Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy

NPOV

Quote: "The Exeter/Andover football rivalry is the oldest football rivalry in the country, and is considered to be one of the most important rivalries in all of sports."

I don't know whether or not the Exeter/Andover rivalry is the oldest in the country and I don't intend to challenge it, but it seems to be a bit of hyperbole to describe the football rivalry of two college preparatory schools as 'one of the most important rivalries in all of sports'.

Some of the other paragraphs - for example the one which begins by describing how the academy 'greatly values' international perspectives appear to be speaking more from the perspective of an Exeter admissions director than an impartial encyclopedia entry. ---

This whole article is terrible. It's as if the author never knew what NPOV stood for. It's not even well written. "Is most well known for it's academic excellence." Purely idiotic. The list of notable alumni includes not one nobel prize winner.

"Exeter is well known for heavy drinking and drug abuse by its students."

-This comment was removed from the text, as it seems completely unsubstantiated, and does not reflect my experiences with the Academy (I recently graduated from PEA).

I go there you a$$%@!*$ !!! The only problem with PEA is that it lets gay people join! You are just saying that it has a bad education because 1: you didn't get in or 2: you are working some third shift job at Burger King. If it isn't true don't say it, loser.

I seem to remember a book being written about a student from Exeter who was jailed for drug dealing at the school in the 90's

-Do you remember the name of the book? It is my belief that drinking and drug abuse is the same at PEA as it is at other private schools.

-Doctor Dealer was written about an Exonian turned dentist turned the biggest cocaine dealer in Philly, though I would agree that drinking and drug abuse are not more prevalent at Exeter than at other boarding schools. (I graduated in 2004)

There was a lot of drug use when I was there but it was not any greater than public high schools and other prep schools. I have talked with other alums about it and they were suprised. I think if you didn't run in the right circles you didn't know about it...for obvious reasons. We did pot, shrooms, ritilan, diet pills, coke, acid, you name it. Quite frankly it was easier to get and hide drugs than booze.

Most "Harknessful"?

Quote:

"Harkness" classes are Exeter's trademark, and they are considered the worlds finest method of teaching-- so effective, in fact, that schools from around the world have attempted to copy the method. However, Exeter still remains the home of Harkness teaching and education. No where else are Harkness classes taught with such dedication or so central to the identity of the institution.

I respect the fact that Harkness Tables is a wonderful teaching method, but to go so far as to question the success elsewhere? There's a lot of pride (and POV) in this statement. (pride about the idea of coming up with an oval slab of wood.)

-The Harkness System is charachterized by much more than "an oval slab of wood;" it is a unique pedagogy that emerges from a full respect of the student.

You've managed to misspell that last one there. Also, I think the greeks were doing roughly the same thing two millennia ago...

Perhaps, but few schools are doing it now, and PEA does it very well (I am also a recent graduate). Do you see any other school with the Harkness Table as the central aspect of its Web page, or any school that sells widely popular (with students, faculty, and alumni, at least) posters of its Harkness tables? I think that this does embody "central to the identity of the institution."

I don't doubt that such a focus is part of what makes Exeter a great school (along with the two thirds of a billion dollars in endowments...), but regardless of how original the idea was, I don't think the Harkness table is so widely regarded as "the worlds finest method of teaching" that such a statement can be made without qualification. That section should probably be toned down a little.

I'll agree; i get the feeling of a general slant either supporting the academy or degrading it throughout the article. I'm not sure where to begin on fixing it, anyone have any suggestions for sections that seem absolutely terrible?82.83.50.176 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

-There is much discussion in the boarding school world as to who officially founded the Harkness method. Harkness actually went to St. Paul's and donated to a number of prep schools and universities (including exeter). I know that St. Paul's uses the Harkness table as extensively as exeter (from mathematics classes to humanities). To say the harkness method is exclussively Exeter is slightly arrogant.

