Talk:University of Michigan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Medical Campus

<== I would argue for "University of Michigan Health System." <==More comprehensive than simply the medical school, which might be a sub-page or sub-category. <== comment at 10/23/2005 at 10PM EST.

<==Thanks for prepping the stubs...I'll see if I am able to contribute... <== Some comments below about Ross School article and rankings. Please take a look, and thanks for the work...

However, if these were to be expanded, we should keep the ranking information to a minimum. The article for the business school has a cleanup tag at the top because of POV problems stemming from the gratuitous display of rankings. Pentawing 00:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

<=== as of 10/28/2005==> Not sure what you mean by POV or gratuitous: 1) POV I take to be point of view?; 2) if so, gratuitous itself is not neutral as to POV ;) . If the rankings are accurate, they would seem to me to meet the test required of articles that they be accurate. If the rankings are accurate, it is not clear to me how they violate POV (serious/sincere question)? As to "gratuitous", that word seems, itself, to be Non_neutral_POV. Logic for inclusion: 1)many college boards debate, ad nauseum, the validity/accuracy/methodology of various ranking systems; 2) It is clear that the question itself is not finite/closed/bounded: all rankings depend upon an assumption concerning the appropriate basis vectors to include; 3) to complete the syllogism, my theory was that a variety of sources would lend credence to the "neighborhood" in which the ranking resides. My final observation is that the rankings on the university website are: 1) stale; 2) not well organized; 3) unclear in part...my postings were an effort to clarify/unify what is not clear elsewhere. Conclusion: 1) if you wish to remove any inacccurate rankings please do so (as I posted them and will not revert your edits); 2) if you disagree that clarity is lent (remove the excess (in your view)); 3) if you think multiple sources do not lend corroboration, remove the least pertinent. I would prefer to see a measured degree of editing, as opposed to an ongoing flag that the article is questionable or needs cleansing...please use your judgment. :<==This entire paragraph could, in theory, apply to any instance of ranking on wikipedia...analgous to our somewhat joint manual of style...

To clarify, what I was concerned about is something called academic boosterism which Mamawrites brought up (placing only a positive point of view on an educational organization. Someone else placed the cleanup tag on the business school article, and there is already a discussion about it on the article's talk page of which I am not involved with). The fact of the matter is that someone else will complain about it.

<=== Understood and agreed.

The rankings are accurate, but as the complainer noted, it doesn't help if the rankings make up most of the article (Wikipedia is not meant as an advertising board or brochure.

<=== Understood and agreed.

I have encountered this problem many times with city articles that are going through the featured article process). To avoid having someone else scream at us for this (especially if a person from OSU or MSU stops by, sees the article, and "have their feelings hurt" :-), we should try to be balanced when it comes to content.

<=== Well, that is why I've tried to stick to arguably objective metrics. I say arguably given the fact that the underlying metrics (rankings) are not really metrics, but a blend of preconceptions/boosterism/hard-data. That is, rather, my point: rankings try to measure that which isn't really measurable, but until somebody stops the wheel, you can only lose by not participating.

In other words, you could add rankings but at the same time also mention the school's history as well as academic makeup and facilities.

<== See comments above: if a number is attached, I'm inclined to post it (if useful) on the theory that there is at least a tinge of objectivity. I now stay away from the other categories due to earlier criticism.

I don't question your contributions and I am trying not to insult you in any way (if I have insulted you, I apologize).

<== Absolutely no insult perceived...this sort of discussion/ajudication is part of building any community or commons. I value greatly your many contributions (as I've stated in the past). You add more in a more structured way than me...I'm just chipping into the pot the odd factoid.

However, one has to be careful over these things (especially with a lot of nasty politics in Wikipedia where one side puts their point of view forward, it escalates on the other side, and before anyone knows it the situation is out of control).

<== Well, that is why I explicitly suggested that you make choices in the ranking section...so you would know that I would not bother to revert them. I understand the POV theory, and that there may be too many rankings (added, as noted, for corroboration), but, by all means, use your judgement, or, if you choose, move them offline or to another section.

<== Final thought: the best policy may be for Wikipedia to step off the merry go round and simply refuse ALL rankings in ALL categories?

