Sorry that was unclear. I think Top 10 USNWR schools + 5 or so (likely with SFC chapters) makes a lot of sense. For example, UMich doesn't fit either of those, but surely deserves recognition for their great work with open.umich.edu.
I'm editing: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_Report_Cards to get some thoughts down on this. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Adi Kamdar <[email protected]> wrote: > Wesley--heh, okay. > > Brian--I think Wesley's response sums it up nicely. We can (fairly) easily > get the schools with FC chapters to devote some time into > researching/grading their school, and conservatively we have 10 fairly > popular, well known schools right there (with a lot of overlap with USNWR's > top 10). Once we have criteria/our own schools graded, I think it wouldn't > be too hard to expand from there. For example, you mentioned Michigan, which > I know has an OCW program, and perhaps more—it's just a matter of digging a > little or contacting the right people. Basically, we need 1) criteria/scale, > 2) to grade ourselves, then 3) to grade others. I think this would be the > most efficient. > > -Adi > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Wesley Chen <[email protected]>wrote: > >> @Adi: That totally wasn't a slight—just a slip of the mind haha. Yes, >> let's make a page on the FC wiki to organize our thoughts? >> @Brian: The schools I rattled off were just ones that have been relatively >> active in the Free Culture >> movement. They all have Free Culture chapters, more or less. You make a >> great point about creating >> viable comparisons: it would definitely be our aim to rate as many schools >> as possible (and diversely, too), but getting info about Lewis & Clark for >> ex. would be ostensibly harder, because there's no FC chapter/contacts there >> (can anyone on this listserv correct me?). As Kevin said, starting out with >> a small group of schools with which we're readily familiar will make it >> easier to hone our methodology and approach. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Brian Rowe <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I am a little confused, are we looking for the top 10 open universities >>> or are we rating the top 10 USWR schools on thier open status? >>> >>> If the latter we should also include at least 2 other schools that are in >>> the 11-99 field, but might have better Open University scores, it would have >>> much broader appeal and be more useful. If a student is attending a lower >>> rated school it helps a lot to have a similarly rated school to point to as >>> an example when trying to get ones own school to open up. Telling Seattle >>> University that Yale, who is slightly better funded, is open is not as >>> effective as telling them that Lewis and Clark which has the same budget is >>> ahead of us on this issue. >>> >>> Here is one I would recommend including and one maybe: >>> Michigan >>> Lewis and Clark ? (their law school is great, I am not sure about their >>> undergrad) >>> >>> -Brian >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Wesley Chen >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> @Kevin: A Top 10 list would be a great start; that's already a basketful >>>> to deal with! I think we already know what schools to look at first: >>>> Harvard, MIT, NYU, Georgetown, USC, Swarthmore, etc. >>>> @Christina: If we get this thing off the ground in time, we could get a >>>> lot of exposure during college apps time through the usual channels: >>>> Slashdot, Ars, digg, BB, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Christina Ducruet >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> What an excellent suggestion. These are also high profile so our >>>>> ratings could conceivably get viewed by a lot of people researching these >>>>> schools. Anyone got great SEO skills? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Donovan <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just had a meeting with some people at Georgetown and bounced this idea >>>>> off them. They really like it and think it would be a good way to enact >>>>> change. >>>>> >>>>> One point they made: because we do not have the resources to do a large >>>>> survey of schools, one professor with lots of political experience >>>>> suggested >>>>> we do a Top 10 Report as a beginning (researching and ranking US News' Top >>>>> 10 Schools). I think this makes a lot of sense because it will still force >>>>> us to define the methodology and give us experience with the research >>>>> process, but it will not over-extend us. What's more, once we have this, >>>>> it >>>>> could serve as a point to justify some funding to do a larger survey. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, D Parker Phinney <<[email protected]> >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> definitely interested in helping with logistics, including both the >>>>>> criteria for the report card, as well as any web programming or >>>>>> whatever >>>>>> that needs to be done. after tuesday, school is out! >>>>>> >>>>>> Wesley Chen wrote: >>>>>> > @Kevin: Right, determining the criteria and their point weight seems >>>>>> to >>>>>> > be the hardest part. Each category, such as Open Access or Network >>>>>> > Filtering ought to be broken down into smaller, simple questions >>>>>> like >>>>>> > "has the university considered Open Access?" or "is the university >>>>>> in >>>>>> > discussion about implementing OA?" The point is to make the overall >>>>>> > grading criteria as granular as possible. Besides Y/N questions, I >>>>>> can't >>>>>> > think of another way to make a objective judgment—using a scale of >>>>>> 1-5 >>>>>> > clearly isn't an option. So in any subcategory, a YES may yield any >>>>>> > number of points. This grading system obviously will be finessed >>>>>> later. >>>>>> > *I think assembling the criteria bank will be the toughest part.* >>>>>> > >>>>>> > *...@christina: Sure. Let's say that the overall criteria index is >>>>>> worth >>>>>> > 50 points. You'd need at least 45 points for an "A"-range grade. >>>>>> > However, we're running into the same problem of objectiveness if our >>>>>> > definition of openness isn't based in numbers. So, openness might >>>>>> have >>>>>> > to be defined by 10 or so Y/N questions. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > @Alex: Would appreciate that! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Parker H and I already had a discussion about this recently. I think >>>>>> > this project has a lot of potential, and I'm glad we're picking up >>>>>> steam >>>>>> > again. Anyone else who hasn't chimed in on this thread interested in >>>>>> > forming a more formal committee to work on this? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alex Kozak < <[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> > <mailto: <[email protected]>[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ccLearn is starting up a project to create a database for >>>>>> University >>>>>> > copyright ownership policies in a Semantic MediaWiki format. I >>>>>> > should be able to give you all more information about that soon >>>>>> so >>>>>> > that you could use it and/or contribute to it, but it isn't >>>>>> quite >>>>>> > ready yet. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > - Alex >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Donovan >>>>>> > <<[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> > <mailto: <[email protected]>[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I really do like this idea and the idea of a stand-alone >>>>>> Open >>>>>> > University Report site sounds great. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > My main concern (outside scalability) is the criteria by >>>>>> which we >>>>>> > judge. Ideally, it would be objective so we could cross >>>>>> index >>>>>> > schools, >>>>>> > but what would those be besides Y/N indicators? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 4/27/09, Wesley Chen < <[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> > <mailto: <[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> > > Parker: One of the kids you might remember meeting when I >>>>>> was at >>>>>> > > Dartmouth on Sat night worked on GreenReportCard.org a >>>>>> little >>>>>> > while back. >>>>>> > > Looking at that site tonight has given me the idea that >>>>>> we >>>>>> > should try to >>>>>> > > create a similar score card with a set of standardized >>>>>> > grading criteria >>>>>> > > (e.g. administration, licensing, Open Access, etc.). >>>>>> > > The way our wiki article is structured right now is >>>>>> clunky, >>>>>> > and the >>>>>> > > information is admittedly incomplete. How about creating >>>>>> a >>>>>> > rundown for each >>>>>> > > school similar to the way GRC does it? It's easier (and >>>>>> more >>>>>> > fun) to read >>>>>> > > and write, plus I think it would be far more appealing to >>>>>> the >>>>>> > non-FC crowd >>>>>> > > comparing colleges or to those already attending but >>>>>> looking >>>>>> > to identify >>>>>> > > areas of improvement at their school. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Do you think the report card portion of OU should spin >>>>>> off >>>>>> > and become its >>>>>> > > own project and web site? Baby steps first, of course, >>>>>> but I >>>>>> > think moving in >>>>>> > > that direction could have great potential. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > — W >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM, D Parker Phinney >>>>>> > > < <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>> > <mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected]>>wrote: >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >> so, some schools are ending for summer very soon. we >>>>>> still >>>>>> > have a good >>>>>> > >> 5 weeks here at dartmouth, and we plan on spending part >>>>>> of >>>>>> > that time >>>>>> > >> getting together our OU status report (once >>>>>> controversially >>>>>> > referred to >>>>>> > >> as a "report card") together. >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> i encourage other chapters to try to do the same by the >>>>>> end >>>>>> > of the >>>>>> > >> school year. it would be great to get some kind of >>>>>> press >>>>>> > release or >>>>>> > >> blog post together early this summer showing where we >>>>>> are >>>>>> > and what we've >>>>>> > >> done. >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> <http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information> >>>>>> http://wiki.freeculture.org/Open_University_individual_university_status_and_information >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> an incomplete report is better than a nonexistent one. >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> -- >>>>>> > >> D Parker Phinney >>>>>> > >> madebyparker.com < <http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>> http://madebyparker.com> >>>>>> > >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > >> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected]<mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Sent from my mobile device >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kevin Donovan >>>>>> > Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>>> > 630.849.8285 >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>> > <mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> > <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -- >>>>>> > Alex Kozak >>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>> > <mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> > 916.225.2718 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>> > <mailto:<[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> > <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > Discuss mailing list >>>>>> > <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>> > <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> D Parker Phinney >>>>>> madebyparker.com >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>> <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >>>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Kevin Donovan >>>>> Georgetown '11: SFS >>>>> 630.849.8285 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Brian Rowe >>> Juris Doctorate >>> Google Public Policy Fellow @ Public Knowledge >>> (206) 335-8577 (Cell) >>> >>> Public Knowledge >>> www.publicknowledge.org >>> >>> Access To Justice Technology Principles >>> www.ATJWeb.org >>> >>> Freedom for IP >>> www.FreedomforIP.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
