Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reorganization

After reviewing the article while searching for the name of the stadium the bowl game was played at Sunday night, I immediately saw some problems with the content and tone of the article, especially considering the large number of people who attend this school. This article is classified as a Start-Class in WP:WikiProject Universities, hopefully it can be moved up. I rearranged the article and some of the wording in it to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. The new outline is similar to other university articles. Many sources linked to this article have been evaluated as well; there were quotes not written as such and other mistakes.
I still have some concerns, specifically as to whether or not some of the sources go against the WP:RELY content guidelines in the areas of “no original research” and “extremist sources.”
The section about the physical campuses and sports was removed because it does not have reference and is redundant due to the previous paragraph.
Criticism and Controversies sections were made into subsections under Section ‘’’”Views of University of Phoenix”’’’ as is done in other university articles like [Harvard].
The Accreditation section about Canada was removed since there was no source and I can not find Phoenix on that organizations web site. They operate under subsidiary corporations in Canada and I don’t know what those organizations are called.
Removed the section about not being accredited by NCATE. There are no NCATE-accredited schools, colleges, or departments of education in the state of Arizona so why is it relevant to this school if none of the others think it is important either? Arizona is the only state with no accreditation but looking over the list it looks like it is more important in eastern states than in western states. Many states only have a few accredited organizations. NCATE. They are accredited by TEAC along with University of Pittsburgh, and New York University. TEAC

I expect someone will be sensitive to movement and changes of the subsection about the MBA program not being accredited by the AACSB. They are accredited by the ACBSP, with so much discussion in the talk page over the last year, why did the article not state this? Obviously this schools MBA program is not in the same class as Harvard, University of Florida or even UCLA. The information is mostly irrelevant since the AACSB only has 530 accredited business schools; none of the major adult alternative education programs are included; and most of those on the list have limited online or alternative MBA programs. The article that this subsection referenced contains information omitted in the original article that demonstrates how all three of the above wiki polices were violated. I think after reading the ACBSP article you will understand how this section was not a neutral point of view.

I am new to editing this page, so please don’t take offence to my lack of discussion before making these changes. I did review all 50 printed pages of discussion written so far in the talk page and archives. If you feel that this new version is not an improved compromise over the disputes that have gone on here then by all means, let us discuss. RS (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out as a student in UOP, they charge a fee for submitting your life experiences. The charge for said action cost $110.00. Two things that are eligible for assessment review are Professional Training and Licensing and Experiential Learning Essays. These can only be applied to the Associates or Undergraduate Programs and any credit will be used towards your elective or general education requirements. Not Going To Take It Anymore (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AACSB accreditation

If this section is in the article and states the names of two companies who do not pay for their employees to go to schools not accredited by AACSB then stating that Boeing values an online education is relevant to the subsection. There are no schools accredited by the AACSB that have adult or online education as there core competency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicscout (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Boeing speech states that Boeing will pay for ANY education, not only an MBA degree program. Thus, it is irrelevant to this section which specifically points out companies who hesitate to pay for MBA programs that do not have AACSB certification. Neither MBA or AACSB is mentioned in the article. Boeing does not appear to care what school you attend or what education you pursue. So its not relevant to this section. Moreover, the article does not state that Boeing values an online education, just that it will pay for one.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted Alumni

This article with comply to wikipedia polices and guidelines. There are guidelines that have been set up for Universities. You can see them at WP:UNIGUIDE. In this guide you will see an outline for university articles. The noted alumni section is not at the bottom of the list, rather it is placed where it should be. ‘Noted people — This section is not for a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form.’ It states not a list of famous alumni, so why are you removing the notable people? Unless sufficient discussion is given as to why you want to break from Wikipedia on this then changes will be brought back in line. RS (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guideline

"The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption (which is not determined by counting votes). References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

