Talk:Little Ivies/Archive 2

Additional Metrics: Endowment and Endowment per Student

Looking for an additional metric, it became clear that overall endowment and perhaps more importantly endowment per student are factors when it comes to Little Ivies. I added the 2014 endowment per student to the grid and I added 2014 overall endowment to the table below it with founding dates and church denominations.

It can be clearly seen that the top performers in almost all commercial lists and other rankings are the wealthiest colleges. Swarthmore, Amherst, and Williams have the highest endowments and the highest endowment per student. Bowdoin is not far behind. The middle honors for endowment per student go to Colby, Hamilton, Haverford, Middlebury, and Vassar. On the lower end are Bucknell, Colgate, Trinity, and Wesleyan. In the lowest end, with less than $200,000 of endowment per student, are the relatively impoverished colleges of Union, Bates, Conn., and (surprisingly) Tufts. With 10,000 students, Tufts endowment is spread thin.

What is interesting about this metric is where it makes a difference. Clearly, the wealthiest colleges with over $1 million per student in endowment are the top performers. Bowdoin also trumps its relatively poorer cousins. However, once the range is in the $400,000 per student of endowment or less, the wealth factor has a less pronounced effect. The colleges in the middle of the endowment scale are not necessarily more selective than the poorer colleges. Among the colleges where the endowment is decidedly modest or the number of students drives down the endowment per student (Tufts, Wesleyan), the wealth correlation to selectivity in admissions breaks down. Tufts rejects 84.2% of its applicants, but has a thinly spread endowment. Wesleyan rejects 78.1% of its applicants making it more selective than many of the wealthier colleges in terms of endowment per student. Bates College, poorer than any college except Conn. in terms of endowment per student, still remains very selective in rejecting 78.6% of its applicants. IACOBVS (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bates only enrolls about 1,700 total, so it only needs about 425 freshmen or so. That is fewer students than any other NESCAC school as well as almost every other school listed. That makes it easier to reject students as the school needs to enroll fewer. 74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. However, it is interesting that Bates attracts enough applicants to get that percentage, in spite of its relative lack of wealth. If I am correct, the reason that Trinity, Union, and Conn. are less selective in admissions is because they are not (yet) attracting enough applicants. This may change. Academically, I am rather certain that students get the same quality education at all the NESCAC colleges, although they don't have the same prestige level or indeed social class cachet. IACOBVS (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss here before deleting whole sections or tables

Please discuss here before unilaterally deleting entire sections or tables. I have restored the endowment per student to the grid. One editor deemed it completely unnecessary as the total endowment was added to the lower table. I think it is useful as collegiate wealth most certainly is a metric. More so, endowment per student is more telling than total endowment, as can be seen in the case of Tufts University. Williams has the largest endowment, but Swarthmore has the most endowment per student.

While this metric may put Bates in a bad light, Bates has been very open about the issues surrounding its low endowment. Remarkably it is still able to count as peer institutions these far wealthier LACs (e.g., Pomona, Bowdoin, Amherst, etc.). IACOBVS (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with IACOBVS about leaving both endowment tables. The per student average allows some of the smaller schools to demonstrate their true ability to meet student and faculty support needs in relation to enrollment size. I suppose one could get into an argument about the economy of scale, but that would seem to be misplaced in a discussion of LACs. Maybe move the per student endowment down to the table with the total endowment so that both figures may be easily compared? Also, maybe add US News and Forbes ranking to better mirror the NESCAC article? P.S. Bates is far closer to being a peer with Colby than it is with Bowdoin and far closer to Hamilton than it is to Amherst.74.70.116.187 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I will move the metric to the table below. I will replace with US News National LAC ranking. I could add Forbes too. As for Bates' peers, I was citing from article and it is based on academics. Bates, Colby and Hamilton are certainly peers. They are certainly outranked by Pomona, Amherst and Bowdoin, but they all still 'in the club' so to speak. IACOBVS (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the Washington Monthly rankings as I wanted an alternate ranking to go along with the more traditional rankings ofUS News and Forbes. There is quite a bit a variability between US News, Forbes, and Washington Monthly. US News rankings are based upon data which it collects from each educational institution either from an annual survey or from the school's website. The problem with this is that many LACs refuse to participate in US News rankings, such as those in the Annapolis Group. Forbes ranks by measuring student satisfaction (which is highly subjective data to collect) at 75% and post-graduate success (as in income) at 32.5% with other metrics making up the rest. Washington Monthly takes a distinctly alternative approach: "[Washington Monthly] rate[s] schools based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country)." See also Washington Monthly's Ranking Methodology. This gives two standard rankings that are weighted toward collegiate and alumni wealth and one alternate ranking that is weighted toward societal contribution. IACOBVS (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Washington Monthly rankings. Calling them an “alternate” ranking would appear to be rather generous. Their rankings are so out of alignment with everyone else as to really be almost laughable. As an example, it seems beyond belief to place Berea and Knox above Williams and Amherst. The entire section on community service, while surely altruistic, is utterly irrelevant to any useful evaluation of any educational institution and most certainly to the purpose at hand. The huge differences in outlier data points seems to blow the whole table to pieces.

For example, Bates gets a huge number of points in the community service coursework and hours categories while posting rather pedestrian scores everywhere else. These outlier scores wildly influence its final ranking. Also, in what way does community service have any bearing on determining Little Ivy qualification?

Yes, Bates did well. Bryn Mawr got No 1. Is it No 1 of the LACs? No. But it is an interesting leveler among the ranking systems. I agree with Berea and Knox, although they may be excellent academically even if they are otherwise obscure. They are certainly poor (relatively speaking). However, Washington Monthly college rankings, per Wikipedia [1] "were a deliberate alternative college guide to U.S. News and World Report and Forbes College Rankings. The rankings are based upon the following criteria:

• "how well it performs as an engine of social mobility (ideally helping the poor to get rich rather than the very rich to get very, very rich)"
• "how well it does in fostering scientific and humanistic research"
• "how well it promotes an ethic of service to country".[13]

The rankings focus on research outputs, the quality level and total dollar amount of scientific grants awarded, the number of graduates going on to earn Ph.D.s, and the number of graduates that later participate in public service."

So while I concede that the formula can prop up lesser known small liberal arts colleges, it does seem to count many academic qualifications beyond community-service style altruism. Also, the only three USA college rankings that Wikipedia has auto-text for are US News, Forbes and Washington Monthly. I still think it is useful. Also, in some cases, the WM ranking was quite close to the US News and Forbes, e.g., Wesleyan and Haverford. What's more interesting is when the three are aggregated, the Little Ivies fall right into place where they are expected to be - Bates, Colby, etc in the middle, the top LACs on top. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, Washington Monthy's own comments on their methodology are a bit cringing when they say, “Some schools that dropped in our service rankings this year completed an application in 2010 and therefore received credit in last year’s rankings, but did not submit an application in 2011 and therefore did not receive credit on these measures in this year’s rankings. (Our advice to those schools: If you care about service, believe you do a good job of promoting it, and want the world to know, then fill out the application!)” That last bit demonstrates the kind of bullying and chiding that is rather illustrative of why some schools, namely Reed, have refused to cooperate with ranking promoters.

Interesting. It seems odd that WM would not simply omit the colleges that did not submit the 2011 application. Good for Reed. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Tufts is ranked 39 on their national list, so that could be added with a note or asterisk.

Will do. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Also as a fact check, the Annapolis group does not refuse to cooperate with the US News rankings. Per Wikipedia, "...it asks presidents not to participate in the "reputational survey" portion of the overall survey (this section accounts for 25% of the total rank and asks college presidents to give their subjective opinion of other colleges)." The member schools still submit their data for use.

Yet another fact check, the student satisfaction part of Forbes is 25% and not 75%. The survey is actually mostly data driven as even that 25% comes mostly from things like transfer statistics. Sorry, but those hard numbers are in no manner subjective. Feel free to follow link and take a look.