It seems to me that Boarding school graduates and students (I am the former) tend to guard themselves zealously against saying anything unattractive about their school to people who don't attend it, and much of the issues with the hyperbole about Harkness tables in this article stem from that. The article reads like an admissions brochure. I think the rhetoric needs to be toned down. Mjl0509 05:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Endowment

I changed the endowment statistic because the way it currently was worded made it seem that they had the largest per-student endowment. Although it is accurate that they have the largest endowment, it is a bit deceiving when they follow with the per-student endowment talk. They do not have the largest per-student endowment. Here is the math. Exeter $706,000,000/1056 Students = $668,560 per-student

St. Paul's 353,000,000/520 students = $678,846 per-student

Both endowment sizes were as of June 2005. 11/9/05

Staff?

We say very little about the staff--should they be described? Furthermore, should we list notable staff members? I know that author and Pulitzer Prize nominee Frederick Buechner worked at this school for several years, but I don't want to create a list of one. Any suggestions? Jwrosenzweig 22:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Dan Brown worked as an English teacher, as I remember.

Author Bryan Mark Rigg taught a history class at the Access Exeter Summer School. If you don't know who he is google him.

Lex Luthor

does someone have a source for the claim that Lex Luthor in Smallville went to Exeter? I watch that show and I don't recall that being mentioned (and I would have remembered that). I can't seem to google it either. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) June 28, 2005 23:59 (UTC)

OK, now I remember, it was that principal that used to be Lex's headmaster at Exeter. Sorry about that, I added it back. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) June 29, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Lex Luthor went to "Excelsior". The principal was Lex's headmaster at "Excelsior". "Excelsior" is a fictional boarding school.

Slang and Jargon

This list is waaay too long. Entries such as "Academy Life Day", aren't really Jargon, that's just what the events are called right? Other things like "Midnight Scream" aren't specific to Exeter, they can be found on Boarding School and College campuses across the nation. Can we pare this list down please? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• agreed. i'm not trying to pick a fight with the writers but the inclusion of Exeter jargon does not belong in an encyclopedic article about Philips Exeter academy. i do not see how it could appeal to anyone besides Exeter students. -- Bubbachuck 14:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Umm. OK, but that's not what I said. I personally am not opposed to the inclusion of jargon, as jargon is present on many other articles. I just suggested that the article is too long and contains some items that aren't jargon, they're the proper name of an event or administrative detail exclusive to the school. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK you have a point. jargon that is specific to Phillips Exeter Academy and has some encyclopedic relevance is OK. but i would say the scope is very limited to what can be included, and the writers should be able to back up their inclusion. otherwise it should be considered fancruft. I will formally request that the original writers of the content self-police themselves and if it is not done so in an appropriate amount of time I will RFC. I am not familiar with jargon on other pages...could you provide some examples, DropDeadGorgias? -- Bubbachuck 05:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about the following jargon:

Bubble - The semi-circular glass enclosure on the North side (facing Webster Hall) of Wentworth Hall. Can also refer to the "Exeter Bubble" whereby everyone within the Exeter community is utterly disconnected with any semblance of the outside world - whether it be popular culture or world news.

Especially the section bolded (I did the bolding to bring attention to it). As a recently Exeter community resident, I am offended that people think we are disconnected with the outside world. I am wondering if this should not state instead: within the Exeter Academy community, as they are NOT the same thing as the Exeter community. Trust me, as a Graduate of the public High School in Exeter, we were not disconnected, though we did wonder about the "Academy students" (as we would call them if we weren't cussing them out). I'm not changing it yet, since I see that there are other issues on jargon, but if I don't see some reason why the above was used, then I may change it.--Azathar 02:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The 'Bubble' is hardly specific to Exeter. I've heard it used about almost every small town, small university, boarding school, etc.... While Exeter may not be 'disconnected', I'd argue that any place so remotely located is going to inevitable suffer from a bubble effect of some sort. Needless to say, the whole section needs to be trashed. --Orang55 04:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Define "remotely"? Exeter is only about 40 miles north of Boston, and has a amtrak connection to Boston now, so I doubt it is remote. I'm sure that the term "bubble" is hardly specific, but, the way it was written, it appeared to be putting down the residents of the community, which is very NPOV.--Azathar 07:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed from 333 in Exeter slang and jargon

