Talk:Wharton School

World's first collegiate business school vs. US oldest business school - why both sentences need to be included

I believe that Wharton school should be introduced as both "United States' first business school" and world's first collegiate one.

My basic thesis is the fact that being the world's first collegiate school does not logically imply or include also being "US first business school", because 'collegiate' is a sub-segment of the term 'business school'.

Imagine this example: a) The world’s oldest laptop (say from 1990) is in San Francisco; b) United States’ oldest desktop computer (say from 1980) is in New York.

Now if you combine the two cases, you have that both the world's oldest laptop is in San Francisco and that the US' oldest computer is in New York. I.e. the two statements are not mutually exclusive.

Consequently looking at the business schools case, you could very possibly have a graduate business school founded in 1850 in the US and then Wharton in 1881 as the world's first collegiate school, in which case Wharton would not be anymore US oldest business school. And this is what the article seems to imply if you take off US first business school, which is why I find logically wrong to mention only one of the two.

Hence, I think that the two statements indicate two important and different characteristics in describing this item that are not implied by each other. In particular for a rigorous encyclopedia such descriptive parts should be integrated in presenting the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrin-mabra (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to establish what is meant by collegiate. Does it mean "undergraduate"? Does it mean "attached to a university"? I think bragging about how old it is is stupid at any level, but I'll defer to others' opinions if need be. I've already spent too much time on this article as is, so my interest in it is waning rapidly. Esrever ^(klaT) 22:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tabrin on this issue - they are two separate categories, and adding both to the introduction doesn't make the article more complex, but rather it clarifies it (collegiate, as per above, is a bit obscure) and adding a second category makes it more complete. It is not uncommon to put 2 or plus categories in an introduction for wikipedia or any other encyclopedia - look for example at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Manfredini (2nd oldest in the world, but oldest Italian in the world, whereas MG is oldest Italian in Italy), or even: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura (oldest living man, oldest living person in Japan and in Asia, first Japanese to be oldest living man, oldest Asian person ever to have lived in three centuries, plus another 5 or 6 categorization...) That is to say Wikipedia should scientifically report all the relevant facts, and which one is the oldest business school in the United States is a relevant fact from any point of view, and above all from the historical one. US was the leading force of the industrial revolution in 1850-1900 and whether that had an influence on the academia is by any means relevant and should be made available to everyone. It is even more relevant than world's first collegiate business school, because to some extent this does not link it to anything of historical relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigikort (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For you both: there is no need to leave identical comments on my talk page and on this talk page. I'll see the message in both places. I still think it's silly (if collegiate is "a bit obscure", then find a clearer word), but change it to read however you want. Esrever ^(klaT) 02:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

good point - have been travelling over the past few days - saw this only now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrin-mabra (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Under WP:Move the common name should be used. The school refers to itself always at "The Wharton School", never as "Wharton School" Check their website at www.wharton.upenn.edu to verify if you'd like. Swim900 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Swim900 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:THE reads, "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not." One would not write, "Bill was graduated in 1963 from The Wharton School." Certainly Wharton doesn't capitalize the themselves. See the bolded text in the dean's message here, for example. Esrever ^(klaT) 13:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added The Wharton School as an "also known as", which other school articles use for abbreviations like Caltech, UC Berkeley, UCLA. I don't see them putting The Wharton School on the majority of their logos and brands, but agree it is as noteworthy as the full title. You can then use it for the rest of the article where appropriate. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this too, for what it's worth. The Wharton School isn't a nickname, an abbreviation, or even a portmanteau like Caltech. Wharton consistently uses just Wharton School, a shorter form of the full name, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. They don't put The Wharton School on their logos or branding materials, and the school doesn't seem to refer to itself as The Wharton School on their website, at least that I can find this morning. The isn't part of the official or unofficial name, it seems. Esrever ^(klaT) 17:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The bottom of their official website says "The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania". Here's its BusinessWeek profile which says The Wharton School but then the prose writeup refers to the school as "Wharton". -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And I still think it's silly to say that it's "also known as The Wharton School". If nothing else, it just seems somewhat redundant. Again, I don't think those three words together qualify as an official name or unofficial nickname. It's like saying the President of the United States is also known as the President. Esrever ^(klaT) 18:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying my request: AngusWOOF is right, every official website says "The Wharton School" on the page bottom. It is a "official or commonly used proper name" that WP:THE refers to as correct usage of "The". Redundant, perhaps, but 100% official. Swim900 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet, when it's written about in the website's running text, it's not called The Wharton School, but the Wharton School (or usually just Wharton). Esrever ^(klaT) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