The preface for the guideline cited as justification for the reorganization of the article is "proposed" not mandatory nor is it a rule or a policy. This guideline does not suggest elevating sections about a stadium which the university has simply paid to affix its name to or key competitors (which is not even in the proposed outline) above more relevant sections like controversy and criticism (which also are not even in the proposed outline). The article does not need to comply with a proposed guideline which not only is only proposed but does not contemplate the specifics of this article and which turns the article upside down. As for notables, I personally did not delete any of the notables but they must be notable within the context of Wikipedia standards and I believe the ones deleted did not fit that. Mysteryquest (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wiki guides should be ignored since there are only gudes? I always stated they are guides and not rules. The Point is that Wikipedia wants all of its university sites to have a similar outline. This site is slightly different since it is not only a University but also a subsidiary of a Major US corporation. You state, “As for notables, . . . but they must be notable within the context of Wikipedia standards and I believe the ones deleted did not fit that.” Where are the standards? How do CEO’s, company founders, sports team owners, and departmental secretaries in presidential succession in the United States not fit the definition of notable? I certainly think they are notable when either they or their company has a separate article in wikipedia. I agree they are not famous, I am not sure you know the difference. This is why I copied the section from Wiki guide above. The University of Phoenix Stadium has its own article and does not need to have a separate subsection here so I am going to change that. The stadium reference is what brought me to this page to begin with, and I did not understand then, as I do not now, why it is a subsection of this article. Some Trolls want to point out the bad in everything and would rather have the unproven negative sections at the very top of the article. Medicscout (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He's right though. It's only a proposed guideline, so you don't have to make radical changes to the article. Some, absolutely. Is the Secretary notable? Sure. Can you cite a source that they attended this Uni? If so, add them in. GreenJoe 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did cite the source, that is why I added them. You call re ordering the subsections “radical changes to the article”? Then what is a minor change?Medicscout (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

did they really need to be reordered though? GreenJoe 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reordering the sections so that trivial information trumps relevant information is a radical change. Additionally, not sure anyone advocates putting negative information at the top of the article, it has never been there, always been in the middle. There are apparently some trolls who advocate burying the well sourced negatives at the end. Also, look back on your revision, you stated the guidelines were "rules". You had no problem making wholesale changes and explaining them AFTERWARDS on the talk page so I suggest that you not take so much umbrage to other editors doing the same thing. Lastly, I wonder if the mayor of some small town in Nevada, one of the least populated states in the union, is that notable.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is at the heart of the problem with this page; the reason why it has not lived up to the standards of other university sites on Wikipedia. The editors who have been here have all had biased positions. The result is a site with never-ending disputes. I do not advocate pushing negative information to the bottom, I advocate working it into the article appropriately to form a neutral point of view displaying information en an encyclopedic way from all sides. When you bounce around the history page comparing how the article has looked every three months over the past few years it is very clear what has been going on. This article needs to live up to the standards and guidelines of the Wikipedia, WikiProject Universities, and to some degree Companies WikiProject since its parent organization is in that project. Many of the long time editors have not cared in the least bit about improving the quality of this article or any others, only preserving their options and keeping positive information to a minimum. You stick to Wiki rules when someone forces you to and ignore developing guidelines since they cannot be enforced. I have looked at the changes you have made to other articles as well, and for the most part it is more of the same. Especially with other for-profit educational companies and subsidiaries. Medicscout (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite amused, are you looking in a mirror, because the things you accuse long time editors of doing, you are doing yourself. You have adhered to the rules when it suits you and ignore them when they don't. You don't advocate putting negative items at the bottom, you just worked it down there coincidentally in the process of "improving" the article. You have been editing for how long now, and you an expert who can pontificate on the serious failings of all the editors before yourself. Well I'm not going to continue this little diatribe with you, it's useless and personal attacks are against Wikipedia policies are did read that one?Mysteryquest (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, I note that you've both been making what I consider good faith edits to improve Wikipedia. I want you both to know that IMHO the article is much improved and the improvement is appreciated. I'm sorry that I've been too busy lately to help but I just wanted you to know that your improvments have been noticed and are appreciated. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I don't personally see how this is adding anything to the article... It talks more about Apollo then it does UOP. Perhaps just referencing the reader to the Apollo article and adding the information there would be more appropriate. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

