Talk:New College of Florida

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

	Florida Mid‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Masonzhang98, Rmhargrove.

Above undated message substituted from

Any particular reason the motto was deleted from the infobox? Unless somebody objects, I'm putting it back in. Just because it's light-hearted doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be there. Nevah 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (NCF Alum)[reply]

I don't think it should be there. It's not that's it light hearted, but that it not really NCF's motto in the way that matters. Ask yourself, do members of the NCF community say and associate this phrase with the school on a regular basis? As a student their I never once heard that phrase, and I think its inaccurate and disingenuous to put it in such prominent place on a page witch purportedly gives an accurate description of what New College is.Nsb3000

Fair enough. 68.56.78.150 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The motto for other state schools is equally unknown. For example, the motto for UF is "Civium in moribus rei publicae salus (Latin for "The welfare of the state depends upon the morals of its citizens")" I doubt the students there throw this motto around. The motto of New College IS in the constitution and should thus be listed as such on this page.OngoingCivilUnrest 05:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point above still stands, and I don't think that being in the constitution is pertinent to an article about New College. The NCSA Constitution is just that--it governs the NCSA, not the school. (The Board of Trusties does this)-Nsb3000 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if, instead, the motto was mentioned in the NCSA section. We could also mention that the constitution has numerous Star Trek references. OngoingCivilUnrest 07:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good compromise.-Nsb3000 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the motto is stated at http://www.ncf.edu/home/about-us/history/the-four-winds-logo.

Quote:

"Eight words have been selected to represent our basic character, with 'four' being the most cogent: Innovative, Inspired, Intellectual and Involved. Like the four seasons and the four points of the compass, these four qualities guide our path."

I have re-added the motto to reflect this. 131.247.152.4 (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen: I was one of six people who wrote the Constitution and created NCSA, May 1980. The story of how that happened is a story unto itself. The original constitution over time has been stripped of many of its original phrases that at the time were a parody of all the lame, dull, not colorful student government constitutions around the US. Between "motto" and "mascot" on the current published page here, you see the declaration that Palm Court is the Center of the Universe. That was playful, sure, but also intentional: when the constitution was passed, it was passed only after the state of Florida agreed to ongoing and complete autonomy of New College and its student government because the state needed rules of some sort to stay sane and we withheld doing anything except under our own terms and conditions because we could. And did. Florida state agreed to give the document full legal standing, whereupon we quietly added in the part of Palm Court being the Center of the Universe. That was duly passed into law, thus making Palm Court the Center of the Universe under the law of the land. No other college or university before ever thought to do it, and there was no point in doing it after because New College was and is at the top of the legal food chain on that claim. It was a legal precedent, and we knew that going in. We also knew it could never be successfully challenged in court, because if anyone tried it could only reinforce New College's Palm Court as the Center of the Universe.

Between getting stoned and laid and having to still read War and Peace in a week with a twenty page typed paper and Descartes' Meditations during the same week with a similar paper on top, I can see how slackards in later generations might have lost the original document. If anyone finds it, six authors are listed.

I suggest leaving the motto etc., lest ye lesser mortals screw around amidst activities such as indicated above and lose the most significant part of the document in your frenzy to cut out all the "whimsical" phrases. That most significant part being the legal claim as the Center of the Universe. Hivedrone110 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that a New College student would not know the correct use of there vs their. It's almost pathetic, but Jan Wheeler, who was basically just a local woman with a masters in English, may have accomplished more educationally than most of the faculty who indulged in their own pet specialties with no coherent plan for students' general education. Antroplgo (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Antroplgo is but damn, what an embittered, nonsense comment. I don't know if you dropped out of NCF or something but I have literally no idea what you're talking about in re: faculty indulging in their "pet specialties". Did you not get to do a research topic you wanted or something? I don't know anyone whose education suffered because faculty were too consumed in their own projects. That literally wasn't even a scenario at all. I don't know how that *could* be a scenario.