Pentawing 01:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, rankings should not be refused (rankings are a source of information like everything else) as long as it helps explain something (an assertion as to why an organization is good or bad) or gives an overview of an organization or place (e.g. why do people tend to flock to one institution over the other and vice-versa). It is not the content per se rather than the format, of how it is arranged and told. When it comes to articles, I try to give as much of an overview on a topic as possible, such as the College of Engineering (which I started). As you said, I tend to contribute in a very structured manner for I want the reader to have as much of an idea of the topic as possible. By the way, should the stubs be started now? I like to get rid of as many red links as possible. Pentawing 20:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I started the articles for the College of LS&A (under an IP address as my browser somehow logged me off without warning) and the UMHS. At the same time, I am trying to figure out a way to clean up the business school article. Pentawing 22:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A suggested/preliminary manual of style for this article

The following is a preliminary guideline when it comes to adding information concerning UM's quality. A peer reviewer, Tony1, would like claims concerning the University's alleged quality verified. Though UM is the one of the best in many things, it isn't enough to say it if there were nothing to back up that claim. Due to the nature of Wikipedia (where anyone can edit), numbers can be messed up and no one will notice if there isn't a means of finding the numbers' sources.

The guideline:

• Any new information (notably for statistics and controversial claims) should always be cited.
• Reason for citation policy: It doesn't matter how accurate or truthful the information is if one does not know who added the information or the source from where it came from. Such information should be viewed with dubiety. For more on this, see Taxman's commentary.
• Editors who control article content will use citations rather than initial entrant identity to determine the veracity of the content.
• Citation placement: requires one to use his/her best judgement.
• Citation placement rule of thumb:
  • Footnotes are used whenever numerical data is used only once within the article, or it comes from a source that is not used elsewhere in the article.
  • The format for footnotes can be found in the notes section.
  • Each "note" should be accompanied by a "ref" template where something is referenced.
  • The same applies to information that is lifted verbatim from a source, or to claims and information that could potentially be controversial (e.g. Ann Arbor, Michigan, is the best city in the world - what source did that come from).
  • For sources which are used extensively throughout the article (the same source used in several areas of the article, be it a book or webpage), having several footnotes is out of the question. Instead, it is placed in the reference section (as you might have noticed, there is a notes section (footnotes) and a references section).
  • When citing a source, using the MLA bibliography format is a start, but Wikipedia uses another format. Use the listings in notes and references to see how the source listings are formatted.

• General observations on style/form/content:
  • We should digest the information we have and write it so that anyone reading an article can understand the information quickly without having to go through a dataset.
    • For instance, one could generalize a rankings list and say that UM is one of the best in several fields.
    • Citing the source allows a skeptical reader to directly access the source and confirm the passage.
    • When we say that UM is the best at something, we have to be specific such as a program is the best due to academic reputation and/or research activities.
    • For any rankings lists, if you are going to use it extensively throughout the article, it is probably best to place it in the references section and not use footnotes.

• Key things to avoid:
  • A huge data dump that will overwhelm a reader.
  • Lists. The rule here is that everything must be in prose.
    • Another limitation is article size. The max size is 35kB. If the article is larger than that, we then have to summarize and cut away information.

