Talk:Academic dress in the United States

List

The section entitled "Academic regalia of United States universities" is going to end up being a long list. Just looking at doctoral robes, there are at least 150 schools that use different designs (either color or shape). If we add master's degrees and anything else distinguishing, we'll have a list that is far too long. Is it OK if I remove it until we can decide the most prudent way of adding the information back in?--dave-- 01:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do. The other option is to make it its own article/list.Shoreranger (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove it as it stands. The requirement for referencing any entries should keep it from becoming unwieldy, and if it gets too long for this article at some point in the future, it can be split to a new list article at that point. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, Antony. I have one other problem with the list. There is a hidden comment that says "NOTE: please only use references from the universities themselves, or pages that are directly linked by the universities. Do not link third-party suppliers that are not associated with the university. Thanks!" This seems to me to be a far greater burden of proof than is necessary. There is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines that disallows reliable third party sources. If there is a source from The Burgon Society, I see no reason why it should not be usable. --dave-- 13:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revise the comment. I just wanted to discourage people from adding entries without any references based on their recollections, and encourage them to link to official rather than commercial sites. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The comment was revised by me and then removed by someone else, which I think is probably best in the long run. Noting that most schools do not use open gowns seems a bit like OR when the ICC specifically states that they can be worn open or closed. Oh well...--dave-- 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So I was about to add some schools to the list of AD in this article. Currently, the list includes the following categories: School, Hood, Doctoral gown, Doctoral cap, Lapel emblem, and Notes. If we are really going to create a complete list, we're going to need to add more categories the point of making the chart unwieldy. I can think of at least 7 new categories needed (id est doctoral hood shape, gowns for masters and bachelors, caps for masters and bachelors, lapel emblems for masters and bachelors), but we may well find more. Perhaps splitting the list off would be best--assuming that all this minutia is appropriate for Wikipedia.--dave-- 20:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave: WP:BB. Shoreranger (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should only have columns for things that are fairly obvious differences, and have a large diversity between different colleges. Things that tend to be fairly uniform with a few exceptions should be noted in the notes column. For example, caps and gowns for masters and bachelor degrees are almost universally black and square mortarboards respectively; if there's a college that deviates from this it's better to just note it in the notes column rather than clutter the list with extra columns that just say "black" and "mortarboard" for almost every entry. I'd also assume that the label emblem is uniform across degrees for each school (note that this column is titled "Lapel emblem" and not "Doctoral label emblem"), and again the notes column can be used if this is not the case. I'm not sure how uniform hood shape is, but I feel that that might be too trivial to merit a column anyway since it's less noticeable.

Similarly, it's my impression that in practice United States gowns are almost uniformly closed, regardless of what the ICC says, and thus this is something that should go in the notes column as well. I had assumed that this was common knowledge but I guess I was wrong on that front; I'm sure I could find a ref saying that most US gowns are closed. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

William and Mary

The section on dress at individual schools lists the College of William and Mary as having a gown that "is an open Oxford-style robe, rather than the standard American closed style." This is a standard ICC gown, just of a different color. The ICC states very clearly that Master and Doctor gowns can be worn opened or closed. I'm going to revert the revert of Antony, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Thanks.--dave-- 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I think it's still worth mentioning that it's an open gown since this is fairly uncommon in the United States, so I've tweaked the wording from "standard" to "usual". Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Academic Dress

Any thoughts here about standardizing this page to Academic dress in the United States? I know that outside of scholarly academic dress circles, most people in the US know it as academic regalia. There is currently an Academic dress of Harvard University article and I think either that should be moved to regalia, or this article should be switched to follow the existing pattern of "Academic dress of ____." That would creat consistency across Wikipedia.--dave-- 19:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dave. Even though "regalia" is in common use in the U.S., it refers to something of or related to a king (or queen). Since cap & gown is a democratic garment -- even a republican one -- and since we fought a war to separate ourselves from royalty and its trappings, wearing "regalia" seems a bit of a stretch. I think the real reason people use it, though, is for the word's connection to fanciness, and because these old commoners' clothes stand out to modern eyes. But the bigger point is the one Dave makes. In other parts of the English-speaking world the term is "dress," not regalia, as is evidenced by the other articles in WP. I vote to change the title of this one to Academic Dress in the United States. Stevew316 (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that it's our job to reflect common usage rather than impose our own reasoning on what the proper term should be. As long as "regalia" is the dominant term in common usage, that's the title I believe should be used in the article title. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Harvard image