It's "New College of Florida," not "The New College of Florida." The "The" neither represents common usage at NCF, nor is grammatically necessary. I have removed the definite article at the beginning of the article. (Note: I am a New College alumnus.)--MitchS 23:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definite article question is debatable, but I can live with it either way. Generally, I think the article is coming along nicely. I don't really like the placement of the pictures right now, but until there is more text, I am not sure what else to do. In any case, I think we should focus on trying to get what is now the "external rankings and reviews" section to something more concise and appropriate . I am not sure who originally wrote it, but I really don't think we need to name each individual full-bright winners (I think we should shy away from naming individual New College students whenever possible, unless they do something truly notable), this just seems excessive. Also, I'm in the camp we should not included a link Malcolm Brenner dolphin lover stuff, as although it is connected to New College, it is not notable in anyway and is offensive to some. But it seems some strongly disagree. So, whatever. --Nsb3000 14:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody (who is a little more wikipedia competent) could include a mention or outline of the four guiding principles (http://www.ncf.edu/about/) at the beginning of the "distinguishing academic features" section. Some of the wording is a little strange and misleading "New College's academic structure is designed to get out of the way" and this section is really just summarizing the four principles.

Agreed. I changed it to be more specific. And I reinserted the brighter, more cheeful image from NCF public affairs, as it is the sole NCF image on file in Wikipedia that is offically taken under the direction of NCF. Tripe 00:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I agree. I was the one who originally wrote the distinguishing academic features section, and my goal was to put up a concise overview of what is distinctive from a student perspective about New College: to me the four things that stood out were Evaluations, Contracts, ISPs, and the Senior Thesis. The four principles, while important, are kind of abstract and I don’t think they would make a lot of sense outside of a much more detailed description of New College’s academic structure. I am not saying we should not have this, just no one has written such a description as of yet.--Nsb3000 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the description, or rather, the four principles:

1. Each student is responsible in the last analysis for his or her own education;

2. The best education demands a joint search for learning by exciting teachers and able students;

3. Students' progress should be based on demonstrated competence and real mastery rather than on the accumulation of credits and grades; and

4. Students should have, from the outset, opportunities to explore in depth, areas of interest to them.

I changed my mind on this. I went ahead and incorporated the core principles into the fist paragraph of the academic features section.--Nsb3000 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored most of the images that were up previously, but left the NCF public affairs image up as well. These images are far from perfect, and I hope that over time they will be replaced with more appropriate and better images, but just coming in and deleting them is going too far.

As for the public affairs image, the fact that it is "the sole NCF image on file in Wikipedia that is officially taken under the direction of NCF" has no bearing here...this is Wikipedia, not an NCF admissions hand book. That image is also low resolution, not realistic (in my four years at New College I never once set foot on top of College Hall), of questionable copyright status (Has NCF Public Affairs released that image for publication in Wikiepedia?), and if you look through the history of the NCF page you will see it was generally disliked. I would move that it be deleted again, but let’s see what others think. Nsb3000 14:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If NCF Admissions (BTW, the photo was by Public Affairs, not Admissions) happens to take a more attrative photo than an individual Wikipedia user, Wikipedia is better served by a more attractive photo. (2) The image may be of low resolution; but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with useful image captions, not a place where people can download posters to print out. (3) Your claim that the image is not "realistic" is immaterial because it based on your personal testimony. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. (4) Regarding the copyright status, see the fair use template on the image page. (5) Your claim that if one looks through the page history of the article he or she will find that the image was generally disliked is utter nonsense. I am not alone in having restored the image; in fact, multiple users have been doing the same in response to your attempt to remove it. In sum, I would move that it be reinserted and kept, with no need to wait for further opinions, as the consensus from the page history clearly seems to be behind keeping the image. Tripe 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me responed to your points one more time:

1. Your augment that the public affairs image is "more attractive" is not a good argument for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, with a neutral point of view, not a publicity or promotional tool for any organization. (see
   Wikipedia is not a soap box
   )
2. While it is true that many images are viewed in the context of an article, where a low resolution version of the image is displayed, I don't think anyone would dispute that users are better served by having links to high resolution versions for those that choose or desire to look at images in other sizes. Your claim that Wikipedia is "not a place where people can download posters to print out" is inaccurate; I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia Featured Pictures page for a long list of some of the other high-resolution images available on Wikipedia.
3. In my opinion, I feel the public affairs image is "unrealistic" or, more accurately, unrepresentative, for two reasons. The main reason is that it is a posed, promotional photograph, that was taken for the sake of advertising the school, and as I stated previsouly, I feel this type of content should only be included as a last resort. Secondarily, (and this is what I was alluding to earlier)it is also worth noting that the roof of College hall is inaccessible to students, meaning it would be impossible for students to actually hang out up there, as the image suggests.
4. As for the copyright status, you suggest that we "see the fair use template on the image page." The fair use copyright notice on the image that you cite explicitly states that the fair use exception is only valid "in the absence of a free alternative". We now have multiple alternative images. (See Wikipedia's
   Fair Use
   page)
5. I'll admit that upon looking over the page history again, I may have been over-reaching when I said the image was "generally disliked". However, I would point you to this [1] edit by MikeWDC, where the caption for the image was changed to this snarky text: "This is a promotional photo. Students are not allowed on the roof, its accessways are kept locked, and students caught there are charged with trespassing."

Given the above points, and given the fact that we now have multiple alternative images for which the point of view is not in dispute, that are of high resolution, and for which the copyright status is clear, it seems to me to that the best thing to do is remove the public affairs image and leave the other images up. However, given the dispute, the sensible thing at moment is to keep both sets of images up until we can reach some sort consensus on the issue.

--Nsb3000 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been more than two weeks since I made the above post and no one has responded. So, due to the fair use violation issue I am going to remove the public affairs image. I continue to be open to debate and discussion on this issue if anybody wants to talk about this further.

--Nsb3000 22:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an image ("Ncfstud-fountain-63.jpg") that apparently was supposed to be a vintage picture taken at the end of the promenade because the link was broken. If anyone knows where to find the picture it should be restored Richard☺Decal (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the senior thesis description to include a note about the different forms a thesis can take, and I also removed the last comment about how it may take longer than four years to complete. I'm sure we all know our fair share of "fifth year" students and probably some who completed everything within 7 semesters as well. Regardless, New College's graduation rates are above the national averages so I don't think it's worth mentioning that it might take more than 4 years.

Looks good! --Nsb3000 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New College's graduation rate is well below the average for an elite college. What is more significant and significantly omitted is that the number of students dropping out in the third or fourth year is not only higher than any national average. It is one of the few schools with this inverse pattern. Antroplgo (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one! This is not true either, Antroplgo. Performance metrics for the state confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.9.254 (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to put a general notice that people should be careful when doing reversions. Even though at first glance it might seem like the fastest restore previous edits, if your not careful, you risk erasing other beneficial edits that have occurred in the meantime. The safest thing to do is to change the things your want changed, rather than revert the page, and I recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's [[revert| Reversion policies] before using this feature indiscriminately.--Nsb3000 18:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

can somebody familiar with this website change the mascot to [ ] ? thanks!

I thought about this before, about whether it should be the "Open Set". The problem is, most people will not understand what this means and will interpret it as a typo. --Nsb3000 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the "Empty Set" rather then the "Open Set". I don't see why we can't simply say "The mascot of New College is {} (The Empty set)". Hell, we can even wikify the "Empty Set" to the Wikipedia page, so people will know we are serious. Also, it should be noted that empty brackets, [], are not the Empty set. This is: {} see article Empty set --OngoingCivilUnrest 16:20 06/01/06

If you look at the NCSA Constitution (available at the NCSA website under external links), you will see that the mascot is "[]", not "{}". And for those who are curious, here's the story of how "[]" came to be the mascot: The mascot used to be "Brownie the Dog," but the dog died. During a subsequent overhaul of the NCSA Constitution, the dog was taken out but nobody was able to agree on a new mascot. So we just left the brackets. (Note: I was NCSA President about a decade ago) -- CoramVobis 02:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