Essentially, this article should provide an overview of UM. If people want to know about UM in detail, they can visit the University's website. Pentawing 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That or important detail can be covered in subarticles devoted to a specific topic, as is the case already for a few things. Wikipedia:Summary style is basically the goal, where this (or any) article properly prioritizes what it covers to cover all of the most important information, not giving too much coverage to small topics and not ignoring any important ones. - Taxman ^Talk 15:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, now that I've had a look at it, I think it does this quite well. I was sort of commenting in general. As for anything left before this is FAC worthy, I would say it just needs some toning down on the peacock language. The university is a good one and that is very well substantiated in the article in my opinion with enough specific stats and numbers. One could even explicitly state that part of the U's prestige is that it combines academic and athletic achievement at a level perhaps only beaten by Stanford. That that is important is a POV and that should be considered too. But there are places where there is gratuitous boasting. Part of the problem is in referring to things that are unique about the U like best at this that and the other small thing, but that might be ok because they add interest. Some of them should go if they aren't cited. I added the bit about largest number of living alumni, because that is quite often said, but I don't know if it is backed up by anything. Other examples are the article has a lot of "more than x blah blah" a lot, when it's not needed. Just say it has about 500 x and be done with it. Some negative aspects could be added also. Issues with GSI's teaching a lot of classes and sometimes having poor command of the language, intro classes are very large--I think there are several auditoriums that hold 400 or so students, many intro classes are seen as weed out classes, the intro calc and chemistry classes are considered particularly bad (relative to other classes at the U, I don't know about to other Uni's), the overall negative view of administration, including that students feel the admin thinks of them as numbers and $ only, that tuition increased rapidly while growing the endowment from <$1billion to over 4 billion in 10 yrs or so. Some of this might be covered but I didn't have a chance to reread every word. Citation and or explanation for the flag on the moon would be good too. Who put it on there again, and why/how did it get to be the one? Perhaps also mention the controversy with the Nike sponsorship selling our athletes is how it is described sometimes, and maybe reference to the basketball booster scandal. So some of this is pretty important, others are just ideas, I'll let you decide :). - Taxman ^Talk 14:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Michigan Stadium image

Can someone provide a free image (e.g. GFDL-license) of a football game at the Big House? The previous image has a questionable copyright. Pentawing 00:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a couple a pictures but they are in my other harddrive, which is disconnected from my current computer. Will get that pic before the first week of October end! __earth 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded Image:MichiganStadium.jpg. It is a resized version. Will upload the original later. __earth 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article needs a big cleanup. It is comprised of little facts put together with no logic or order. I think there is too much information in the article right now. We don't need a list of labor unions, museums, libraries, or all the different colleges. The list can be moved into a different article if important or just trimmed down to a few sentences. I'm going to be taking a bunch of stuff out and rewriting other parts this weekend so comment here if you object. commonbrick 30 June 2005 03:14 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. In fact, here are some things that I believe should be done:

• Place current History passage in a separate article and condense the section in this article.
• Reword first portion of Academics. Right now, the wording is incoherent.
• Add overview of research at the University, given that research expenditures at UM is one of the highest.
• Add more information concerning student life, notably various student groups, residential life, and traditions.
• External links should be footnotes or within the External links section, not within the main article.

However, the list of academic units should stay (I have seen this done at other university articles). As for libraries and museums, if you could think of a way of condensing the material without having to get rid of it, go ahead. I will also be doing some cleanup from time to time. Pentawing 30 June 2005 03:58 (UTC)

Whoops, the list of academic units is gone. I'll make a seperate page for them later seeing as how there are 20 of them. I'll condense the library and museum info into one section probably. There is just way to much information here on the university. We don't need ever facet of knowledge about it, just a general overview. One more idea I have is to move history section into a different article since it takes up a lot of the page.commonbrick 30 June 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I've moved the history page. The intro could be a little better but I will work on that later. The main history page could use a little updating and cleaning up too. commonbrick 1 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Seal

Someone who is better at manipulating graphics than I am should get the university seal with the lamp and "Artes Scientia Veritas" to either replace or supplement the block M. The block M is more for athletics, while the university seal is used more officially (like on the diplomas). The bit about the treaty obligations and land grant schools seems spurious. What treaty? The land grant school in Michigan is Michigan State, anyway, since Michigan was founded before the Land Grant act was passed.

U of M was created on a Native American land grant, if not a land grant under the federal Act. There's a plaque about it near the flagpole on the Diag...I oughta go read it before I leave for the summer and clear up those first couple sentences. =D Ed Cormany 01:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I asked to use the seal here, and here's the response I got.mnemonic 02:49, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, but we would not give permission for the seal to be used on this or any other website that is not under the direct purview of the University of Michigan.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Nancy Asin"

Somebody should get the colored seal. I thought we had one previously? Or maybe we could use it under fair use?__earth 04:20, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

There has to be a colored seal available under fair use. Keep searching...