OK I checked. I am not sure of the source I got the 75%. The Forbes calculation is 25% student satisfaction, 32.5% graduate success, 25% student debt, 7.5% graduation rate, 10% academic success. This would seem to favor student and collegiate wealth above all other factors: student satisfaction is often related to the facilities the college can offer; student debt is mitigated by college resources and family wealth; graduate success is measured by income (but not at successful people are well paid). The last two statistics would reflect academics (17.5%). So, Forbes (a wealth magazine) essentially follows the money. This isn't bad in itself, but it is somewhat skewed. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

With all three rankings present, the Forbes ranking still seems valuable if for no other reason than that it is the only one that allows a direct comparison with Tufts.74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Forbes is valuable, but I think it is heavily weighted towards wealth indicators so you need some other rankings for balance. IACOBVS (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that including all three rankings is fine, just do not aggregate them. See my post under aggregation as to why. Yes, Forbes, and other polls, can be somewhat boiled down to the influence of money. Of course, the Ivy League itself can also be boiled down to money as those schools have some of the largest endowments of any schools and benefit immensely from that. The social cachet derived from such wealth goes hand-in-hand with the ability to muster academic resources. That would seem to make those ranking pertinent to an article on Little Ivy inclusion.74.70.116.187 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Aggregated List

This table can't be posted on the page as it constitutes original research because it is analysis of facts and not cited elsewhere. However, I think the results are useful for discussion. The table aggregates the three rankings from US News, Forbes, and Washington Monthly into a single number (rounded up to the next whole integer) with the exception of Tufts where only the rank from US News is used.

Aggregate Ranking

Institution	Aggregate Rank
Amherst College	7
Bates College	34
Bowdoin College	20
Bucknell University	59
Colby College	38
Colgate University	36
Connecticut College	80
Hamilton College	42
Haverford College	13
Middlebury College	37
Swarthmore College	5
Trinity College	102
Tufts University	24
Union College	84
Vassar College	23
Wesleyan University	15
Williams College	5

IACOBVS (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As I posted in the prior section, the Washington Monthly rankings have problems with outlier data points influencing their ranking. As such, the entire ranking is out of alignment with both US News and Forbes. While an interesting alternative ranking, it is by no means a statistically valid as part of any aggregate score. The outlier data points badly skew the end result so much as to overshadow the other rankings. For example, following this aggregation, Bates, a school that places special emphasis on community service and therefore racking up excessive points on the Washington Monthly ranking, gets ranked ahead of Colby, Colgate and Middlebury even though all of them beat Bates in both the US News and the Forbes polls. Connecticut, ranked behind both Union and Trinity in the US News and Forbes polls, now leaps ahead of both schools. The Washington poll is so out of alignment with the others that it alone slingshots Bates past Colby and Connecticut past both Trinity and Union. This is a prime example of how not to use data. Furthermore, Tufts appears to not even have a Washington Monthly data point included. Understanding how outlier and invalid data measurement can skew a result is a basic principle of statistics. Accordingly, this aggregate table would provide little more than obfuscation to this article.74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

But I think it is ok that Washington Monthly is so out of sync with US News and Forbes. It was created for that purpose - as an alternate measure. Neither US News or Forbes are much interested in academics or outputs that are not financial. If you read the critiques of both of their rankings, the mantra is that in both cases it boils down to endowment per student with relatively rare exceptions. Prestige, social cachet, academics, PhDs produced, public good, etc are all pushed aside in favor of cold hard cash. Now, in a capitalist society like the USA, maybe that is perfectly legitimate. I agree that Bates may not be better than Middlebury, but it is certainly a peer with Colby and Colgate. Also, while I understand the statistical principle, each ranking entity is measuring different variables thus the statistical method can't really be used here because the data is suspect in all three rankings. IACOBVS (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

From a purely mathematical point of view, the Washington Monthly ranking have range of 179. This is calculated from Swarthmore’s 4 subtracted from Trinity’s 183. The Forbes rankings have a range of 90. This is calculated from Williams’ 2 subtracted from Connecticut’s 92. The US News rankings have a range of 47. This is calculated from Williams’ 1 subtracted from Connecticut’s 48.

This difference in ranges gives the Washington Monthly over three times the influence of US News and almost twice that of Forbes on the end result. That would seem to constitute an undue influence that produces a result that is not statistically sound.

One could also argue that measures of community service are not pertinent to determining membership in a socially and academically elite (elitist?) group of schools.

I hate to say it, but prestige and social cachet are derived in large portion from money and not altruism.

It's fine to include the Washington Monthly rankings, just not in aggregation.74.70.116.187 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another ranking list to consider. This one is from Niche.com. Per the overall and liberal arts rankings.

• Amherst College, 34-7
• Bates College, 83-28
• Bowdoin College, 15-1
• Bucknell University, 47-13
• Colby College, 56-18
• Colgate University, 33-6
• Connecticut College, -103
• Hamilton College, 53-16
• Haverford College, 43-10
• Middlebury College, 42-9
• Swarthmore College, 81-27
• Trinity College (Connecticut), -75
• Tufts University, 44-Not ranked
• Union College, 74-24
• Vassar College, 48-14
• Wesleyan University, 50-15
• Williams College, 19-2

Candidate Schools

• College of the Holy Cross 79-26
• Franklin and Marshall College 68-21
• Lafayette College 87-35

The overall rank becomes more useful as it allows Tufts to be included in the same rank list rather than cross-listing from a national university category. Again, Trinity and Connecticut are far back. Holy Cross as well as Franklin & Marshall look pretty good. Lafayette places respectably.74.70.116.187 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought about Niche. I wasn't sure. I was a bit surprised that it rates Bowdoin no. 1 LAC and no. 15 in the nation. Bowdoin is a great college, but is it really better than Pomona, Williams or Amherst? Also, what happened to Swarthmore? It is ranked the same as Bates (+/- 1) and below Union. I think we know it is in the top 5 of the LACs. As for entry candidates, Franklin & Marshall and Lafayette, sure. Holy Cross is different. All the 'Little Ivies' are ex-Protestant and now fully secular. Holy Cross is neither - it is Catholic and Jesuit. I think this places it in a different category from the Little Ivies. There are already the 'Jesuit Ivies' and they are not based on being a small LAC, just on overall quality. IACOBVS (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Adding Lafayette

I just added Lafayette College. I did not add the College of the Holy Cross because as a Catholic Jesuit college, it really is in its own category of Jesuit Ivy. I also did not add Franklin & Marshall College going by my 'rule' that NESCAC is the core of the Little Ivies and then others are added based on other factors. When I looked at F&M's rankings and admissions rate and the fact that it was not listed in Greenes' Guide to Hidden Ivies in either its 30 colleges edition (2000) or its 50 colleges edition (2009), I thought twice. I know Greenes' Guide is one of many, but it has the category of "Hidden Ivy" and groups them regionally. Lafayette is on the list (so it gets that green check). Union and Conn are not, but they are or were NESCAC colleges (so they get that green check). F&M is not in NESCAC, not on Greenes' list, and doesn't have other statistics that make it obvious it should be included. However, if others differ, feel free to add F&M. IACOBVS (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

To begin with, I agree with adding Lafayette. To exclude Lafayette for geographic reasons would necessitate the removal of Swarthmore, Bucknell and Haverford. Excluding Lafayette for academic reasons would mean the removal of Trinity and Connecticut.

Holy Cross, like many Catholic schools, has no history of fraternities. That fact is also shared with West Point. As such, those schools did not have access to the social hobnobbing that schools with the older Greek fraternity chapters enjoyed. The result has been that those schools did not historically share the social connections that largely defined the Little Ivies. As a point of note, Holy Cross is listed as a Little Ivy per the ‘Examples of Use’ section. However, for the aforementioned reasons, I can see leaving Holy Cross out. However, Holy Cross does seem to have academics to rival many of the Little Ivies.

Also, the only Jesuit Ivy is Boston College. It is basically a manufactured term that is derived from a JFK speech that BC has taken full advantage of in its own self-promotion. Georgetown University would seem to be the other claimant to a Jesuit Ivy affiliation, along with Holy Cross.

