On the other issue of "frequently" and "consistently" and so on: it seems highly misleading to put that it is "frequently" as the "top" since, as npdoty noted, it really implies a more often that not situation, which isn't true. It's true (if obviously POV) to say that Amherst is universally understood to be one of the top two or three liberal arts colleges in the country. But it's a stretch to say that it's consistently, or even frequently, "the top" school. My inclination is that "consistently among" is the fairest and most accurate choice. JEB90 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see that I'm not the first to point out that it's a bit of a huge stretch to say that Amherst is consistently/frequently "the top" schhool. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]