Treaty and land grant

According to the University's Native American Studies department, "Today the university publicly avows that its very origins lie in a land grant obtained in Article 16 of the Treaty of Fort Meigs (1817)." -http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ac/native/um/treaty/ Remember that the University was founded in Detroit before it was moved to Ann Arbor. -- SwissCelt 16:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme Court Case

"In 2003 a lawsuit involving the school's affirmative action admissions policy reached the U.S. Supreme Court. President George W. Bush took the unusual step of publicly opposing the policy before the court issued a ruling, though the eventual ruling was in its favor."

I believe this is incorrect. The court ruled that the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies (which gave points for being a member of a specific ethnic minority) was too "quota-like" and ruled it as unconstitutional. In a separate suit, however, affirmative action was uphelp.

top five?

([1])

Institution Faculty Awards National Rank Year

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 39 6 2003

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 44 3 2002

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 52 1 2001

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 32 12 2000

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 45 7 1999

         Awards  Rank    Year

Average 42.4 5.8 2001

So, using above source, Michigan averages in the 6th spot for National Faculty Awards and National Faculty Rank.

RW--3/26/2005

=

I've added a link (that someone has been nice enough to clean up: thanks...), which shows the university rankings from outside sources as posted on the UM website. I've tabulated the rankings. Using USN&WR report (which tends to low-ball) and peer review (competitors who may or may not, in aggregate, lowball), the academic rankings: 1)70% of all departments/schools/programs in the top 10; 2) 92% departments in top 20. Aggregate graduate is about #9; aggregate undergraduate is roughly #6 (both metrics are averages of rankings with average age of 5 years ago). The recent (2005 ex-China) global rankings indicate #19. The endowment is #11 total. Research volume is #3-#4 total. Patent issuance is #7.

Michigan, on a dollar basis ($750MM in 2003), engages in more research than MIT and Caltech combined, and almost as much as MIT and Harvard combined. That is the input, the output isn't quite as many patents as Caltech, but more teaching prizes than MIT, and almost as many as Harvard. <== speaking to the point concerning the faculty ==> more Sloan/Guggenheim/MacArthur... More student and teaching associate Fulbrights in 2003/04 than ANY school, public or private.

In conclusion, when is a proper functional description of a set the minimum of the set? Answer: when ranking Michigan (because it is large, public, and admits too many in-state students). My Answer: the faculty probably is justifiably considered top 5; if you take the above metrics and rank UM out of the top 5-10 nationally (in aggregate), something is askew.

RW--3/24/2005

The article says "Michigan's teaching and research staff is considered one of the top five faculties in the country." Where is this information coming from? How is it being tabulated? I would guess Michigan is one of the top five public research universities (UC Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, UT, and possibly the University of Washington come to mind as candidates for that list). Is that what this means? It just seems like there would be a number of schools roughly at Michigan's level or higher, and this makes "top five" seem somewhat unlikely unless it's tabulated in a particular way (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, UPenn, Brown (possibly), Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, Wisconsin, Berkeley, UCLA come to mind and I'm probably forgetting some).

i wonder the same.

it seems that many articles for top colleges are a bit liberal with laying on praise... some, while being informative and overall accurate, sound more like the products of fanboyism rather than impartial assessments. ✈ James C. 07:32, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Michael Moore

With regards to the deletion of Michael Moore from the Alumni list

Did Michael Moore attend UofM for more than a semester? If so, then he is technically an alumnus of UofM. I'll look up the particulars on Alumni status... - Fritz Freiheit 19:09, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I thought Michael Moore was from State? __earth

That would explain the State hat he always has on. But it could be just a proletarian pose, like not shaving and dressing like a slob. A2Kafir 04:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I attended the Michael Moore speech on campus. He mentioned going to UM Flint. If you want a little proof, a February 8 1974 UM Flint student newspaper article had a profile/interview of him. Here is his pic from the paper: http://www.umflint.edu/today/images/michjtime3.jpg

• Moore is a former student, but not a graduate, of UM-Flint. By the loose definition of alumnus ("former student") he qualifies, but not by the strict definition ("one who graduated"), which, from my experience, is how people generally use the word. I've run into various people over the years who say things like, "I'm not an alumnus, but I went there for two years..."). Funnyhat 05:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Rivalry

Should we add the Michigan-Ohio rivalry in here? __earth 07:09, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but it's Ohio STATE, not Ohio!!