I am considering adding Lehigh University as it is in Greenes'. However, its large size, geography and Patriot League athletics may add up to too many negative factors. Any thoughts?74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to Lehigh, but I agree that the list is getting larger and it's tricky when adding non-NESCAC schools except the obvious, such as Swarthmore and Haverford. One college that maybe should not be on the list is Vassar College - not for qualitative or geographic reasons, but because it is already one of the Seven Sister colleges. It is thus already prestigious on its own and does not need to be listed as both a Little Ivy and a Seven Sister. All of the Seven Sister colleges could be on the list here, but they are female-only colleges, except Vassar. It seems that Vassar is on the list because it is the only co-ed Seven Sister college. Now that Lafayette is on and maybe Lehigh might be added, should Vassar go? IACOBVS (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at Lehigh. It has almost 7,000 students. I just can't see how it is a small LAC in any way. Same for Tufts, but Tufts for whatever reason remains in NESCAC, probably because its undergrad athletics are not suited to another league. Tufts is also graduate dominated - the most prestigious components of Tufts are its graduate schools. I'm thinking it is rather silly to keep Tufts on this list as it simply isn't 'little' or a LAC. I also question Vassar for different reasons. IACOBVS (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem created by including Tufts on the list is that its large size creates a threshold by which it becomes difficult to deny a school admission due to size, Lehigh being a case in point. Another larger school listed in Greenes’ is the University of Rochester. It’s about the same size as Tufts but also not included. There is a lengthy debate under section 12 of the talk page about whether or not to include Tufts and the subsequent creation of the "check mark" grid to show the degrees of affiliation.

Lehigh passes the geography test as other Pennsylvania schools such as Bucknell, Haverford, Lafayette, and Swarthmore are included. Its academic rankings also appear to be sufficient.

Vassar is out of place because it is historically a women’s college, though it has been coed since 1969. The Little Ivies, like the Ivy League, were all men’s schools up until the 60’ or 70’s when they went coed. Thus, many of them shared athletic rivalries that extended back into the late 19th century and fraternity ties that went back even further. Vassar was not part of any of these traditions. Vassar shares far more of its history with the other Seven Sisters schools than with the Little Ivies.

I happen to believe that Tufts and Vassar should be removed. However, the Tufts discussion in section 12 shows that someone was really adamant about keeping Tufts.74.70.116.187 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Bates is the one exception to the Little Ivies in that it was co-ed from the start. I think Vassar and Tufts should go. Yes, Tufts is in NESCAC but it is not a small liberal arts college. Vassar is a small liberal arts college, but is not in NESCAC and is already a member of the Seven Sister colleges. They are both 'Hidden Ivies' (so to speak) but they are not 'Little Ivies'. We could experiment with temporary removal and see if there is an immediate edit war? But the edit war won't be about a logical category, but anger that Tufts is being somehow downgraded when in fact it is very prestigious on its own. The reaction to Vassar might be less.IACOBVS (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Little Ivies. 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/20050511165608/http://www.tamdistrict.org:80/students/counseling/collegeguide/glossary.htm to http://www.tamdistrict.org/students/counseling/collegeguide/glossary.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Original research

Based on recent edits and the discussions above, I am very concerned that this article has veered into original research territory as editors have begun compiling their own criteria for inclusion in this article. The only criteria that should be used is whether reliable sources have associated an institution with this term. ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo, thank you for your interest in recent discussions on this talk page. While there has been a tremendous amount of discussion, there really have been only minor additions to the page.

The page had college rankings added from three of the major organizations: US News, Forbes and Washington Monthly. Additionally, the endowment and per student endowments were added. These are all objective numbers from reliable sources. Also, the Wikipedia page for the Ivy League contains the same rankings and also lists the endowments for the respective Ivy League schools. Furthermore, each college listed has all of these rankings and their endowments listed on their own Wikipedia pages. Thus, this editing of the Little Ivy page was merely the addition of information already included on numerous college Wikipedia pages and aligned the Little Ivy page more with the Ivy League page. There is no original research in this inclusion.

I also noticed that you removed an aggregate table added by another editor. I agree with that removal and already have articulated my rationale on this talk page. However, I see no reason to remove information from this page that already exists on numerous other Wikipedia pages, unless each and every one of those pages has the same information removed.

After lengthy discussion it was decided to add Lafayette College to the list. The reason that it required a lengthy discussion is that, unlike the Ivy League, there is no definitive reliable source list of Little Ivy schools. If you read the entire talk page, you will discover that a check-grid system was arrived at to prevent what may have easily turned into endless edit wars. This system seems to do as good a job as any of dealing with a rather amorphous and contentious topic. Your notion that, “The only criteria that should be used is whether reliable sources have associated an institution with this term” has, amongst its oversights, a very fundamental problem in that it allows the inclusion of any school that can find any published reference to it as a Little Ivy. For example, both Hampshire and Holy Cross have apparently been mentioned as Little Ivies. However, nobody who understands the interactions and history of small Northeastern LACs would ever consider Hampshire a Little Ivy. I am sure that Hampshire provides an excellent education, but it is simply not a Little Ivy –no matter what source is found proclaiming that. Holy Cross has also been the subject of discussion. While both schools are evidently mentioned by the Atlanta- Journal-Constitution, neither school has, for numerous reasons, ever occupied a position in this article.

Perhaps a thorough read of the entire talk page will enlighten you as to the conundrum that this page hopes to surmount. If you have any constructive suggestions for improvement, I am sure that they would be received in the spirit in which they are given.74.70.116.187 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sourced inclusions?

After my reading through the discussions above, I can without a shadow of a doubt agree to the 11 following schools being named "Little Ivies", given their history, founding, admissions, ranking, social prestige, etc. (I will give reasons next to their listing as their are certainly to be included.)

1. Amherst College - (Part of NESCAC, Little Three, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
2. Bates College - (Part of the NESCAC, CBB, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
3. Bowdoin College - (Part of the NESCAC, CBB, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
4. Colby College - (Part of the NESCAC, CBB, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
5. Hamilton College - (Part of the NESCAC, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
6. Haverford College - (Part of the NESCAC, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.) ::Haverford is not, nor has it ever been, a member of NESCAC74.70.116.187 (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Middlebury College - (Part of the NESCAC, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
8. Swarthmore College - (Often times confused to be in the NESCAC because how good of a school it is, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
9. Trinity College - (Part of the NESCAC, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
10. Wesleyan University - (Part of NESCAC, Little Three, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)
11. Williams College - (Part of NESCAC, Little Three, nationally ranked, admissions, small liberal arts college, etc.)

When people think of what a "Little Ivy" is or what "Little Ivies" are they think of the aforementioned. Why is Bucknell University, Colgate University, Lafayette College, Union College, Connecticut College on this list? I read through all the lengthy discussion and agree it has been discussed in detail but I remind unconvinced and so do a lot of people. These colleges stick out like sore thumbs, I don't think I have ever heard anyone compare Union to Amherst let along to be on the same level. Just because you rode on the coat tails of the NESCAC, doest mean you get a free pass to be included as a "Little Ivy." Just because you are a small college doest mean you get a free pass to be included as a "Little Ivy." Saying the sentence: "Bucknell University is a little ivy" just sounds plain wrong, people will give you weird looks and ask questions as to what it means to be a little ivy. Bucknell is not little nor does it come close to providing the rigorous academic platform of schools like Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby. And I don't know where to even start with Connecticut College and Union College. These fall through on the following metrics: history, founding, admissions, ranking, social prestige, market position, and overall prominence. Neither of these schools are Hidden Ivies, where every other school is. The Hidden Ivy publication provided a generously broad scope in what they defined as "schools of superior academic caliber," and both of those schools were not included. To me they stick out like a sore thumb on this list. I'd like to revise their inclusion and hopefully remove them or be convinced otherwise. Growing up, hearing Little Ivy thrown around was common place, often hearing "Oh Amherst, thats the Little Ivy League school, right?." I don't think anyone has ever, or will ever consider Union College and Connect College a "Little Ivy." They're good schools but most certainly not "Little Ivies."