I removed the following line from 333 in Exeter slang and jargon: The best papers are often published in academic journals. as there is no proof of this. Show some proof that PEA students are publishing articles in academic journals before they get to college/university. For some reason, I find this statement a bit hard to swallow, especially being a former Exeter, NH resident.--Azathar 06:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article, as i noted above (and tagged), is plagued with POV writing (among other problems). As a result, i reccomended it be removed from Showcase Article listing, and others agreed. To fix this, I propose a fairly massive overhaul with the following proposals.

1. Remove Exeter slang and jargon for unverifiablity.
2. Merging of School's origins and philosophy and Educational approach into a History section. Maybe the Harkness Table deserves a subsection under History, but i think the majority of the section right now is a little bit of pride manifesting itself in an unnecesary few paragraphs. It can be cut down, made more concise, and ultimately more encyclopedia....(<---insert adjective form of word).
3. Bringing School Endowment somewhere else (probably the intro). It could be shortened without losing material and thusly doesnt, in my opinion, deserve its own section.
4. I'm not 100% sure about the Books or movies with portrayals of Exeter alumni, students, or staff section. I'm not sure what it is, but it just seems inappropriate/unverifiable to me. But, on account of the fact that it is verifiable (outside, perhpas of "a thinly vieled fictionalized"...how is it a thinly vieled description of Exter and not Deerfield or Loomis Chafee or Andover?) and i cant find a reason it doesnt belong here, i'll let it stay...unless someone else has good reason for it to go.
5. In essence, i find that this article has little more content than the Andover article, it just spreads it out over more, unnecessary sections / contains unecessary, unverifiable sections. The section on the harkness table is one thing this article has that the andover article doesnt, and clearly that should stay (the NPOV parts). Outside of that, though, i'd say they should follow (essentially) the same template.
6. A split of the Notable Alumni section to a List of Phillips Exeter Academy people page, similar to many colleges. Some high schools claim notable alumni and list three or four people, but the list here takes up close to half the page. A similar move for the Andover notable alumni section would also be in order.

I'll say it now before anyone "figures it out" or accuses me of pushing some agenda...I am a graduate of Andover. However, suprising as it may sound, im not proposing this to rob the Exeter article of information that makes it a better article than the one on my school - just the opposite, in fact, i'm trying to improve this article. i'd just prefer the two both be good. So, all that being said, what do you all think? jfg284 21:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you broadly that this article fails the NPOV test, and that it should be toned down in general. On the other hand, I think your suggestion about the jargon section is misguided. That information cannot, of course, be sourced, but it is verifiable, in that the presence of so many editors who clearly have first-hand experience of that jargon ensures that only legitimate entries will pass consensus here.

Also, to answer your question about 'A Seperate Peace' (to which the 'thinly vieled' comment applies) there is no difficulty identifying the fictionalized school as Exeter. The veil in question is so thin that some might not characterize it as a veil at all; rather, Knowles simply changed the school's name. Locations on campus are left intact, in some cases featuring prominently in the narrative (e.g. the Academy steps).