das not what mike lon sed

Well then, when I get back to school in the fall, I am going to pass a special referendum to change the mascot from [] to {}. So watch out wikipedia, I'll be back. -- OngoingCivilUnrest 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, of course! I've always believed each generation of Novo Collegians should reinvent the wheel and not feel so bound by the traditions of their forbears -- that's what college is about (contrary to a letter the Catalyst once received from an original author of the NCSA constitution alleging that too many changes had been made to the document)! But in doing so, you should realize that calling the mascot "the Empty Set" is a sort of symbological back-formation, because the brackets were left there without the intent of them representing anything, and only later did students start calling the mascot "The Empty Set." From there it was a short leap to thinking that they were intended to be the empty set, and from there another short leap to thinking that a typographical error was made. Ah, institutional memory! It's always most important where it doesn't exist. But seriously. Change the friggin' mascot to SOMETHING. It's been way too long. CoramVobis 03:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope the explanation of the mascot is clarified below -- from the same original author who sent the letter to Catalyst in '03. The letter ALSO explained that the essential point of the NCSA Constitution was precisely to allow flexibility for future classes.Hivedrone110 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mascot, [ ], refers to "epoché" in phenomenology -- putting the world in brackets: draw no immediate conclusions and allow phenomena to explain themselves. It is two square brackets with nothing between them. You can't just go and rewrite it now. That requires amending the (New College) Constitution. Don't get sloppy! Or at least no sloppier than you already are! Cripes, we tried, we really tried, to make a student government that would survive over time, be flexible enough for subsequent (from 1980) adaptations for future student bodies, and still protect it from the inevitable ineptitude of Lesser Mortals Than Us, who created it.Hivedrone110 (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Yes, the original mascot was Brownie the Dog. Brownie died before the New College Constitution was completed, leaving a void. After some discussion between the political scientists on the committee on one side (Rob and Larry) and the philosopher kings on the other side (Don and Terry), [ ] was agreed as the replacement mascot with meaning as indicated above regarding phenomenological epoché along with Brownie being in Dog Heaven. It was about the last thing agreed in committee before taking the then-proposed final document to referendum to the student body in spring 1980. The philosopher king side reckoned that a dog named Brownie would not inspire much academically in the years to come, whereas epoché would. So, [ ] split the difference. Hivedrone110 (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, why is this considered notable? --Keremm

It's not. In the past, there was a separate article for the Police Department by itself. But this got put up for deletion because of non-notability. Because the Police Department is an actual entity, it was thought it was best to merge it with the New College article despite its non-notability.

--Nsb3000 16:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the police department section out, since nobody has stepped forward to defend its notability, and it really looked odd in there.

--CoramVobis 02:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would push for notability on the grounds that certainly in the 1975-1980 era, the campus police (for the most part) went way above and beyond "standard" police duites and were friends with a fair number of students at the time. (See my details below) Whether or not this is still the case I do not know, however, as noted below, one campus police officer was named an honorary alum by the students.AnClarTex 21:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to drop in a note about the PD. The police department used to be notable c. 1980 -1990 when it was USF PD. They attempted to intrude on Palm Court Parties for the purpose of making arrests of students they deemed to be using illegal substances and/or doing what they deemed to be illegal activities in general. They were summarily told to Fuck Off because whatever we did at PCPs was none of their goddamned business to start with. Upon checking with local authorities the PD learned that, in fact, neither they nor anyone else had any legal jurisdiction whatsoever regarding whatever students did on campus, PCPs or otherwise. That jurisdiction was within the sole discretion of NCSA, who in turn had the authority to refer matters to outside authorities.Hivedrone110 (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an NC grad (I attended from the early 70s through the early 80s and was a presence on campus through 1983) and an employee, via work-study, at the cop shop from the late 70s through 1980, I have a slightly different perspective on the campus police situation. There were three police officers of that era who were a major PITA regarding their perceived role as campus oppressors, and were duly vilified by the students for their behavior. However, the majority of the cops were way more concerned with our safety from the depredations of unruly townies, etc. rather than what substances students were consuming. As far as the PCPs went, it was and is within the jurisdiction of the Sarasota City PD to enforce noise regulations and to investigate other potential violations of the law. More often than not, the USF/NC cops on duty did their best to keep Sarasota City PD off campus. In fact, one USF/NC officer was named an honorary alum in recognition of his concern for student safety and well-being, and for his friendliness. The bad apples aside, I found the fatherly (or in some cases grandfatherly) concern of the cops toward the students was way outside the norm of what I'd come to expect from police officers. A major change for the better also occurred when Chief Hooper retired and Chief Kelly took over. Chief Kelly had a good sense for what the priorities were re. policing the campus and his officers reflected that sensible viewpoint. In fact one of the annoying cops (who shall remain nameless other than to say that he eventually reached the rank of corporal, and was of short stature) was regarded as an object of derision even within the department. Another point of note was that during that era there was a Sarasota City police officer who was also a NC student; he graduated and went on to law school. There is another graduate, a female, who has worked for many years for the Sarasota County Sheriff's office. So there is more to the whole police topic than has been presented thus far.AnClarTex 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping someone more experienced than myself can mention some of the following: the size of the student body, the student government, housing and the lack thereof, the plans for new dorms. --Keremm