But never, ever, "Wharton School", as appears in the article title. If Wharton's website uses the word "School", they always use "the" or "The". Swim900 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. You wouldn't capitalize the when referring to Wharton in running text (since Wharton itself does not). Therefore, the the doesn't belong in the article name, either. If the Wharton School's name was "The Wharton School", then the school itself would use that style consistently, no? Esrever ^(klaT) 04:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I almost agree. The University of Pennsylvania's Facebook page is titled "University of Pennsylvania", as your logic correctly suggests, but Wharton's is different: it is "The Wharton School." That must be given credence as the official name under WP:THE. Review https://www.facebook.com/UnivPennsylvania and https://www.facebook.com/WhartonSchool. Swim900 (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I really don't think a Facebook page "must" be given credence under anything. And even if I did, one might note that the page itself is facebook.com/WhartonSchool, not facebook.com/TheWhartonSchool. Esrever ^(klaT) 13:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it's not usually capitalised in running text then we don't use it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sock SPA

Some of the edits to this article are being made by one editor (or group of editors) establishing multiple accounts, making a few edits and discarding the account. The issue is more prominent at List of Wharton School alumni. I am beginning to address the issue at Talk:List_of_Wharton_School_alumni#Sock_SPA but wouldn't be surprised if the issue spills over here. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else smell something? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please consult WP:HSOCK for guidance if you are concerned about sockpuppetry. —Eustress 00:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Issues with History section

I've removed several lines from the article that I believe violate WP:NPOV -- mostly related to WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:WEASEL, and WP:BOOSTER -- and relying solely upon Wharton sources. (Examples, "At the time of the Wharton School's founding, the idea of a collegiate business school was a novel concept.The Wharton School's rise transformed the study of business from a trade into a rigorous academic and research-intensive endeavor.... The Wharton School and its faculty, comprising many Nobel laureates, are accredited with pioneering and shaping emerging fields such as accounting, finance, econometrics, entrepreneurship, business law, management, marketing, insurance, real estate and operations and information management.") Per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Article_structure, the History section should include specific and noteworthy events. —Eustress 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, your deletions included a number of historical, noteworthy achievements that meet the Wikipedia guidelines, including the creation of capital-based risk standards, high yield bonds, and being the first collegiate business school, all of which are beyond dispute. To ensure only the inappropriate content is deleted and the appropriate content is preserved, some of the edits will need to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRoyce624 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is my point... "creation of capital-based risk standards"... which ones? when? and what non-wharton.upenn.edu source supports? Same with "high-yield bonds". Regarding "being the first collegiate business school," this is also vague and needs clarification (see Business_school#Notable_firsts).

We need precision, reliability, and a NPOV in this article because (WP:5P) "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press...." —Eustress 22:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Eustress is right on this. Noteworthy points will be discussed in independent reliable sources and can be added in neutral terms. Issues sourced to Wharton/Penn and presented in glowing terms (tvhat sound like they came from Wharton/Penn) are not acceptable. Find independent reliable sources, write it up (remove the majority of the adverbs and adjectives) and we'll have something. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see where the ambiguity lies in being the first business school affiliated with a university. Also, capital-based risk standards is actually quite specific as an academic concept.RRoyce624, 23:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC).

I can see your point regarding source variety. But undisputed matters like research awards won by professors, and the academic contributions leading to those awards, are simply fact-based.RRoyce624, 23:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC).