Ncsaint 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• LOL, I would have to agree too, and I am not a graduate of either Phillips School, though I am a Graduate of the PUBLIC school in Exeter, and though I wasn't very fond of the PEA kids while I was there, I wasn't as biased as some of my friends were. I don't have an agenda, other then seeing that this article is fair, balanced (god, I sound like FoxNews), and doesn't put the other permenant residents of Exeter (or the town itself) in a bad light, nor take any pot shots against my old high school. As for the Jargon section, I find it interesting to learn something (especially of a high school where I gre up down the street, but wasn't allowed to have much to do with it, as we weren't particularly welcomed there unless we had a reason to be there (i.e., hockey games and similar things). Very rarely were there any attempts to get to know each other. So, I find it interesting, and would like it to stay, though I would like to see it verifiable (like saying that history papers have been published in academic journals, papers written by high schoolers (the 333 entry), let's see a cited source on this).--Azathar 05:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, in response to the response to the Books/Movies section...fine. Like I said, my immediate reaction was to take out the section, but i know that immediate reaction has no grounding. I'd never read A Seperate Peace, and I was really just asking expecting to get an answer like that. And, in response to the two responses regarding jargon: I agree. It is rather interesting, both to those from a prep school and to those from outside it. To me, its interesting to see how common themes (11th grade american history paper and everything related to discipline, just to name a few) are reffered to differently across two campuses. However, it fails WP:NOR and WP:V. Period. As interesting as it may be, it needs to be cited. And "i use it all the time" is not a proper citation. The following two quotes come from WP:NOR and (in my opinion) accurately sum up the debate here.

• In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth.
• "No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify).

So, in short, as interesting as it may be, it doesn't belong here (unless we can get a citation on it).jfg284 07:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Azathar, I agree entirely about comments like the published 333 one. I was under the impression that that comment had been removed, as it should be. I'll double-check that and get rid of it if it is there. I'm sure that in the history of the paper, some number of 333's have been published in some sort of journals, but the implication that journal-ready papers are steadily being churned out at PEA is obviously ridiculous.

Jfg: I think you misinterpret the comment about expert contributions, but that is perhaps irrelevant since I think you are probably right that the jargon section might go against the letter of Wikipedia policy. A google search on the terms included returns this page (obviously), as well as an Exeter published guide for parents. However, you could presumably argue that such a guide wouldn't qualify as a respectable source, and you might have an argument.

This, I think, is an area where there is a wide gap between Wikipedia policy and practice. There are countless articles on subjects which have not been written about in 'reputable journals'; there are 'jargon' sections in many articles similar to this one, but to use a different sort of example, many articles on music groups fall into this category, for example. No source more robust than an official website can confirm even the most basic facts about many bands included in Wikipedia, yet the articles about them thrive. It seems to me that the de facto policy (and perhaps this should be made explicit) is that in a vacuum of any contreversy, common knowledge seems to be admissable. That is, when, as here, no one whatsoever has grounds for calling the veracity of content into question, when, in fact, everyone who knows anything about a subject agrees and comes to a consensus on that content, then the standard for sourcing is significantly lowered. It appears to me that a compromise along those lines is in place for a vast quantity of Wikipedia content, and so I would ask if your objection to it here might not be based on more than a detached interest in maintaining Wikipedia standards.

Ncsaint 01:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, it just seemed self-important to me. Most of these terms may be more accurately described as "prep school terms" instead of exeter terms, and i just found it to stick out to me as something unnecessary. It fell directly into the category of no original research (in my opinion, at the very least), so i asked about it here. You're right, i've found that to be true - as well as a large amount of the material here (and with most schools) comes from the school's website. My idea was to bring this page up to standards from what appeared to be a heavily POV article with little sourcing, but if the consensus would prefer to keep the jargon/slang section in, i'm fine with it. My only (real) problem with it is i feel that it's tough to define: every group of friends has its own slang and shortenings, so it's really tough to define a school-wide jargon, if that makes any sense.

jfg284 16:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Ncsaint for your offer. I had deleted it, and haven't seen it back yet (the 333 reference). I had mentioned it again because I was just explaining my side in all of this :) I'm still not sure that high schoolers (even PEA students) are getting their high school history papers published in any sort of academic journal, but I could be wrong. Hence why citation is VERY important when making claims like that (not saying that you are, just saying in general).--Azathar 03:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

stricts

it's really 4 dickies to get stricts now? boy that would have changed my whole life.....