The following are exceptional schools but should not be included for the following reasons:

1. Tufts University - it is not a small liberal arts college, contradicting the whole "Little" component to the distinction
2. Vassar College - Its a small liberal arts college, but is not in NESCAC and is already a member of the Seven Sister colleges

I'd like to hear what the reasoning was behind the inclusion of these 7 schools, and pursue options for their removal. Odwallah (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Without any reliable sources, this is all original research or simply your own POV. ElKevbo (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Odwallah, I have always understood the NESCAC to be at the core of the Little Ivies so I am surprised to see schools outside of it mentioned. However, I do see the logic behind Swarthmore, and Haverford. I move to remove them and see if any edit warring occurs. Looking through the archives I think the aggregate model was too speculative. I believe you and I have already had this conversation and I think the most draw back I have gotten is Tufts but I think the logic we both concluded to reasonable takes it out. Its too big (as is Bucknell - almost 4,000 students) and is not a liberal arts college. So I agree. with the removal of the 7 schools. Also numerous references specifically cite these 11 schools as well to address the previous concern. Wentworth Washington (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking over this I can confirm the usage of Little Ivy for Swarthmore, and Haverford. And Union and Conn can not be added just because they are somehow linked to the NESCAC. I think charter members are extended this distinction only. 134.181.153.131 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Union College is one of the original 1971 charter members of NESCAC.74.70.116.187 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see that Swarthmore and Haverford have already been discussed, good. 134.181.153.131 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any sources, nor any references in popular culture about Bucknell U, being a Little Ivy. I feel like this is so black and white. Amherst = Little Ivy, Lafayette = no, etc. I mean I see a stark difference, one is not and the other is. I'm also not finding any reference depicting Tufts, or Vassar as Little Ivies. I do however understand the connection between Tufts and the NESCAC, but its just so large and there is a threshold that is passed with Tufts that is never passed in reference. Wentworth Washington (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that there are 18 listed univeristies just delegitimizes the little ivy discription. 18? Are you kidding me? Why not add every college that has Ivy growing near it? We all know that Little Ivies are nescac schools minus conn and union and select few others. Literally laughing out loud at Colgate's inclusion. Lets stick with what the sources say, this isnt a blog, this is an enclypedia. The "Little Three" and the colleges of the CBB are well sourced as Little Ivies and the other five are as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.181.218.90 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe that the 7 institutions should be mentioned later in the article in the "related institutions" section. I set up a new sections for an ed consensus. Odwallah (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ivies editorial consensus

I'd like some sort of editorial consensus regarding the sourced Little Ivies being tabled and having the other institutions moved to "other institution sections" as they are weakly connected to the description of "Little Ivy." If you are for, a bold agree will do, if its a disagree a bold disagree with a position as to why these schools should be included. Odwallah (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Retina display (talk)

Agreed. 134.181.163.52 (talk)

Agreed. Wentworth Washington (talk)

Disagree 74.70.116.187 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments such as, “Bucknell is not little nor does it come close to providing the rigorous academic platform of schools like Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby.” come off as flippant and uninformed. If Bucknell is too large at 3,624 then Wesleyan isn’t exactly petite at 3,138. Furthermore, how exactly do you know that Bucknell is not close to Bates, Bowdoin and Colby academically? Have you attended all of these schools? I suspect that students from these Maine schools would find majoring in an engineering field at Bucknell to be rather challenging, if not impossible.

Suggesting that Union College’s history or founding falls short is a laughably absurd assertion. It’s the third oldest school on the list and possibly has the richest history of any of these schools. The school is the Mother of Fraternities. Williams sent envoys to the Union Phi Beta Kappa, the fifth oldest in the nation, to ask for a charter. Instead they came back with a Kappa Alpha Society charter. A failed Kappa Alpha attempt at Hamilton resulted in the foundation of Alpha Delta Phi, the school's first fraternity, at Hamilton in 1832. Union has maintained athletic rivalries with many of the schools mentioned that go back to the 1800’s. Union has been rubbing social elbows with schools like Williams longer than half of the schools on this list have existed.

If schools such as Bucknell, Colgate, Connecticut College, Lafayette, Tufts, Union and Vassar are to be removed for academic reasons then Trinity most definitely needs to go as well. Bates would also be borderline.

If schools such as Bucknell, Colgate, Lafayette, Union and Vassar are being removed for non-New England geographic reasons then Hamilton, Haverford and Swarthmore need to go as well.

If people do not compare Union to Amherst, I very much doubt that they compare Bates or Trinity to Williams.

How exactly does Union "ride the coattails" of NESCAC if it is a founding member? One could argue that Trinity, Bates, Hamilton and Colby are all doing the same.74.70.116.187 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If Bucknell and Colgate need to go for size reasons then Wesleyan needs to go as well.

If Tufts needs to go for too much graduate research focus then consider removing Wesleyan as well.

Removing all non-NESCAC schools would seem to necessitate the deletion of this article as it will serve as little more than redundant boosterism for the NESCAC schools since the NESCAC article already mentions Little Ivies.

I have to agree with ElKevbo that this proposed mass deletion is little more than original research and individual POV.74.70.116.187 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

74.70.116.187, I think we're actually in somewhat of agreement. First of all Williams, Wesleyan, Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby have been referenced as Little Ivies for a very very long time. This isn't an extension afforded to Union, Conn, and these other additions. I am actually a firm believer from what the sources say and what popular reference indicates that there is a "Little Ivy" for each member of the Ivy League, that is to say 8. But the schools of the Little Three and the CBB have been cemented as Little Ivies for a long time and are indisputable. With those 6 schools accounted for, the other three (from what numerous publications have asserted) are Middlebury, Swarthmore, and Haverford. This isn't a game of "lets see who could be" this is Wikipedia. Union has far inferior academics, tanks in the rankings, and left the nescac (also wasn't a founding member was a charter member). I don't know where on earth Bucknell came from... why its included on this list baffles me. Also numerous unfound assertions in your previous comment, Tufts was removed for size, Vassar for Seven Sisters, etc.

What are your thoughts? Odwallah (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The notion that there are exactly eight Little Ivies to match the eight Ivies is total nonsense. There has never been any recognized list of eight Little Ivies. If you want to consider the Little Three to be a match to the Big Three and exclude Union, you really need to learn your college history. Union was a member of the Big Four, now the Big Three. Yeah, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Union were the top four schools in the country. I am sorry if that comes as a revelation to you. Schools like Swarthmore were late to the prestige game with huge 20th century endowment gifts to propel them forward relatively recently compared to the ancients.

Furthermore, I find your notion that schools like Bucknell and Union to have "far inferior academics" to reveal nothing short of a crass and insulting ignorance of the academic capabilities of the students as well the standards to which they are held. Schools like Bucknell, Lafayette and Union all run top-notch engineering programs in addition to their liberal arts offering. I put it to you that the students at any school mentioned here would find their intellectual capacity and stamina challenged in these programs. Many of these schools also run consortium programs with schools like Columbia and Dartmouth where their students spend a year or two in residence. Their students do perfectly fine. Have you attended any of these schools? If not, how do you know that they are so vastly inferior? Reducing the criteria for inclusion on this list to nothing more than a few metrics fails to acknowledge the athletic rivalry, history, founding and social elbow rubbing that defines the Little Ivies as much as a couple of easily manipulated metrics does.

The members of the CBB are far from "cemented" as Little Ivies. The CBB is nothing than an incestuous, self-referential and self-anointed organization the evolved from geographic isolation rather than any form of exclusivity derived from merit. Only Bowdoin holds a strong claim through rank and endowment. Bates and Colby come up very weak in many comparisons. One could argue that Bates and Colby are riding on Bowdoin's coattails as they desperately try to equivocate the CBB consortium to some sort of Little Three.

