Talk:Pomona College

Update tracking

Functional

Property	Current date	Expected max lag	Up to date?
students count (P2196)	January 2024	9 months	Yes
total assets (P2403)	30 June 2023	19 months	Yes
budget (P2769)	30 June 2023	19 months	Yes
price (P2284)	2024	13 months	Yes
admission rate (P5822)	2023	13 months	Yes
tuition fee (P5894)	2024	13 months	Yes
endowment (P6589)	30 June 2023	19 months	Yes
admission yield rate (P10263)	2023	13 months	Yes
Claremont Colleges Library (Q52619190) // collection or exhibition size (P1436)	2020	5 years	Yes
Benton Museum of Art (Q18325651) // collection or exhibition size (P1436)	2023	13 months	Yes
student retention rate (P11698)	2023	13 months	Yes
employees (P1128); applies to part (P518) = no value	September 2022	30 months	Yes
employees (P1128); applies to part (P518) = faculty member (Q5428874)	September 2023	17 months	Yes
graduation rate (P12469); multiplier of normal graduation time (P12471) = 1	2017	8 years	Yes
graduation rate (P12469); multiplier of normal graduation time (P12471) = 1.5	2017	8 years	Yes

Manual

The information here is not (yet) recorded on Wikidata. Until improvements are made to {{Update tracker item}} that allow it to be fetched from the article, the "current date" and "up to date?" columns must both be updated manually.

Property	Current date	Expected max lag	Up to date?
Facilities count	September 2023	13 months	Yes
Study abroad countries	February 2024	12 months	Yes
Financial aid data	2023–2024	13 months	Yes
Majors and minors data	2023	13 months	Yes
Course enrollment data	2023–2024	13 months	Yes
Faculty demographic data	2023–2024	13 months	Yes
Admissions infobox data	2023–2024	13 months	Yes
Transfer admissions data	2023–2024	13 months	Yes
Doctorates per capita ranking	2021	30 months	Yes
Feeder school ranking	May 2023	13 months	Yes
Salary ranking	July 28, 2023	13 months	Yes
U.S. News ranking	September 2023	13 months	Yes

Academic majors - how to report them

I've been in the process of adding information on most popular undergraduate majors to articles on college and university websites a few at a time, using the data reported on College Navigator at the nces.ed.gov website run by the U.S. Dept of Education.[1] When I did that here, the result was (for 2021 grads):

• Econometrics & Quantitative Economics (43)
• Computer Science (33)
• Political Science & Government (21)
• Mathematics (19)
• Research & Experimental Psychology (19)
• Neuroscience (17)
• Chemistry (17)

My edit was reverted, with the argument being that it is more useful for comparison purposed to use broader categories than the majors as reported to nces. The revert restored the prior information in this article, which breaks down all of the majors at Pomona into four broad categories, as reported on the college's own "Completed Majors" page. [2] I can see an argument for broader categories - the example being given that, if you combine the Biology and Molecular Biology fields, which might not be separate majors at some other college, it becomes one of the top fields of study. I think that is a valid argument, but the other hand, the categories being used on the Pomona website and this article seem so broad as to be meaningless. For example, it reports that the largest percentage of graduates are in "Natural Sciences" - 39% for 2022. That encompasses eight separate departments: Computer Science, Neuroscience, Biology, Molecular Biology, Chemistry , Psychological Science, Physics and Geology, many of which are completely unrelated. And the "Interdisciplinary" category combines departments that would not be regarded as interdisciplinary studies at most other colleges. So, this is not to me a terribly useful summary of what the college's actual focus is. It also obscures that Econometrics and Computer Science are far and away the two most popular individual majors on campus.

If broader categories are desired in this article based on the Bio breakdown, I suggest that this article use the majors that NCES uses (now updated for 2022), except in the case of biology, where the broader category would be used:

• Biological and Biomedical Sciences (Biology/Biological Sciences, Molecular Biology and Neuroscience) - (50)
• Computer Science - 49
• Econometrics and Quantitative Economics (44)
• Mathematics -(23)
• Political Science and Government - (21)

It's just a suggestion. Do with it as you will. I won't revisit this article, but I'll continue to use the individual major data on the other college articles that I edit. Banks Irk (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Banks Irk! Since this question applies very broadly to all colleges, I think it's best discussed at the WikiProject Higher education talk page. I see you also opened a thread there, so let's centralize discussion at that. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Professors list selections

Hi @Fpmfpm! I saw you recently added a few professors to the list. When I was originally compiling it, I tried to include only the very most well-known or accomplished faculty in Pomona's history, with the others going at List of Pomona College people. As the hidden comment says, "As a rough rule of thumb, there should be a chance that a random person with no special interest in the listee's field might have heard of them." I know that Everett L. Bull, Shahriar Shahriari, and Kim Bruce are all very accomplished (as evidenced by their endowed chairs) and have been very beloved by students, but when I was researching for their own articles, I didn't find indications that any of them had become cultural figures akin to someone like David Foster Wallace. Given that, would it be alright with you to transfer them to the Pomona people list article? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sdkb! Ah, that makes sense. I'd vote for keeping Samuel Yamashita in the list in this article as he is a well-known historian and author of multiple books, lecture series, etc. about major figures and influences in Pacific Rim cuisine and Hawaii Regional Cuisine, and in defining those terms; I don't know if I'd call him a "cultural figure", per se, but certainly those outside academia are familiar with him and his work. We might want to also consider leaving in Meredith Landman due to the fact that her article primarily discusses her work as a musician (in fact, the mention of her professorship at Pomona was previously removed from her article due to someone not believing the source!) with her band being featured in places like on the Napoleon Dynamite OST – so she's notable for other reasons, and again outside academia. For the others, definitely fine if they get moved over, I agree! I'll try to get to this tonight, otherwise do feel free to do the move yourself if you have time. Thanks!! –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fpmfpm, made the transfer! I kept Yamashita as a courtesy, although I'm not persuaded he rises to the level of cultural recognition that would be needed to fit in with the others listed and surpass others not listed (e.g. Karl Benjamin didn't quite make the cut, despite having had a successful art career and receiving an NYT obit). For Yamashita's article, I was able to find a few sources focusing on his work, e.g. this, but not really anything at the next level of eminence, which would be secondary sources that go into detail about his personal biography (e.g. an L.A. Times profile that includes a section with "Yamashita was born blah blah blah... During his childhood, blah blah blah..."). Compare that to e.g. Stanley Crouch, who is listed, who has many more sources available.

