Talk:Public Ivy

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

University of Maryland, College Park 71.126.140.102 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)  Not done for now: Do you want to have University of Maryland, College Park removed from the list? It's not clear what you mean. QuietCicada chirp 18:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

New Forbes list

Aristotaled is insisting that this article include the public institutions in a longer list of "new ivies" published by Forbes. First, this is not a listing of "public ivies" - it's actually a list of 10 public institutions and 10 private institutions that the author of the article name "new ivies." So even if this were a stellar source that was being prominently discussed and cited by scholars, experts, and others it would still be off-topic for this article. Second, we have no indication that this list has any credibility or traction.

We are not obligated to write about every list of universities with the word "ivy" in it. We are certainly not obligated to include such information when it's repeatedly added to a Wikipedia article with no discussion although an editor in good standing has challenged the inclusion of the material. ElKevbo (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2025

In the section talking about the top ‘Ivy’ Public Universities, there is a column that has each university listen with the ranking of each school. It says that UCLA is the #1 ranked public university, when that is no longer true and it is not #2 and has been dethroned by Berkley. 142.129.116.210 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities?myCollege=national-universities&_sort=myCollege&_sortDirection=asc ~2026-23797-39 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Overly detailed and unnecessary table

Butterdiplomat is insisting that this article include a very long, detailed table with this information for every institution that has been named a "Public Ivy:"

• Institution
• Location
• Date founded
• Enrollment
• Endowment
• USN&WR ranking
  • Public
  • National
• Athletic division and conference
• School colors
• Athletic nickname

This information is inappropriately detailed for this article. The selection of some of this information is WP:OR as it leads readers to assume that it's relevant to the "Public Ivy" selection criteria when it's not e.g., enrollment, endowment, athletic division and conference. And some of this information is simply bizarre to include in this article e.g., school colors, athletic nickname, date founded. Moreover, many of these details require annual maintenance at a minimum so they're very likely to fall out-of-date unless editors remember to update this obscure article.

So in sum this is information that is misleading, weird, and a pain to keep updated. For those reasons and more this table should be removed. ElKevbo (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It was not a personal “insistence” per se, and more of a reversion to a stable version. The table seemed helpful to the average reader as a summary and does not imply criteria. I think a proposal to remove the whole section warrants at least a discussion. Butterdiplomat (talk) Butterdiplomat (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Then discuss it. What does this information provide that the other material in the article and what's in the article for each institution don't already provide? Why are these specific data elements included? And how do you propose that we keep this table up-to-date? (Note that some elements are already out-of-date.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I am curious to see what other editors think. I don’t see a real reason to challenge the elements included. School colors, endowment, date founded etc. are frequently included in individual school infoboxes. They summarize, and it is not that out there to include this information. Butterdiplomat (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the purpose of this table. There is no prose discussing it, and the lists of who various authors consider to be public ivies has already been given in the preceding section. This is presented as the "List of Public Ivies", but there is no discussion of how the list was formed. It appears to be based on the Greenes list, as it doesn't include all of the institutions on Moll's list or on the Forbes list. Why has this been taken as what we are going to give in Wikipedia's voice as the definitive list?

There also doesn't seem to be any good rationale for the elements of the table. Without any discussion it's hard to see why these elements were included or what useful purpose their inclusion serves.

My recommendation: If the table is kept at all, it should be trimmed in terms of the elements included and expanded to list all institutions on Moll's list and the public institutions on the Forbes list (and any other lists that are included on this page in the future), making it a summary of the information presented (as a corollary, if it is decided that a list should not be included in the article then it should also not be included in the summary table). A column should be added to indicate which source(s) list which institution. The table should also go below the discussion of the Forbes list rather than between the Greenes list and the Forbes list. Based on the criteria mentioned for Mill's original list, I would keep 'Founded' (as age is given as one of his critera), maybe 'Enrollment' and 'Endowment' as related to his 'available resources', and possibly 'Ranking' - although if included this should probably list more than just the USNWR ranking. I wouldn't keep any of the sports-related elements, which seem to be trivia, nor the admit rate, which was dropped by the US News ranking almost a decade ago as being a poor indicator of quality that was too easy to game. Robminchin (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)