If you have something you think should be added, I would just go ahead and write it. Don't worry about the style or format--others can fix that latter if needed.--Nsb3000 15:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest adding William Hamilton to the history of the college. I believe he was there from 1967-1970 (this should be verified). Suggested entry: "William Hamilton, the controversial and influential theologian, joined the faculty from 1967-1970." Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no entry for Dr. Hamilton. He is alive and well in Oregon. Most recent online citation: http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/jan/24/god-is-dead-movement-leader-looks-back-on-life/. Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can Dr. Hamilton not be included in the history of the college? Remember Hamilton Center? Or has that building been removed or renamed? And why characterize him as "controversial and influential theologian"? Theology is controversial by definition. If he is non-controversial, that would be distinctive and worth pointing out. Influential, fine. Influential enough to have the campus center at the center of the universe named after him. Although, strictly speaking, Hamilton Center had been around for a couple of decades prior to Palm Court -- 20 meters from Ham. Center -- gaining legal status as the Center of The Universe (May, 1980, when NCSA was born.)Hivedrone110 (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small point regarding Hamilton Center: it is not named in recognition of Dr. Hamilton, although it is a fortuitous coincidence. Rather, it is named after the family of Charles Hamilton, a 1960s era NC alum, for their generous financial support of the college.AnClarTex 21:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that "Herpes is groovy!" is the official motto of NCF. If it is, please provide a source. Do not add it again without one. -- SCZenz 20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, most assuredly, NOT the motto. The entity of New College actually has no motto, only a mission. To my dismay, NCF's mission is rather long and doesn't lend itself to encapsulation within an info-box. The NCSA (student government) does have a mission and motto, and these are mentioned in the article. OngoingCivilUnrest 16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the CEO of barneys notable and John Cranor isn’t? Just wondering why it was deleted..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:103:C385:387E:EAFD:E8:3F13 (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People have been fighting a silent war over this for a while. Can we all agree that Ravi Banerje is not a notable alumni? Can we also agree that Jaymay, an international touring artist with multiple television appearances is? --68.56.17.70 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People continue to delete Jaymay. She is one of the only New College students to go on to become famous for non-academic reasons. Is there an argument for not including her? It's really not a big deal but I'm just pissed off at this point.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Weiser was a close family friend, and I was there 1967-70, and recall recommending that he attend NC. Given that NC offered only a 3-year program and he didn't finish, I'm not certain he was there from 1970 until 1974. His surviving sister, Ann Weiser Cornell could possibly have this information, or also his two daughters.

I also noticed that David Pini is listed, without describing his work in film.

Omissions that struck me: Luke Salisbury has been successful as a fiction writer and on the topic of baseball. I hope someone could add Luke. I had also thought that Aaron Swartz of Reddit had a New College connection, though WIkipedia only shows an unnamed local Chicago college and Stanford. --Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 19:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, it appears that Aaron Swartz sought the counsel of Jennifer Granick, a NC grad. "Internet activist Aaron Swartz sought Granick's counsel after his arrest for downloading articles from JSTOR, for which he faced 35 years imprisonment. Granick both defended Swartz and challenged the scope of the law under which he was prosecuted.[6][7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Granick#Career --Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 19:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Back to Mark Weiser. His sister, Ann Weiser Cornell confirms that he wrote her from Michigan on Feb 19, 1972. This implies that he did not stay at New College even two years, and by my memory, he was there possibly one year. Obviously the registrar could tell us, but I'm presently checking with his best friend (Doug Kalish), who is likely to have sufficiently specific information. --Laurence R. Hunt, Kenora, Canada 21:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhuntkenora (talk • contribs)