While I appreciate the efforts to avoid unnecessary vandalism I deleted this section as it appears no one can support a valid reason for it to be included in the article. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

What's the problem with having issue about the organizational structure? Especially if over 90% of tuition revenues are realized by said organization? The information is neutral and verifiable; there's no good reason to exclude it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the 90% tuition point. I just don't see how the rest of the organizational information is all that relevant. I could find out how many classroom UOP has and that can be factual and cited but I don't think that the average user and reader will care. those who do care about those things, I would think , would be best served in looking at the Apollo Group article since this information to me deals more with them then it does with this article. (Fighting Zucchini (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

The section in question is quite short; I can't possibly see the harm in including it, especially given that the org structure is different than most educational institutions. As I said before, it's neutral and verifiable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed what I considered mundane information about the Apollo Group from the Organization section. In my view this is an improvement to the Phoenix University article. Perhaps this could be considered an agreeable compromise? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the listing of all the members of the board, I fail to see how this is relevant or contributes to the article. I believe is a description is enough and all the members of the board can easily be retrieved from the Apollo website for those or are interested in it. I do not believe that many if any other articles on universities list all the members of the board.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that listing the board members lacks notability. IMHO, the article is better without that information. TallMagic (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. My thinking was that the section was vague and board was interesting/unique enough to be notable. Most Universities don't list this type of thing, but then again, most universities don't have such a corporate structure. I will see if another approach is acceptable.17reasons (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So Called Threat/Retribution for Edits

There was not threat of retribution for editing the controversy or criticism sections. There was a problem with editors, generally anonymous editors, deleting the entire section and an advisory was placed there to warn such people that there was no point in deleting the section as it would simply be the section reverted. The reputed threat clearly stated: "If you're here to erase this section of the page..." Emphasis on erase not edit!Mysteryquest (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image of Shaq

I believe as I stated in my edit summary placing a picture of an athletic celebrity only because he happens to have graduated from UofP cheapens the article. He is not notable because he attended University of Phoenix, he doesn't make his living of his degree. I do not think it adds anything to the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can prove he doesn't make his living off his degree—between his contracts for athletics, advertisements, music recordings, and philanthropic efforts, I think an MBA would be helpful. And nobody listed on other university FAs are notable just because they attended the university. Anyway, the picture has every right to stay and I think it adds a lot of value to the article. You could look for another picture if you wish, but the fact that multi-millionaire Shaq went to UoP doesn't cheapen the article at all. --Eustress (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, putting a picture of Spelling makes sense or a professor but a ballplayer simply doesn't belong there. It turns into some kind of celebrity driven, People's article, not an encyclopedia. His MBA might be helpful, however, it hardly defines him. He's basketball player not an academician or a business man, his MBA is not what made him famous. So he is placed in the article for reasons that have nothing to do with his degree or his attendance at UofP.Mysteryquest (talk)

I have looked at numerous school articles and there are no pictures celebrity alumni. The one article that is cited is [[1]]. That article has a picture of the CEO of Pepsi, who is an important business person whose success is derived from his attendance at the school. So that's hardly an apt comparison. As I pointed out Shaq has only an incidental relationship with University of Phoenix. He obviously doesn't make his living of his MBA degree. His endorsements, philanthropy, advertisements and basketball contracts and everything else come from him being a famous basketball player and personality, not because he has an MBA from UofP. An image of him might be appropriate and relevant in the athletic section of the university he attended. I can see putting a picture of Spellman in the article. I could see putting a picture of Einstein in the article of whatever school he went to. It just strikes me as turning an encyclopedia article into People's magazine. If Jerry Seinfeld got a degree from UofP I suppose his picture should be included also.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the image of Shaq in this article provides undue weight to the fact that Shaq graduated from UofP. The picture is not sufficiently relevant to UofP and in my opinion, the article would be improved by its removal. TallMagic (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think the picture adds value to the article (maybe a better picture of him could be used), especially since there aren't any other pictures in the article other than the UoP seal, but if more than Mysteryquest and TallMagic feel the same way, then let's remove it. --Eustress (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also think the picture should be removed. Like MysteryQuest said, it cheapens the article - it gives a tabloid texture to it. Additionally, I feel that adding pictures of notable alumni to any university article is in poor style - a text mention in the article is sufficient. Tan | 39 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the need to remove the image. It adds no informational value that I can see. Also, it looks huge, especially for users with large default settings for thumbnails. If it is retained, the "upright" specification should be added so that it is less large. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is to remove it especially since the one editor who inserted it and argued for its continued inclusion is no longer editing the article. When protection is lifted it will be also. Alternatively, someone can request an admin remove it.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that it should be removed, but I also think that it is difficult to judge how an individual uses his degree (or not) from afar.17reasons (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