Noteworthy "research awards won by professors, and the academic contributions leading to those awards" will be discussed in independent reliable sources. In an article on an academic, there will be awards that are not noteworthy because there are 18 bazillion and 3 awards in the world. Most of them are not noteworthy. Of the awards that are noteworthy enough for that academic's article, most of them are not noteworthy for their school's article. The majority of both awards will be included in the academic's CV and on the school's site. This is promotional. How do we decide which awards to include in the article? Discussion in independent reliable sources: If such sources which are primarily about Joe Blow discuss the award, they might make sense in Blow's article. If such sources which are primarily about Soulsucker University discuss the awards, they might make sense in the University's article. "Factual" is not the issue. Peacockery is. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wharton as first b-school in U.S.

I think all that can be reliably supported for now is that Wharton was the first b-school in the U.S. (consistent with listing at Business_school#Notable_firsts), which I've updated the article to reflect. If other reliable sources are identified saying differently, please share them here so we can review. —Eustress 23:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wharton created CAPM?

@RRoyce624 Where in the source you provided (Wharton Alumni Mag) does it say Wharton created CAPM? —Eustress 23:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing per WP:SILENCE —Eustress 16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wharton created high-yield (junk) bonds?

Wharton alumnus Michael Milken is in fact largely attributed with pioneering junk bonds (see NYT and BI), but it wasn't the Wharton School that created them. If he were faculty during the creation, perhaps it would be appropriate for History section, but Alumni section seems more appropriate (as long as you don't forget to mention Milken's multiple fraud convictions). Again, the danger of relying on primary sources. —Eustress 23:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability of MBA/MA Int'?

Regarding notability, can we remove this already? "Wharton faculty created the world's first MBA/MA program in international management." No independent source, and so what? —Eustress 23:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed per WP:SILENCE —Eustress 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHprint/v012/p0029-p0036.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140407073755/http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/conferences-and-seminars.cfm to http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/conferences-and-seminars.cfm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 06:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Page name again

It's stated here that the current article title Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania is a name I rarely see in print compared to simply "Wharton Business School" or such.

Is there a more common name that would be more appropriate as the article name? Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Transferring to Wharton's undergraduate program

The section on Wharton's undergraduate program states that you cannot transfer into Wharton. This is currently not the case.[1] In fact, the program has one very famous alumni who did just that, as far back as the '60s; President Donald J. Trump transferred from Fordham to Wharton's undergraduate program, around 1966, entering as a junior.[2]

Theologikal (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

liberal arts vs. exclusively business

I found this a bit confusing: "the program was changed with liberal arts education doubling to almost half of the curriculum [...] Since then, Wharton faculty have focused exclusively on business education." It seems to me to be a contradiction or at the very least non-intuitive: I am interpreting that 'students of the Wharton school study with non-Wharton faculty'. I think maybe some change in the wording may help here.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 21:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

For consistency throughout the M7 school wikipedia pages, "Northwestern" should be added in front of "Kellogg" alongside "Chicago Booth" and "MIT Sloan" in the last sentence of the introduction. In addition, "UPenn Wharton" is missing as one of the M7 schools listed in the statement. M7bswiki (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Northwestern, as the parent school, does not usually blend Kellogg's nomenclature in that manner, as that school typically goes by Kellogg or Kellogg School. As the article concerns Wharton, it is already included in the statement "is one of the M7." Spintendo      04:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

In the "History" section, please replace the link to the Industrial Revolution with a link to the Second Industrial Revolution. The (first) Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840, while the second was a phase of rapid industrialization in the final third of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. The latter, not the former, is the context for something that was occurring in 1881. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your logic here and have made the appropriate change. Esrever ^(klaT) 17:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference 14 seems to be outdated

The CEO of GE is now a Wharton instead of Harvard alum, but I'm unable to edit the document due to the edit restrictions. Fortune 100s with Wharton CEOs:

Google J&J General Dynamics Oracle GE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evancrouse (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Change "Wharton's MBA program is ranked No. 3 in the world according to Business Insider[6], No. 1 in the United States according to Forbes[7], and is No. 3 in the United States according to the 2019 U.S. News & World Report ranking.[8] Meanwhile, Wharton's MBA for Executives and undergraduate programs are also ranked No. 2 in the United States by the same publication."

to

"The undergraduate program at the Wharton School has been ranked number one by U.S. News & World Report every single year since inception. Wharton's MBA program is ranked No. 1 in the United States according to Forbes[7] and No. 3 in the United States according to the 2019 U.S. News & World Report ranking.[8] Meanwhile, Wharton's MBA for Executives is ranked No.2 in the United States by the same publication."

Reason: The Business Insiders MBA Ranking is just an exact republishing of the U.S New Resport ranking, so they're duplicates. Wharton's undergraduate is not ranked No.2, it is ranked No.1 (every year since inception nonetheless), so the original copy is wrong. 173.183.116.162 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Notable faculty

Hello all,

This page really looks nicely developed already. To not mess with processes / discussions I might have missed, I wanted to quickly write here, before I start any work:

Following my initial research, there's quite a few notable faculty member and alumni still missing. I would therefore like to add a "notable faculty" section (usually combined with the Alumni as a general "Notable people" section) and create a seperate list of notable faculty. This could, in the mid-term, then be combinded with the current alumni list to a "List of notable people". Or the two may remain seperate.

Let me know if there are any thoughts, objections or other ideas we could take into consideration here. Many thanks for all of your work on this excellent page! Looking forward to taking it a step further with all of you.

Cheers, --RuhriJörg 05:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought that since I fell out of bed this morning, I might aswell use the time and start ;). Here you find my ongoing draft for the faculty list... --RuhriJörg 06:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Donald Trump is listed in the introduction as an alumnus of the MBA program. He is not. He received a BS from Wharton. It's not obvious to me how to edit the introduction to correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.120.228 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence starts:

• The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (/ˈhwɔːrtən/ WHAWR-tən; also known as Wharton Business School, The Wharton School or simply Wharton) ...

Somewhere in the MoS (that I can't immediately find), it says not to list abbreviated forms of the name that common sense says would exist. This would eliminate the phrase, ", The Wharton School or simply Wharton", reducing the size of this lengthy lead sentence. Any objections to this removal? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The current configuration is consistent with other business schools such as Tuck School of Business and University of Chicago Booth School of Business, for example. I'd leave as is. Contributor321 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also remove those two names from the "Other names" field of the infobox. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to removing the other names from the infobox. Even though they're shown in one of the examples indicated above (Tuck), I think including them in the infobox as well as in the lead sentence is overkill. Contributor321 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Notables in lead

The fourth paragraph (part of the third before I split it) in the lead lists a bunch of notable alumni and companies whose CEOs are alumni, some of which I don't immediately recognize (and I was a securities trader). This seems like far too much detail for the lead; even the Alumni section has been relocated to a separate article. Can we drop this paragraph altogether, or trim it to a handful of names using some criteria, like page views for the top 4 people and market cap for the top 4 companies? How about just moving the whole thing to the Alumni section, except maybe the lead clause "Wharton has over 95,000 alumni in 153 countries"? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I went ahead and changed that paragraph to make it more concise. See if it is an improvement; if not, feel free to change it. Keithman3 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding Wharton Campus in SF

San Francisco has a Wharton campus, should this be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MySixthSense (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit war to include "undegraduate and graduate" in the lede sentence

An unregistered editor has begun an edit war to expand the lede sentence so it explicitly says that the school has undergraduate and graduate programs. The sentence is already long and unwieldy so we should be very wary of making it even longer. Further, the first sentence in the paragraph that follows makes this exact same point; why do we need to make it twice in the lede? ElKevbo (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the phrasing "awards Bachelor of Science in Economics undergraduate and graduate degrees" correct?

See also: § Edit war to include "undegraduate and graduate" in the lede sentence

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)