Mark Weiser, again: New College was in theory a "3 year program" but in practice, many students took 4-5 years, to accommodate travel, the extension of off-campus study, off-campus jobs or temporary leave for other needs. I recall Mark Weiser being resident in E Dorm in the ground-floor, opposite quadrant to mine in the Spring term of 1973. I think he was, at that time, a "NatSci" (the "Natural Sciences" division--psych, physics, chemistry, math) student. He participated in some ad hoc badminton and touch football games organized by people in our dorm & other friends during that time. He may have been there--at New College--in the Fall term of 1972 at least, because the people in his quadrant (most of whom were "NatSci" students) all seemed to know him. He attended the 1986 alumni reunion (along with a bunch of other alums from within 2-3 years) at NC in Sarasota with his wife and kid(s), where I had an extremely brief chat with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EF08:C200:55E3:14A3:14CA:D91 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"External rankings at New College are a relatively new phenomenon, because during the school's twenty-five-year affiliation with the University of South Florida and prior to gaining independent accreditation in 2004, New College was ineligible to be included in most ranking surveys."

This is factually incorrect. External rankings for New College have been around for decades. Check hard-copy archives of sources for those rankings.Hivedrone110 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to use wikipedia very much, but I made some minor changes and was wondering if someone could check them for me. For the NCSA constitution section, it previously stated that Article 11 held the information about the mascot, motto, Palm Court as Center of the Universe, etc information. In fact, as per our current constitution (which I also linked, not sure if I did it correctly - the old link was a dead link), it is article 9 3/4. I'm also not sure how to format that, because, like, how do you format fractions. And things. I'm really new to wikipedia. 131.247.152.4 (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this section because it relies on the school's own promotional material, and because of its basic lack of credibility. The data is all based on the answers of those who responded to a survey conducted by the Alumni Association. Like those those TV ads for exercise equipment that claim 85% of purchasers are still using the gear 3 years after buying it, this sort of survey takes advantage of the fact that those with positive outcomes are far more likely to respond to a survey than those with negative outcomes,thereby presenting an overly optimistic picture.

The use of college promotional materials as sources throughout this article is generally over the top, but this particular example is just too extreme to leave in place.

73.162.132.47 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New College of Florida. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.flbog.org/aboutsus/universities/ncf.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620021736/http://www.ncf.edu/about/history.html to http://www.ncf.edu/about/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814153316/http://www.ncf.edu/PublicAffairs/Documents/Baughman.htm to http://www.ncf.edu/publicaffairs/documents/Baughman.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151126034353/http://www.hightimes.com/read/high-times-magazine-gives-sarasotas-new-college-high-five to http://www.hightimes.com/read/high-times-magazine-gives-sarasotas-new-college-high-five

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZoeMcDonald (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AmeliaSund.

— Assignment last updated by AmeliaSund (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the table for gender composition of the student body, we find that 104% of the students have a gender, which seems like a lot. The discrepancy is larger than can at all be accounted for by rounding.