I've created an Athletics at the University of Michigan page to focus on Michigan athletics. We can keep some sports stuff here, but we shouldn't go overboard. Funnyhat 05:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it was getting overblown, but you've removed too much. The rivalry with OSU practically defines athletics at UM. Removing it to another article weakens this article. And more of a pedantic point, Wikipedia:Summary style calls for the heading to say Main article: foo. - Taxman 15:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about the OSU rivalry "defining athletics" here. Only in football are they even our archrival. In most other sports, it's MSU. (Hockey/basketball games against OSU are really not that important, while playing State is those sports is huge.) Heck, even in football, some argue that the Notre Dame or MSU games matter more. (I don't agree with that, but there is a significant contingent that feels that way.) Funnyhat 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well that's at odds with my experience and just about every alum I've asked (20-30 or so) in the last 10 yrs. I suppose different student populations would certainly feel different, and I'm sure it varies among those raised in MI vs out of state students. Some of course don't care about athletics at all. - Taxman ^Talk 02:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

OSU hockey has improved dramatically since the construction of the Schottenstein Center. It's been a while since I've been on campus, but I wouldn't be surprised if Michigan grudgingly accepts the greater importance of a hockey game with OSU, if only for their own CCHA title hopes. -- SwissCelt 03:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

From "Campus" --- "North Campus houses most of the College of Engineering" What part of the College of Engineering isn't on North Campus. . . ? --Juicy 10:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ummm, life? wait, life is not part of CoE. =) __earth 03:42, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is that big testing pool in West Hall. They test ship models there. There was just an article on it in the Ann Arbor Observer. commonbrick 21:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Harvard of the Midwest

"Harvard of the Midwest" is not a violation of NPOV in this "often called" format. But please! Now we'll have a page for "Harvard of the ..." MichaelTinkler, alumnus of Rice University, the Harvard of the Southwest.

---

This was on the mainpage. I got sick of it.

Dick Beldin A.B.(1961), M.P.H.(1965), Ph.D.(1967)
-trimalchio

---

Who calls the University of Michigan "The Harvard of the Midwest"? People from Michigan? Michigan Alumni? I certainly don't dispute that the University of Michigan is an excellent university, far better than most (but hardly all) state universities, but I've never heard it called that and I won't be the least bit surprised if someone tells me that the University of Chicago is also called that, and more aptly so, since it's a private university and seems to have more prestige, quite possibly well-justified, than does the University of Michigan. For the sake of NPOV the article should say among whom that epithet has currency. -- Mike Hardy\

---

U of M is not occasionally called that -it is almost exclusively called that even in preference to "Michigan" or "University of Michigan" -at least in verbal communication; perhaps not in writing. You cannot have a patriotic duty to defend a school. A search on the phrase "harvard of the midwest" shows even the school paper mentioning that the phrase is used in respect to the university. --rmhermen

---

To call Michigan the "Harvard of the Midwest" is stupid. Even more stupid is calling Harvard the "Michigan of the East," which is how John F. Kennedy referred to his alma mater while making a speech at Michigan. (http://www.jfklibrary.org/j101460.htm).

Nevertheless, Michigan *is* one of the top public universities in the country (USNews: undergrad - #3, behind Berkeley and UVA). Michigan also has more top-10 graduate programs than any other university in the country aside from Harvard and Berkeley.

-d

---

further thoughts on all this: Harvard as the "Michigan of the East" is simply a mocking of the common practice of comparing every university to Harvard. University of Michgian is an excellent university with an great reputation, and I agree that it has no need for the comparison to Harvard. --Macrowiz 21:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I took it for granted that the word "patriotic" would be understood as a metaphor. What word would you suggest instead? Students at UNC call Duke University "Dook" out of .... what, if not "patriotism"? Michael Hardy 01:28 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

Now I've changed it so that it says "loyalty" rather than "patriotism". Michael Hardy 17:34 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

Michigan has been called the "Harvard of the West"---not "Midwest"---since the late 1800s. The football team were known as the "Champions of the West" to Louis Elbel when he wrote The Victors, and that's how the lyrics still stand. --Juicy 09:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Michigan is in the Eastern time zone. That title has been obsolete for a long time. It's even worse than calling Minnesota "the Northwest" (as is still sometimes done). Michael Hardy 8 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Et cetera

The Michigan Union and Michigan League are student unions located on Central Campus while Pierpont Commons is on North Campus.