The recent change to the image of three Harvard gowns is nice, but I worry that we don't, then, get the point across that the hood is the most distinctive part of the Harvard AD. The crowsfoot emblem is unique, but many schools have emblems on their robes and gowns. As far as I know, Harvard is the only school in the USA that uses the [s4] Edinburgh shape of the Groves system. Perhaps it would be better to include that image. Any thoughts?--dave-- 15:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back if you want to. I think the really distinctive thing about Harvard regalia is that the lapel emblem color changes according to the degree—I think they're the only school that does that. Also, it's fairly similar in composition to the masters' hood image you added, and they're both fairly narrow and long which isn't good from a layout perspective. But if you think the other image is better, go for it, I don't have particulatly strong feelings either way. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that the distinctive emblem and distinctive hood are two side of the same coin. Because Harvard uses the [s4] hood, they have no velvet trim on which to indicate the faculty. I'm not sure which came first, but I imagine it was the hood. Your point about the aesthetics of the article layout is well taken. I'll hold off for now.--dave-- 12:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hood shapes

Sorry about the confusion of my added information. I've just realized that the part I changed was referring specifically to the ACE publication which does not, in fact, specify the shape of American hoods as the ICC does/did.--dave-- 17:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

New Image

I've found another nice image on Flickr. It shows an academic procession at Yale. I'm not sure how it would fit into the article, but we may be able to find a spot for it at some point. --dave-- 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Caption Grammar

There have been several recent edits to the caption beneath the image at the top of the page. I'd like for anyone interested to give some input here so we can all reach a consensus. The caption, at the moment, reads:

"Two American doctors of philosophy (Ph.D.). The 5-inch-wide (130 mm) band of velvet signifies a doctorate, the dark blue color indicates the field of philosophy. The universities from which they received their respective degrees may be determined from the colors and pattern of the hood lining. The black velvet facings and sleeve bars are prescribed for university trustees, and is a color option for all doctors, by the Intercollegiate Code."

I propose the following changes:

"Two American doctors of philosophy (Ph.D.). The 5-inch-wide (130 mm) band of velvet signifies a doctorate, and the dark blue color indicates the field of philosophy. The universities from which they received their degrees may be determined from the colors and pattern of the hood lining. The black velvet facings and sleeve bars are prescribed for university trustees. Under the Intercollegiate Code, the black velvet is also a color option for all doctors."

1. The first and is necessary to remove the comma splice that exists in the current caption.
2. The word respective is not appropriate in this context because it is not drawing a parallel between two (or more) sets of two (or more) items each. If we specified two different types of degrees, one for each doctor, the use of respective would be all right. However, lacking this specificity, a quicker fix is simply to remove the problem word, especially because the word is not necessary for clarity.
3. The last sentence is, well, really confusing. I've suggested one remedy, but many others exist. Feel free to suggest them below!

Armadillopteryx (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• This grammatical fix is certainly needed on this caption if we're going to include all this information. It may, however, be best to choose a different AD image as the first one on the page. The casual reader is not going to need all of this information as a caption of the first thing they see. That being said, I'm unhappy with the wording for 3. For one thing, neither doctor has his facings visible in the picture. Can't we just say that velvet sleeve bars are used by university trustees and doctors, without reference to color. I know there are some universities who have designed unique AD for their trustees (Syracuse comes to mind, I think). The rest looks goot to me!--dave-- 01:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If we do go with the one that's here already, I certainly don't have a problem with shortening the last sentence. I do think it's an unnecessary level of detail for the very first caption on the page. I included all of the information here only because it had been added back after the edit that made it more concise. If anyone feels strongly about its inclusion, I want to make sure that it's presented in proper English. That said, I'm certainly open to changing the image altogether. Do you have one in mind? Armadillopteryx (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • We could go chronologically and start with the image of James McCulloch in undergraduate gown. It is, apparently "the only known 18th-century portrait of an American collegian wearing the robes of an undergraduate" so it might be a good place to start the reader.--dave-- 02:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I think that's a nice idea. Then, we could follow with the image below. Where would you like to place the current first image? As far as I'm concerned, that and the other two "modern" images are chronologically interchangeable.Armadillopteryx (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