I am sorry but Tufts has not been removed for size and Vassar has not been removed for an association with he Seven Sisters. This is because a discussion has not been held with any bit of compelling evidence, rebuttal or counterargument. Have you read the archived sections arguing for the inclusion of Tufts yet? Assertions that you have removed Tufts and Vassar with no discussion suggest than you believe that you own this article.

If you found my prior conclusions to be baffling then I am concerned about your ability to make logical decisions regarding this article, particularly in light of your own numerous unfounded assertions. I have laid out numerous arguments based on academic metrics, geography, tradition, history and athletic rivalry and have yet to see a single challenge beyond mere assertion based on original research and individual POV.74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear: I am not opposed to deleting material from this article. In fact, I strongly encourage it. This appears to be a topic that is only known about and important to a very small, insular group of people (not necessarily the Wikipedia editors who work on this article!) who are delusional about the importance of this obscure and informal designation. It's a tragic mix of naive upperclass privilege and significant jealousy of people and institutions that are perceived to be slightly richer and better. And the article itself veers dangerously in that direction as editors construct flimsy excuses to include or exclude colleges based not on high quality sources (which are scant since this is a rather small and informal topic to begin with) but their own personal opinions. If an article has to exist on this topic then it must be limited to what is documented in high-quality sources written by credible, third-party authors. ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If I wanted to write an article about plants, how shall I go about it? Would I give reasons as to why a strawberry should be included in a list of plants? Or should I list plants that have sources that say "a fern is a plant"? The CBB schools, Little Three, Swarthmore, and Middlebury, are listed as Little Ivies. Perhaps if someone were to find a source for Haverford, then it shall be added to the list. But as it stands, there are 18 Little Ivies, that can not be so. Little Ivies are a thing and this list delegitimizes them. Claims that schools "ride on the coattails" of schools that have large endowments is misguided. I move to conclude the list on what I have laid out on the next section. Odwallah (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WARNING! I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT RECENT EDITOR BIAS ON THIS PAGE INVOLVING SCHOOL BOOSTERISM. VOTER AND USER 134.181.163.52 COMES UP AS OWNED BY BATES COLLEGE. VOTER USER Retina display APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VOTING TO EDIT THIS PAGE. VOTER Wentworth Washington HAS EXISTED FOR ONLY SEVERAL DAYS PRIMARILY EDITING BATES, BOWDOIN AND COLBY PAGES. DO WE HAVE SOME SOCK PUPPETS HERE? 74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have serious sock puppet allegations take them to the proper outlets, no need to post an all cap declaration. I'm not seeing any relation to the established account Wentworth Washington, but those two IP addresses do come up from Bates so they I don't know if we'll count those votes or not. Either way, your additions were unsourced so they can't go on Wikipedia. Sorry. Odwallah (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What a coincidence that another editor found a similar problem on the recently edited NESCAC page...that you responded to as well. Doesn't look very good...74.70.116.187 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all this article's talk page is no place for fabricated personal attacks so lets stop those. If you have a note for me personally leave it on my talk page. Keep this discussion on topic and content-focused. I edited the page like I was supposed to and you added original research. Instead of attacking me and random IP, focus on defending the inclusion of your neighborhood Union College and others. Odwallah (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that defending schools like Bucknell, Lafayette, Colgate, Tufts, Union, Vassar and Haverford constitutes defending the inclusion of my neighborhood college as that would be a rather large neighborhood constituting the better part of the Northeast. Furthermore, it is rather apparent that you have not bothered to read the article history. As I stated very early on, I am not a student, an alumnus, an alumna or an employee of any school yet discussed in this article. Can you say the same? Can the other voting members also say the same? I think not. The entire vote taken here is obviously completely rigged by biased voters and every change you have made in light of that vote needs to be consequently voided. The confluence of the timing of newly created editors and your recent zeal to manipulate related articles is very concerning. I find it hard to believe that this is all a giant coincidence.74.70.116.187 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

8 Little Ivies

These are the sourced Little Ivies from what I could gather. I would like to move to conclude the article with this list Odwallah (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Amherst
2. Bates
3. Bowdoin
4. Colby
5. Middlebury
6. Swarthmore
7. Wesleyan
8. Williams

Comments welcome.

Why were Hamilton, Haverford and Trinity dropped from your prior list?74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

74.70.116.187, Great question. I have not included as there is no sources that specifically states they are Little Ivies, they are listed as "Hidden Ivies" and they are listed on the page Hidden Ivies. Also the NESCAC page has great little section outlining what the Little Ivies are in some detail. So those schools are there. Odwallah (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restore the article to include the 8 sourced Little Ivies and if you'd like to include more schools please provide sources and reasoning. For example Haverford seems like a worthy inclusion but I have no found sources. Odwallah (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There appears to have be confusion between Little Ivies and Hidden Ivies. The Hidden Ivies are those schools listed in one of many college guidebooks that are sold for profit. That list is no way, shape or form constitutes are sort of authoritative list. Rather, it a business run by the Greene family that continues to attempt to capitalize on the financial success of a book that contains little more than an individual opinion.

What concrete, citable, authoritative sources are you referring to that list these schools as Little Ivies? I am sorry but a self-reference to a NESCAC page that has recently been heavily edited by your own self is little more than a circular argument fallacy. This is particularly true in light of concerns posted on that page's talk page in regards to editor bias and the promotion of institutional boosterism of certain schools.74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused, have you looked at the article? There are literally dozens of citations specifically defining the schools I have listed as Little Ivies. I'm not self referencing anything, I'm referencing the citations I have put both on the Little Ivies page and the NESCAC page. If you'd like to add schools, you're going to need citations plain and simple, this is Wikipedia not a personal blog. Odwallah (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Following that line of reasoning, schools like Hampshire College and Holy Cross will be added to this list as they have been mentioned as Little Ivies. Is that you want or would you just like to own this page?74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all you can't "own" a Wikipedia page, its edited by many editors with many ideas. It would be much appreciated if you could be a little more civil. What source mentioned Hampshire College and Holy Cross as Little Ivies? Odwallah (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor and read the page that you are editing.74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok so as of now, you have no sources backing up your claims, and I am going to go ahead and revert your restoration. Odwallah (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you waited a whole 2 minutes! Real mature attitude here. Any problem adding Hampshire and Holy Cross? No? Great, I'll be adding them in 5 seconds.74.70.116.187 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring, and talk this through in a civil manner. You're not the first IP to try to dramatically change this page and I'm sure you won't be the last. Before adding discuss on talk page. I'm here to listen as are others. Odwallah (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Right back at you. If YOU want to add from prior version, please discuss on talk page. 74.70.116.187 (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to discuss the removal of unsourced content, and un-cited claims. Thats just doing my job as an editor. You on the other hand are blatantly adding things completely unsourced, which is vandalism, and you may be blocked from editing. Odwallah (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one who changed this article. I added nothing. I merely reverted undiscussed changes that were never properly addressed on talk page. Furthermore, problems with editor bias here has also been discovered on the recently edited NESCAC page by another editor. This casts quite a cloud over every change made on both pages.74.70.116.187 (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop these fabricated personal attacks, and focus on the content involved. No shadow is being cast I'm afraid and you still are pushing original research. Odwallah (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo gallery

Photo gallery of all the Little Ivies seems to be taking up some space what does everyone propose we do with it? Move it to the bottom of the article? delete it? put it in its own section? Odwallah (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete it. It's a large apparently purely-decorative object that provides no encyclopediac value as a whole (WP:GALLERY). Unless one has content that their architecture or buildings or...whatever else these images individually contain...represent something cohesive or other point of discussion. Otherwise it risks being seen as yet another WP:SYNTH that this is a cohesive group (by reader inference/observation) rather than just a less-formal (or not even well-identified, per threads here?) set. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Odwallah (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason that the same photos currently reside on the NESCAC page? Should they be removed as well?74.70.116.187 (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason! Thanks for asking. Some schools are mentioned on both articles and thus the same pictures were used. I put in a gallery on the two article (and others) to show visual representation of the schools. You probably shouldn't remove the other photos as they are different. We've only talked about removing the gallery on this page, so it was removed. You must be new here so thats how that works. :) Odwallah (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I did my first Wikipedia edit around 2003. Sorry not new, just have better things to do most of the time.74.70.116.187 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourced material

74.70.116.187, The issue is the schools you are mentioning are not sourced as Little Ivies. Thats not how content is added on here. Please show sources before adding schools, and provide a explanation for their inclusion. Odwallah (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I see. A source is now not good enough; all schools must now pass your personal opinion test. Want some syrup with your waffle? Sorry, but you do not own this page.74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You're 100% right, I do not own this page, no one does. I don't know where you're getting my "personal inclusions test" from. Its pretty simple: source + explanation = included on article, thats how 101% of all articles are run on Wikipeida. Also no need to hyperlink the word "own", I know what it means and don't need a refresher.