The same is not true for the race and ethnicity data, which only add up to 101%, though I must admit to having raised an uncomprehending pair of eyebrows upon noticing that "foreign nationals" are a race. Falw (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The datum for male students appears to have been a typo; I've corrected it. "Foreign nationals" is included in race/ethnicity because that is (kind of) how the data are collected by and for the US government. It's a stilted way of saying "not American" and it makes some sense to categorize them separately as American race/ethnicity constructs probably don't make sense for people who aren't American. ElKevbo (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has the wrong information on the number of trustees and the length of their terms. What is on the page echoes the Florida statute specific to New College (https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2022/1004.32): 12 members serve staggered 4-year terms. However, the current membership of the Board of Trustees is 13, and they're serving 5-year terms, staggered after the fact. This is following Board of Governors regulations for the whole State University System (https://www.flbog.edu/2022/11/28/board-of-governors-seeks-applicants-for-12-trustee-positions/). This has, in this very strange year, become a newsworthy fact -- which I suspect means changing the entry could really easily turn into an edit war. I'm not sure exactly why the actual statute on the books has it wrong, or if the FLBOG has it wrong by naming 13 trustees with 5-year terms to the BOT. If one goes back to the various versions of the 12/4 rule in the statutes, it seems to have come into effect when New College became independent in 2000 or shortly thereafter. The FLBOG came into being in 2001, replacing the Board of Regents. -- grant (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote to 'affluent' gives a description/definition that is at odds with the description/definition in the blue link to the word. I think a different word should be used. (As a side note, at this school do all low-income students really get Pell grants?) Kdammers (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the cease and desist, AltNewCollege rebranded as AltLiberalArts. I think a sentence should be added to that part of the article clarifying this. 2600:6C65:623F:B14C:9C0B:907:88B1:37F (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the college should be described in the first sentence as "conservative." For one thing, it's a public institution (unlike Hillsdale, referenced in the edit); for another, the new trustees have only been in office for 12 months; and most importantly, in their public statements, they at least say that "all ideologies are welcome" and they want the school to, in effect, teach the controversies with lots of open debates. See, for example, the descriptions of "the Socratic Stage Dialogue Series": https://www.ncf.edu/news/new-college-to-host-first-event-in-socratic-stage-dialogue-series-november-30-featuring-jason-greenblatt-and-ghaith-al-omari/ . Now, it seems pretty obvious that what they're attempting to do is make a school perceived as leftist (though I'd dispute that characterization, really) into a school that's on the right wing. But it really seems like in official pronouncements, at least, what they're saying is "we're making it less left and more middle." And in reality, they're trying a lot of things, but it's still way too early to see if a campus political culture can actually be successfully altered in this way. So I'm suggesting removing the descriptor from the first sentence. Objections? --grant (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To justify such a label in the lede sentence, we need some very strong and pervasive sourcing asserting that the character of the college has been changed by the new trustees. It's far too soon to make such a judgment and the source that was cited to justify this addition explicitly discussed the trustee's plans to remake the college, not their success in doing so (against the wishes and protests of students, alumni, and faculty). ElKevbo (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was the original editor for this particular edit and a New College alumni who attended during the takeovers and I can personal ascertain that the college's character has dramatically changed in some very extreme ways, with aggressive recruitment of conservative students being a key part of their strategy. Additionally the college has been actively hostile towards queer students. I feel that the moniker is accurate given my lived experience at the institution, at least for the time being, I am happy to be corrected by someone else of more recent epistemological understanding of what it is like to attend New College. I also feel that by not naming what has happened to the college for what it is, there is a risk of normalizing the behavior at the college. Wildflower42 (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be based on

reliable sources, not editors' personal opinions and experiences. ElKevbo (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Just thought I'd add this here because I see some back-and-forth in the edit history: It's unclear whether the school is really "conservative" per se, but it seems quite clear that the new slate of six trustees are. Mark Bauerlein, for instance, might have described himself as "libertarian" a few years ago, but he has an email address at *The American Conservative*, contributed to *Literature and the Conservative Ideal*, and is an editor and podcast host at *First Things*, with shows covering "Freedom and Conservatism" among other topics. I wasn't involved in any edits, but I thought I'd put a couple links here for future reference. -grant (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created a Principles sub-section of Academics and moved the Principles to the top of the section, and cited the 2016 Master Plan. I will look for additional sources. Dihagan (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few sources from early documents, but be aware that the number varies. John Gustad himself sometimes listed eight, or seven, or six "basic assumptions." All the iterations do include the four that were eventually settled on in later decades. There's one iteration of Gustad's principles here, from five months before the school opened its doors: https://pragmatos.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1964-04-Gustad%E2%80%94New-College%E2%80%94D-Minus-Five-Months.pdf

It's also probably worth noting that from the outset, the distinguishing feature of the school was meant to be an emphasis on tutorials and independent study projects. --grant (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]