For Meredith Landman, I don't think any argument for inclusion could be made. First, we need to consider that she was only a visiting professor (and assistant professor, the lowest rank) rather than a permanent member of the faculty, which is a factor I forgot to mention in the hidden note (just added it) but considered when originally compiling the list — for instance, I left out Jerry Voorhis, a U.S. Representative, because he taught only on a visiting basis for five years (probably would've included him if he was a U.S. Senator, as I include Senators but not Reps on the adjoining alumni list, which has a slightly different bar but still). Second, I can barely find any coverage of her band, to the point where I question its notability, so I don't think it's nearly well-known enough to make her a cultural figure. To frame it a different way, if we did 100 person-on-the-street interviews, I don't think it's likely we'd find someone who knew of her, the way we might for e.g. Crouch.

Sorry to not be able to be more flexible here. Having and sticking to strict standards for who to include is something that SandyGeorgia rightfully encouraged during this article's featured article candidacy, as otherwise these lists tend to inevitably grow over time and become diluted/overlong. On the plus side, there's a bit more room in List of Pomona College people for longer descriptions, so if you want to add any additional (sourced) details about these professors there, definitely feel free. Also, I love the format you introduced for professors that are also alumni! There aren't any of those currently after the transfers, but I retained the code commented out so that we can use it if we add others in that group in the future. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead additions

Hi @DoodleGiggly! I saw that you restored your additions to the lead with the summary "Restored info with additional refs." The issue I have is not that the info is unsourced but rather that it is undue. Article leads are intended to be concise summaries of the article overall, and for a topic as expansive as a college with 125+ years of history, that means including only the most essential information.

Going through the additions, "with small classes and strong student-faculty relationships" is something that I think reflects more the college's modern branding than its founders' goals. The concern about keeping it small and close-knit wasn't prevalent in the 1880s from my understanding; it came later in the 1920s, as the number of college students grew and many other schools expanded.

Listing out specific qualities of the consortium is something we can save for the body. "Adjacent, affiliated institutions" seems a sufficient concise summary for the lead.

Regarding listing the number of clubs, we already cover student life in the lead by noting the college's residential character and athletics. If there was a good way to concisely summarize student organizations, I'd be open to it, but I don't think just listing the number is very meaningful — it's about as many as most colleges Pomona's size have, so it's not distinctive, and in any case a numerical count of clubs is a questionable heuristic for measuring the character of a college's extracurricular life.

Study abroad gets only three sentences in the body, and likewise isn't something distinctive, so I don't think it's due to mention.

The top industries for graduates is again something that isn't particularly distinctive compared to other liberal arts colleges, and something I don't think readers tend to be as interested in as prominent alumni (which also give a flavor of post-graduate pursuits).

Hope that helps explain the choices behind the lead weighting. Currently, the lead is 273 words long, which is just slightly below average for FAs per MOS:LEADLENGTH. If we were to expand it, adding a mention of the 47 tradition (as in the TFA blurb) would be the next thing I'd look to add, but that seems just slightly less important/due than the other info currently there. Also note that MOS:LEADCITE means we limit citations in the lead to controversial qualitative information, quotes, and information not repeated in the body. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Protester arrests

@Glman, I saw that you reverted last week an IP's attempt to add a sentence about the protester arrests at the college. I've been on the fence about it myself, but as I read more I'm leaning toward inclusion.

On the one hand, the arrests were a single discrete event, and as the hidden comment I wrote several years ago states, When adding recent events, be careful to avoid giving them undue weight disproportional to their historical importance. A bomb exploding at Carnegie only gets one sentence above; the latest campus controversy almost surely doesn't need three paragraphs. See WP:Recentism. Several other major protests in the college's history, such as those against South African apartheid, or those to preserve the Bernard Field Station (which also involved arrests), turned out ultimately to be undue in the larger historical narrative.

On the other hand, the arrests and fallout have garnered significant media attention — from The Chronicle of Higher Education and the Los Angeles Times (twice), among others. They also fold into some larger narratives — the campus has been somewhat of an activism hotspot for years, and activism over Israel-Palestine in particular has been the biggest story of the past few months, including the arrest of a professor (at the request of Claremont Colleges Campus Safety, which is somewhat separate from the Pomona administration) in December. The chair of faculty's quote that It is the worst on campus that it has been in a while is something I give some weight.

Trying to put recent events into historical perspective as they're still unfolding is always going to be an impossible task, but I think it's important we make as informed a choice as we can, since as this is our only FA on a college other editors may (or at least ought to) look here for precedent when trying to decide how to cover protests elsewhere. If we do include a line, I'd favor the language In April 2024, the college had 19 demonstrators occupying the president's office to urge the college to divest from Israel arrested, prompting protests and condemnations. Would you, or any WP:HED regulars like @ElKevbo or @Robminchin, have additional thoughts on this? Sdkb ^talk 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)