So far only Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Middlebury, Swarthmore, Wesleyan and Williams are sourced, all the others that were added based off of illegal original research have been removed as you need to verify the content that you add on Wikipedia articles. These are Wikipedia core content policies and are always enforced to ensure that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. The Little Ivies are real and few in number, don't just add colleges just because they seem academically prominent or exclusive in anyway or use any type of aggregate model to see if any colleges are or are not part of the group. You can also not "kick out" a school that is sourced and well accounted for because it lacks personal or agreed upon standards. This article in particular needs to be very well sourced because a lot of schools would like to count themselves in the group for whatever reason they have. Lets keep this list based in reality, sourced, and encyclopedic. Odwallah (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Very first Google result lists Colgate, Haverford and Vassar amongst others. What is your background in conducting research? Are you a college graduate?74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see: WP:TPG, and if no source is provided then its based off of illegal original research. Odwallah (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is this comment relevant to prior remark?74.70.116.187 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's up to the editor who wishes to include info to provide a cite for it (WP:BURDEN policy). It's not the responsibility of an editor who raises a concern about uncited content to do that research. IP 74.70.116.187, consider this your formal warning for failure to assume good faith and making repeated comments about editors rather than the content itself...getting yourself blocked altogether will not result in your content ideas getting accepted. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, great! I'll be sure to add heaps of schools to this list. All I have to do is find any source in any place. After all, this is all in good faith. By the way, you might want to look at the talk page history before solely accusing me of making comments about editors rather than the content itself.74.70.116.187 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS will be a good guide for you--one that is already mentioned in the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy to which you have been pointed at various times. You focus on your behavior and desired content, let others succeed or fail on their merits. Repeatedly ignoring (or proclaiming your intent to ignore) these core policies to which you have been multiply advised will not get you to your goal. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This page has become entirely arbitrary. The Boston Globe article that was formerly the basis for the entry has been removed as a source. This neutral source has been replaced by inflated (biased?) references to the "Big Three" of Maine. By logic, this group, with respect to the term "Little Ivies," has dubious relevance (Every state, potentially, has a "Big Three.") In the case of the Hidden Ivies book, the quotation that includes colleges offered as examples has been misinterpreted as a definitive source for the limits of schools that may be Little Ivies.

The former content, which has been completely written over, was unbiased, well-sourced, and lucidly written. The current page, quite disconcertingly, cannot objectively be judged suitable as an encyclopedia entry. In the interests of Wikipedia credibility, the former content should be restored. Mercury42 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The overarching issue appears to relate to a connection between the Bates College page and the Little Ivies page. If a senior editor would be willing to trace the editing history of the two entries, the biases inherent in the Little Ivies page would be elucidated. Mercury42 (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop. You signaling out these three Maine colleges makes no sense, and your reasoning behind the action makes even less sense as they seem to be some of the better cited inclusions. Your "former version" broke half a dozen of Wikipedia policies including some that can get editors like yourself banned. If you want to add schools (such as Hamilton, you seem to be pushing that one a lot), find a source. This isn't a closed group, its a descriptive term used to characterize schools. Previous to me cleaning this mess of an article up, it looked as though it was an established eight schools, which it is not. It is a descriptive term that has been associated with numerous schools. However, going through the page history it seems like every single college that has Ivy growing near it was considered a part. I even saw this ludicrously illegal chart-system "ranking" these colleges, as if one or the other wasn't "good enough". That is utterly unacceptable. If there are reliable sources saying a school has been characterized as a little ivy, it is added, no debate about it. This is not the Little Three page, this is not the Hidden Ivies page, and most importantly rankings do not factor, what so ever, in the inclusion of a school. Trenta5 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem does not relate to the inclusion of sources themselves, but to their interpretation. When a citation for the "Big Three of Maine" supports the determination for the grouping of "Little Ivies," (emphasis on "big" vs. "little"), the boundaries of logical thought have been transgressed. Mercury42 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Big Three of Maine" blurb has nothing to do with their inclusion, all it does is highlight their consortium just like Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan and their "Little Three" grouping. It is clear to me that many, many editors on this article are confusing this for something it is clearly not. Past administrators and editors have laid out exactly what this article is. No more charts, no more original research, no vendettas against specific schools, no more boosterism of others, and no more confusing this page for the Little Three and Hidden Ivies. Trenta5 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Ivies. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090414113219/http://www.bates.edu:80/x61823.xml to http://www.bates.edu/x61823.xml

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

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} 07:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Little Ivies" page

The page's content has been disconnected from its previous prominent sourcing, such as to the Boston Globe, and replaced with the opinion, essentially, that a Maine "consortium" is relevant to the grouping.

The writing and sourcing in general is below reasonable standards. Mercury42 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the future state of this article is far worse than either of us may have feared. After looking at the edit history of other recent editors to this article it appears that one was recently created to manipulate this article and many have numerous recent edits on Bates, Colby and Bowdoin pages. The recently posited list inexplicably includes Bates and Colby while excluding clear favorites like Haverford and Hamilton. As such, I believe that they "have a horse in this race" that is affecting their proposed content of this article. In effect, I believe that we have a team of editors who have a personal agenda to champion their own alma mater CBB school(s). I am very concerned that a purposeful manipulation is occurring to promote boostership of specific schools. I would also take a long look at the evolution of the NESCAC article in relation to the Little Ivy topic.

The best thing to do may be to completely delete this article. As I have spent a considerable amount of time of this article, I do not come to this decision lightly. However, I believe this article will be the perpetual victim of self-promotion and increasingly vitriolic rhetoric. Prior editors that I collaborated with were courteous in their discussion of the academic evaluation of other schools. However arbitrary as we may have been, we always worked towards an atmosphere of extensive discussion and inclusion. The recent group has been capricious, dismissive and insulting of the academics of schools that they do not deem worthy of inclusion based on pure opinion. I have tried to champion a level of inclusion and reasonable reliance upon valid metrics rather than resort to edit wars. However, I fear that the amorphous nature of the criteria for inclusion in this article may leave it the victim of endless edit wars and circular arguments.74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

uh.... What? Why are the Bowdoin, Bates, Colby schools not relevant to this grouping? If a college has sufficient references to them as "little ivies" then they should be included... Yorkshiremany (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need to delete. As of right now, at least from what I can tell, every thing is properly sourced and relevant. These three Maine schools are well sourced and contextualized. If there is a refrence indicating other additions, they should be added. I'll be on the look out for Haverford and Hamilton. Trenta5 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

See this and this for more information. Trenta5 (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Pending inclusion, other editors feel free to add to this article with appropriate schools:

"Little Ivy" equated with NESCAC colleges in The Boston Globe:

"The New England Small College Athletic Conference (alias NESCAC or the 'Little Ivies')"

The Boston Globe; September 20, 1985; p. 36. Mercury42 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Observer of Case Western Reserve University similarly equates "Little Ivy League" with NESCAC.

("Mentoring Program Links Faculty and Student Athletes"; Matt Cannan; September 22, 2006.) Mercury42 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

As hinted at above, the "team of editors" has apparently been identified as a single "sock puppet."