        

      • the current last senence is a mess, I'd agree. The caption is also long and probably too detailed. I also agree the fact that their hood linings are not plainly visible is a drawback. Id support removal of the image. That said, if the image stays there would need to be some clarity concerning the velvet on the gown, as there is no color choice for trustees, nod only the discipline color or black for doctors. Shoreranger (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        • It seems like we all agree that this image may be more trouble than it's worth. So, shall we remove it and then order the images chronologically? Unless either of you feels it's especially important to include this image later, I'd vote to just do away with it. Is that a good solution for all of us? Armadillopteryx^talk 02:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Go for it. Shoreranger (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Agreed!--dave-- 15:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Okay, I've moved the images. I also (very lightly) edited two of the captions, mostly for punctuation. Are those (the second and last images) all right with you? Armadillopteryx^talk 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

ICC

In the last exchange, Shoreranger said the following: "if the image stays there would need to be some clarity concerning the velvet on the gown, as there is no color choice for trustees, nod only the discipline color or black for doctors." This highlights a point that I've been troubled with in regards to American AD articles here on Wikipedia. We seem to be treating the Intercollegiate Code as some be-all-end-all for American academic dress. The idea that there is no color choice for trustees in the US simply because this document (which is voluntarily followed by many universities and binding on none) is a symptom of this. There are, last time I counted, upwards of 150 schools that use non-ICC robes for their doctorates (this is actually the subject of my FBS paper! I am not sure how many American institutions grant doctoral degrees, but I'd guess this is a majority of them. There are also an increasing number of schools that use different colored gowns for bachelor's and master's degrees. It seems to me that the ICC is increasingly irrelevant. In any event, this article treats it like it's sacrosanct! Any other thoughts on the matter?--dave-- 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we might introuce the ICC as a longstanding set of guidelines but point out that an increasing number of institutions has begun to stray from it. This is hardly the first time a long-popular "authority" seems to be losing "power." We might as well acknowledge that, for now, the ICC is favored by the majority but isn't, well, sacrosanct. Armadillopteryx^talk 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot more schools than 150 offering the doctorate in the US: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf99325/pdf/list.pdf Without any peer-reviewed research to determine "an increasing number of institutions have begun to stray" from the ICC guidelines, and whethere that means anything is losing its "authority", we have to stick with the facts. Shoreranger (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Preparing New Material

Those of you who follow American academic dress are probably already halfway through the new volume of Transactions of the Burgon Society, which is exclusively about the history of cap & gown in North America. I'll be adding some information from the various articles to this page in the next few days and wanted to give you a heads-up in case someone else is working on fixes. The main points are: adding details on pre-Code gowns and hoods; pointing out that the Code is voluntary and so nothing is required or forbidden; adding details to changes made by the ACE in the 1960s and 70s that are rarely reported and fleshing out the other years already mentioned with specific examples; I'll be asking for citations to the sentences about social upheaval in the 1960s (lots of assertions but nothing to back them up); correcting descriptions of sleeves on bachelors' and doctoral gowns; weaving into the hood descriptions the terminology that's commonly used by those of us fascinated by them. And does anyone know what this is supposed to mean? "... while others [doc's gowns] take on an almost cape-like form." Stevew316 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great. Go for it! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added the new material and made several fixes. If anyone can help track down the problem in the Sullivan citations I'd appreciate it. What I've done is updated the reference to the more recent book (instead of using the older edition that's quoted on the ACE website). And if anyone cares to shorten the citations to the articles I use please go ahead! If you have questions about the changes please let me know -- even better, get a copy of the journal and peruse it. What I've added is just a bare minimum of information from several long articles. Stevew316 (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120527034100/http://www.cvent.com:80/events/norwich-university-2012-residency-conference/custom-116-159d3dd91f05470da3bcc8637e976ad3.aspx to http://www.cvent.com/events/norwich-university-2012-residency-conference/custom-116-159d3dd91f05470da3bcc8637e976ad3.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521175636/http://tigernet.princeton.edu/~ptoniana/regalia.pdf to http://tigernet.princeton.edu/~ptoniana/regalia.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529201410/http://www.sewanee.edu/og/about to http://www.sewanee.edu/og/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)