I have a bit problem with the above sentence - it says ...League are student unions located... The word union might be misconstrued as unions (like labor unions) instead of buildings. I'm not sure whether I managed to get my idea across but another way to describe the Union and The League would be sweet. __earth 01:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I replaced "student unions" with "student activity centers," though I normally hear the Michigan Union and Michigan League referred to as "student unions." Pentawing 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Michigan Stadium, isn't it the largest, college football-only stadium in the world instead of the largest football-only stadium? I'm kinda lazy to check out it further since I'm kinda sleepy right now. I'll come back to that later. __earth 16:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I reworded to "college" football-only stadium for clarification, given that a stadium size ranking at ballparks.net was fairly ambiguous about stadium types. Pentawing 22:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

Per Pentawings request I looked over the article and it looks great. I changed a few things as you've seen. Here are a few suggestions:

• Campuses - This could be expanded some with a little history about the campuses and how they've changed over time. Perhaps dates when they were first built as in North Campus , or dates when major buildings were added or torn down for Central. I think the maintence/admin (campus safety, parking, buses, plant operations, etc) stuff should be mentioned for the south campus but couldn't think of a good way to say it.

• Student Life - The "Residential Life" and "Groups and Activies" are good but the rest seem a little lacking. The student government section doesn't add much - most universities have a student government but nothing sets MSA apart from any other government. I'm indifferent about the fight song section. The lingo section seems pointless to me.

• Libraries and museums - could use expansion.

• Misc - The Bentley website [2] has a lot of information on it. They also have a lot of old high quality pictures that the copyright has expired on [3].

I was looking at my old edits and realized that it was 5 months ago when I last worked on the article! Luckily Pentawing and others picked up my slack :). commonbrick 05:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. However, there are some things I want to add:

1. The libraries and museums sections have longer sub-articles, so at the moment I don't see a need to further expand them.
2. For the student life section, what exactly is lacking? To me, the "groups and activities" seem to be it (I am knowledgeable only in groups associated with the College of Engineering and could use some help here).
3. I moved the "lingo and institutions" here until someone feels that it should be within the main article:

Lingo and institutions

Cava Java is a popular coffee shop located at the southeast end of the Diag on South University Avenue. CJ has changed hands and names multiple times in recent years, and hence is sometimes called "The Coffeeshop Formerly Known As..." The coffee shop is currently an Espresso Royale.

There are also various lingo describing places and academic programs. The Diag refers either to the commons in the center of Central Campus, or the diagonal pathway that transects it. The Fishbowl is a large computing site in the basement of Angell Hall, so named for its large glass observation windows. EECS is an acronym of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, a degree program in the College of Engineering. Legend has it that new students cry "Eeeeks!" when first reviewing their course loads. "Ohowihate Ohio State" is a slogan commonly seen on bumper stickers and highlights the intense rivalry between the two universities.

Of course, the more people working on this, the better. If there is a claim (e.g. oldest, largest, best, or even worst-run, etc.) or exact number used, please remember to cite it. Pentawing 06:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In regard to what is lacking in the student life I agree that it is the groups and activites. The first part could be written about any large university - large universities are going to have lots of clubs and frats and sororities. There is nothing unique or special about UM's clubs, frats, or sports listed. Maybe we should mention some groups like BAMN or the solar car team because they're always in the news.

Same goes for the student governement section - nothing sets UM's government apart from others. Maybe mentioning some past achivements would be beneficial - AirBus, brought Ludacris and Guster to campus, etc. Those are the only things I can think of that MSA has done, looking at their website doesn't help much either. commonbrick 05:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to add something, go ahead. I will try to merge the material with the rest of the article if the article flow isn't smooth. Pentawing 06:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)