For now, it would appear that the appropriate solution would be to delete this entry, pending a credible restoration that would at least approximate the former content. Mercury42 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mercury42 for your interest, efforts and also revealing the sock puppetry on this page. I was very suspicious. Sadly, grievous damage was done by said sock puppetry to this as well as other related pages.74.70.116.187 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The only 3 colleges that definitively and historically have been called Little Ivies are the Little 3: Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams. However, the term has expanded and nobody disputes the inclusion of Swarthmore, Middlebury, Bowdoion, Haverford or Tufts (which is now a university). Overtime, the definition further expanded to include all the NESCAC schools along with socially similar, highly selective liberal arts colleges, Colgate and Vassar. However, Union College, Lafayette College and Bucknell have never been known as Little Ivies and the only reference to them being so is a single Bloomberg article which uses the term in an overly broad, sloppy manner. The whole significance of the term is meant to describe an ultra-exclusive set of liberal arts colleges comparative in academic prestige to the Ivy League. Union, Lafayette and Bucknell are nowhere near on par with the Ivies, or the better established liberal arts colleges traditionally called Little Ivies. So this article should define 15 colleges, not 18. Although in my personal opinion the term Little Ivy should refer to the 8 colleges of Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Swarthmore, Middlebury, Bowdoin, Tufts and Haverford because these are indisputably the LAC's competitively on par with the Ivy League - and like the Ivy League there are 8 of them. Any other thoughts on this? Btheory1978 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yo, Btheory1978, someone actually found a citation from Bloomberg that lists schools noted as the Little Ivies, this isn't a free for all, we have to only edit things that are cited. Sure some of these schools don't seem like Little Ivies, but who gives a shit. There was an IP who found a citation, and we're sticking with what is reliable. Wuheaty (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Bloomberg is that it's the only reference anywhere that lists Union, Lafayette, and Bucknell as Little Ivies, and even that article implies that it is using the term Little Ivy loosely. Bloomberg is not an authoritative source on colleges and the CONSENSUS from every other college guide and website lists at maximum 13-15 schools (none include Union, Lafayette or Bucknell). Ex: The Armchair Guide to the Little Ivies consists of 5 entire books published exclusively on this topic. Little Three (Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams): http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/armchair-guide-to-the-nescac-little-ivies-or-the-little-three-emily-gooding/1114640926 Bowdoin, Colby Bates: http://www.buscape.com.br/armchair-guide-to-the-little-ivies-the-colby-bates-bowdoin-consortium-emily-gooding-1171062931 Haverford, Middlebury and Swarthmore: https://www.abebooks.com/9781171161639/Armchair-Guide-Little-Ivies-Haverford-1171161638/plp Conn College, Hamilton, Trinity and Tufts: http://www.amazon.in/Armchair-Guide-Little-Ivies-University/dp/1171161530

So if any source should be sited to delineate the Little Ivies, it's the Armchair College Guide Books to the Little Ivies - not that single Bloomberg article that uses the word of the cuff, even admittedly so. Also, the Little Three are uncontraversially the first schools to ever be referred to as Little Ivies. In fact, the very term was derived as a reference to those 3 schools. So I have clarified that information in the article's intro. Lastly, for the time being I am glad to see the check-listed table removed until this article clarifies what source it's using as precedent to define the Little Ivies. Previously, the table included "Hidden Ivies" which is simply a promotional title of a book that has no relevance to this page or the term Little Ivy. I am going to refrain from making any more edits until there's a little more talk on this page but The Armchair Guide to Little Ivies is the most substantial published work on this subject to date and so should be the authoritative source.

Lastly, why is there an endowment table in this article... what pertinence does that statistic have in relation to this article?

Btheory1978 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Btheory1978, fantastic work! Those are great sources. I would urge you to put those sources up in the lead as soon as possible. Lets not remove any members that are cited for now. I removed everything that was not cited, so I encourage you to add more content that is cited, so seem to have some expertise on the topic. Wuheaty (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Wuheaty for your kind feedback! I will go ahead and make the respective additions. Also, there there is a section inserted in the intro that states "However, the term Little Ivy has since expanded to be associated with all colleges of the NESCAC, primarily with the addition of Bates College and Colby College, that along with Bowdoin make up the Colby-Bates-Bowdoin Consortium." The term little Ivy is not PRIMARILY associated with the Colby-Bates-Bowdoin Consortium. Colby, Bates and Bowdoin are already members of the NESCAC -so are already members of the Little Ivies. However their consortium in and of itself is not synonymous with "Little Ivy" the way the Little Three are, or the NESCAC as whole is - nor does their consortium hold a special status among the other NESCAC schools. Colby-Bates-Bowdoin are simply grouped together because they are all schools in Maine and therefore have an inter-state tradition together. So it is likely not appropriate in this article to designate a separate pedestal for the 3 Maine colleges (although mentioning the consortium itself is perfectly fine). The reason Haverford and Swarthmore are specifically mentioned in the following sentence is because they are not members of the NESCAC, yet are the only 2 schools outside that league that are uncontroversially regarded as Little Ivies (as opposed to the broader list that sometimes includes Vassar and Colgate... or the Bloomberg article that more loosely references Bucknell, Union and Lafayette).

Btheory1978 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Btheory1978, all I can say is wow. You have transformed this article from a lackluster free-for-all into a well-cited coherent article. Fantastic work. Absolutely fantastic. Wuheaty (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Armchair Guide to the Little Ivies is a self-published vanity press compilation of 5 college guide books displaying personal conjecture and coming with a disclaimer warning the reader to, "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." I light of that, one may wish to reconsider using that rather flimsy source as the foundation for this article.67.248.250.13 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed this is true. Just looked it up and it says, "To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing." Thanks for catching that. Lets just use the Bloomberg article then. Wuheaty (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There are many citations in this article, yet only ONE, which is a business article extended the definition of Little Ivy to 18 schools. Meanwhile greater consensus from every other citation is simply scrapped for this single source that took wide and previously unheard liberty with the term Little Ivy. Therefore, it is not the single authority source around which this article should be constructed. So this article has been re-edited to describe the term Little Ivy as one with both common and varying meaning according to the citations. Also as a note, Union College is not a member of the NESCAC - nor was it a founding member (there are only 4 founding members of that league - the Little Three plus Bowdoin). Also due to concern that the Armchair Guide to the Little Ivies are self-published books, those citations have been deleted and left out of the revision. Although, it's unfortunate since those books are to date the most voluminous research produced on this subject. For now, the Armchair Guide should remain out of the article... but it warrants greater discussion.

18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Btheory1978 (talk)

So your edits are constructive but I think you're adding too many "elite"s and "prestige"s, and working on the lead when your edits would be best in the usage of the term section. Lets not remove the member list for now as it is well sourced. And the lead you wrote before your recent additions is fine and stable. Wuheaty (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The term Little Ivy is a descriptive one - so it does not have defined membership. Trying to use the Bloomberg article to impose the term on 18 colleges is misleading. Firstly, one single source shouldn't take precedence over the other one's cited. Secondly and to repeat, Little Ivy is a DESCRIPTIVE term that has wide and varied usage. As example, the introduction to Greene's Guide to the Hidden Ivies was included to demonstrate this because that College Guide only considers six colleges to be Little Ivies (do not confuse this with "Hidden Ivies" because Greene very purposefully makes the distinction that Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury Swarthmore, Wesleyan and Williams were already considered on par with the Ivies... so there's nothing "hidden" about the them). For some reason, mention of Greene's College Guide along with its citations were deleted without explanation.

In addition to what I mentioned about Greene's Guide citations being deleted, 8 citations to the Little Three were deleted. I also found from reading past posts the following citations about the NESCAC were deleted too:

"Little Ivy" equated with NESCAC colleges in The Boston Globe:

"The New England Small College Athletic Conference (alias NESCAC or the 'Little Ivies')"

The Boston Globe; September 20, 1985; p. 36. Mercury42 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The Observer of Case Western Reserve University similarly equates "Little Ivy League" with NESCAC.