shaq is not relevant to the article. With thousands and thousands of alumni, is it that notable to single out one of them, particularly when their notariaty is in a completely unrelated field? Shaq is not known as being a scholar. If you want to make a notable alumni section and list some names, I'd be OK with that, but I don't think this is important. --Azmojo (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scholarly" is not a reason to not include him. He's extremely notable, was even at one of their press conferences. He should be included. GreenJoe 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not including him in the article, the issue is including a photograph of him in the article. The overwhelming consensus is no.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A "Notamble Alumni Section" would be good. --Alt175 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. GreenJoe 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps like this: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas#Notable_people] PeregrineV (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

UoP Stadium

I think something about University of Phoenix Stadium should be mentioned in this article, but not sure where. Any ideas? --Eustress (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the "see also" section? :) GreenJoe 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the sentence, "The University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona is a municipal sports arena, best known as the home of the NFL's Arizona Cardinals and the site of the NCAA's Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The University paid $154.5 million for 20 year naming rights for advertising purposes."? Which the last sentence of the History section? Perhaps the sentence should be moved? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe there should be a dedicated page just for the stadium to focus on the stadium. A line or two about the sponsorship on that page would be appropriate. --Azmojo (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree on this point. The stadium is related to UoP in sponsorship only. It should have it's own page. Chances are, like many of these stadiums -- it will change name in the future. Mike (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys, the stadium already does have its own article (see the University of Phoenix Stadium internal link above?). Anyway, TallMagic pointed out previously that the article already mentions it, so this case should be closed. --Eustress (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Article overhaul

I've drastically updated the article per WP standards because it had serious issues and had not been touched (except for vandalism) for almost two months. I would appreciate User:Mysteryquest posting rebuttals here first instead of reverting. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have been proper and appreciated if you had made your case for your overhaul before you made it. You can make it now, however, I'm going to revert it since there is no way to even discuss what can no longer be seen.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be seen in the history. My edits are much more concise and well-documented (citations). Just talk here about what you don't like...you can post an older version on your sandbox if you want, but I'll just have to undo your reverts, and I'll have to report you if you break the three-revert rule. --Eustress (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not threaten to me, you should have discussed any revisions to the article before you made them. You cannot make unilateral changes to and article and then and simply declare them better than any other version. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. I will continue to revert your changes until I seem some detailed justification for them. Report me if you wish to. This article arrived at the state it was after a long arbitration. If you have problems with it you can air them in the discussion page like very other editor has.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you stop whining and start talking about what you have problems with. I think the article has been improved significantly; there were too many little changes to hammer them out one-by-one. You see the changes now, so let's just address the issues you have—inline with WP:Consensus. --Eustress (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You call me a whiner? You rewrite the article without seeking any consensus in talk, then scream when someone disagrees with your rewrite and reverts a section, demand they explain it in talk when you don't do that, threaten to report them while you are playing 3revert roulette yourself and then run and have the page protected like you're in 1st grade. Who is whining now?Mysteryquest (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to simmer down and stop the personal attacks. Mysteryquest, for the record, Eustress was not the editor who requested page protection. Horologium (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