("Mentoring Program Links Faculty and Student Athletes"; Matt Cannan; September 22, 2006.) Mercury42 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This has to stop. And so does trying to force an 18 member definition of Little Ivy that doesn't exist. In fact it contradicts the very premise of the article and the constituent citations that prove Little Ivy to be a descriptive, rather defined term. According to the citations certain sources consider the Little Three to be the little ivies, others consider the NESCAC to be little Ivies, others expand the term even further out while others condense it back [like Greene's Guide]. So why would one article from Bloomberg Businessweek (of all places) which took unheard of liberty with the term suddenly be treated like the holy grail of Little Ivy terminology??? So while the MEMBERS section (a.k.a Bloomberg's 18) should be removed, I am not going to do so until this issue is openly settled here in talk - because I do not want this page to keep going back and forth between removal and re-posting.

Lastly, Union College is not a member of the NESCAC. Many colleges have joined or dropped out of a league at some point or another (for example Dartmouth was a member of the Little Three before it left and Wesleyan took its place - yet that has no bearing on this article). So it is simply not relevant to this article either that Union College was once an NESCAC member. That is a fact that more belongs in the Union College article, not here. Anyway, if I sound grumpier than usual it's because it's late and I'm frustrated over citations being deleted. Still, I always do appreciate everyone's contributions and input :)

Btheory1978 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If I were you I'd take a break from this page, just for a little while, there seems be a lot of edit warring and this should be a fairly stable page. I believe those "citations" were removed because they were not cited to anything. I don't know where you're getting Dartmouth being part of the Little Three at any point and time. However, I do want to extend appreciation to you for finding valuable citations for the article. :) Wuheaty (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not the one who needs to take a break from this page. Apparently someone who either attends, or works at, one of the colleges listed in the Bloomberg article is using this page to try to promote their school. I made a number of very clear points... none of which of have been aptly disputed. There are no MEMBERS of the Little Ivy - that is a FACT. It is not an official grouping and there is no definitive member list of 18 schools! - it is a descriptive / colloquial term which was originated with the Little Three - which btw was sourced information included in the citations that were deleted). I am a high school guidance counselor... this is my area of specialty and it's extremely frustrating that I along with MANY former editors of this page have had to deal with the objectivity of this article being altered by people who either have a promotional motivation or are just ignorant of this topic. I have contributed vital information to this page and I'm sorry Wuheaty but I've been way too patient with your ongoing deletion of material, and your attempts to revert this page without any informed justification. You do not demonstrate a thorough understanding of this subject. For example, YES... Wesleyan did replace Dartmouth in the Triangular League. This is basic knowledge to me and others who know the history of these colleges. You could have done a simple internet search to verify this information. So here it is...

A forerunner of the present group was the New England Intercollegiate Triangular League, founded in 1882. Its members were Amherst, Dartmouth, and Williams. This group lasted until 1899, when Dartmouth withdrew. Wesleyan, Williams, and Amherst formally banded together in 1899 as the Triangular League. Although it lasted only three years, the Triangular League served to cement the rivalries that had been building in the 1880s and 1890s.

Anyway, the Bloomberg Article does NOT take precedent over every other source. In fact, there appears an active effort to delete sources that stand in your way of wanting the Bloomberg article to be the definitive source. Why on earth was the reference to Greene's Guide to the Hidden Ivies deleted? That is a definitive college guide and it aptly demonstrates that the Little Ivies are NOT, nor have ever BEEN, known as group of 18 colleges. Nobody is trying to delete the Bloomberg reference. In fact, it's been kept in the article's heading and then repeated again under "TERM USAGE" where it belongs. But it is not the one and all MEMBERS definition list, because the Little Ivies don't have members. It is not like the Ivy League, or NESCAC that do have defined, official, concrete membership.

I'm not going to allow this page to be reverted anymore. And if this continues I'm going to advocate for the deletion of this page. Wikipedia is supposed to provide accurate and objective information and as soon as that is interfered with or compromised the entire integrity of the encyclopedia diminishes. So to repeat, as a FACT, the Little Ivies are not a group of 18 colleges - so how much more skewed could this article get when the first sentence states that there are 18 Little Ivy Colleges. Little Ivy is a colloquial / academic descriptive term and that is the information that should be provided.

Btheory1978 (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey I'm not against you big guy! :) I like your edits and support them. I'm just a little concerned about all the edit warring. I think the 18:03, 3 April 2017‎ version of this article is the best rendition. Thank you for all your great work. Wuheaty (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know the original quotation from Greene's? As the entry currently exists on this page it has been modified. This modification could reflect, but could also belie, the accuracy of this inclusion. Mercury42 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Page

In consideration of the revelation that users Trenta5, Odwallah, Yorkshiremany, FirstLordofDowningStreet, Wentworth Washington and maybe more were all sock puppets of the now banned DonSpencer1, I am reverting this page back to 01:54, 27 April 2016‎. This date was chosen as it reflects my first suggestion that sockpuppetry was occurring and reflects the last state of the page prior to DonSpencer1 engaging in serious and damaging edit warring via sock puppetry. (Please see revision history comment for 01:54, 27 April 2016). If someone has a problem with this, please explain why and I will be glad to discuss it with you.74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No citations for verification of accuracy of article

Scrolling through this article it seems like it lacks appropriate, if any, citations: I've tagged so it can be addressed. I think a user has identified socks editing this page so that might be why. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Thanks.134.181.176.105 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Article is cited.74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the article

I believe, after looking through this article, its talk page and its history that it should be deleted. To borrow a phrase from 74.70.116.187:

The best thing to do may be to completely delete this article. As I have spent a considerable amount of time of this article, I do not come to this decision lightly. However, I believe this article will be the perpetual victim of self-promotion and increasingly vitriolic rhetoric. I have tried to champion a level of inclusion and reasonable reliance upon valid metrics rather than resort to edit wars. However, I fear that the amorphous nature of the criteria for inclusion in this article may leave it the victim of endless edit wars and circular arguments.

To me this article isn't based in fact and is just a mechanism for boosterism. To delete this article see; Wikipedia:How to delete a page. 134.181.176.105 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

♦ I tend to agree. While a lot of work has gone into this page by a lot of fellow editors, I do not see that this list is based in something objective. Svyatoslav (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It's already been voted to be deleted, let's delete it. User:Svyatoslav if you could do the honors thank you. Digeratey (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are deleting this article then you should also delete the articles on Public Ivies, Southern Ivies and the Black Ivy League as none of those informal affiliations has any more official designation than the Little Ivies.74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't expand to detract. "If we want to give one person a dollar then we would have to give all the people in the world a dollar to be fair, so lets not give one person a dollar." You are free to discuss the deletion of the other pages on their talk pages. I feel like the best action (so everyone's needs are addressed) is to either redirect to the NESCAC or delete. 134.181.176.105 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE, I think I have found a solution for everyone! If it redirects to the NESCAC page, that states only certain members are a part of the group (members of the NESCAC are known as Little Ivies, etc.) so not to exclude others, other schools can add it on their pages, so these other non-NESCAC schools can be accommodated for. So if Swarthmore is one, on its page it can be stated that is "Little Ivy" and so on. Will redirect. 134.181.176.105 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I will leave it to you kind editors to decide if you want to delete or redirect to the NESCAC page. All of it is all set up in the edit history, just click on what you'd like to do. 134.181.176.105 (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that this article is cited.74.70.116.187 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Map

Forgive me for being confused, but I do not understand the purpose of the map in the infobox. It does not give the extent of the NESCAC or of the Little Ivies. It is a map of those states that are in the "Northeast." I suggest that this map includes only the Little Ivies. Svyatoslav (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol. There is no definitive list of the little Ivies thus you can't map them. Remove the map. Delete the article. It looks like the NESCAC article already mentions the Little Ivies with respect to their conference.Digeratey (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

While there may be some overlap, NESCAC is most definitely not synonymous with Little Ivies.74.70.116.187 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)