K, sorry I accused him of that. I just don't like being threatened and called a whiner because I revert one section of a completely overhauled article. So yeah, I got a little riled up and for that I apologize. That said there are some improvements to the article, and also some issues, like putting Shaq's picture up and using a blog to support UofP's population, using a great deal of information from UofP's website which is hardly independent, maybe that balances the article somewhat, I'm not sure.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. There are situations where self published material can be used in an article. I'm referring to UofP's website. A blog can rarly ever be used as a reference. Let's discuss the self published material (UofP's website). I looked at many of the uses of self published material in the article. Nothing really jumped out at me as unreasonable. I didn't look at all of the UofP links though. Can you please point out any that particularly have caused you concern? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Introduction still needs to be improved and expanded a bit per WP:Lead. --Eustress (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mysteryquest, it appears to me that the Eustress edits are improvements. Eustress is just following the wp:bold guideline. Consensus is required when the edits are controversal. If the edits are controversal in your opinion then I would be very encouraging, interested, and supportive in you making your opinions known. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TallMagic. I read over the article, and I think it is really well-written. I owe Eustress my sincerest thanks for his hard work. GreenJoe 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there are some improvements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 May 2008

I have fully protected the page (under the wrong version) for a week to allow the editors to work this out. Horologium (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So instead of blocking or speaking with the one editor disrupting this article no one can edit it? Thanks. Good job! --ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded to a RFPP, saw that there was a dispute, beyond the confines of Bold, Revert, Discuss, and protected the page to ensure that discussion *did* occur. Horologium (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there's some ownership problems here. Tan | 39 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who requested page protection. I honestly didn't think blocking either Eustress or Mysteryquest would do us any good. I'd rather discussion occur, and they can't do that if they're blocked. GreenJoe 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why blocking anyone would be necessary or appropriate. There was a threat and a response to it, but after that the controversy section of the article and the image of the Shaq was reverted twice, nothing else occurred. Now nothing will happen until the page protection is lifted.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The point to the page protection is to get the involved editors to discuss the matter and come to an agreement, not to simply postpone the edit war for a week. It's not difficult for an admin to step in and extend the page protection if there is no discussion; please use the time constructively and come to an agreement. Once there is a consensus on changes, I will have no problem unprotecting the page. Horologium (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Like the discussion that was occurring before you protected the article? Bad call, Horologium. Those who edit this and similar articles know where to find admins when we need admin action. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and one of them went to WP:RFPP to find an admin, and requested protection when an edit-war broke out on this page. That editor was not involved in the back-and-forth. Neither editor in the edit war appeared to be likely to back down (and one flat-out stated that he would continue reverting), so rather than block the two of them, I locked the page and encouraged them to arrive at a consensus first. You are welcome to criticize my protection, but I am unlikely to be persuaded by your argument. Horologium (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a mild aside - Eustress, you might want to think about using "show preview" more and not saving every few minutes... almost 50 tiny edits over the space of 3-4 hours really mucks up the page history. Just advice, take it or leave it :-) Tan | 39 18:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken, Tan. Regarding the page protection, I'm very grateful that an admin was asked to step in because the fact that issues regarding the changes have still not been addressed here is evidence that "reverts" (a euphemism for vandalism, in this case) would have continued to occur. I feel we have a lot of good editors here now who can help ensure that the article progresses henceforth, but I again emphasize that no issues (other than very minor ones regarding the Shaq picture and the possible need for additional, third-party sources) have been presented. --Eustress (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm continually astounded by the depth of your apparent arrogance in calling reverts vandalism when you don't agree with them. You might consider choosing your words more carefully. Please check the definition of vandalism and note that a content dispute is not vandalism.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In The Chronicle

Here is a relevant article that was posted in The Chronicle of Higher Education on May 5, 2008. http://chronicle.com/news/article/4436/u-of-phoenix-draws-big-names-to-advisory-panel-on-new-center-on-teaching-adults . I really think it should be considered for this article. Here is a copy/paste of the article.....

The University of Phoenix, which specializes in education for working adults, has nabbed some well-known names in higher education to advise it on a new research institute that it is establishing to study which teaching methods work best for nontraditional students.

Phoenix’s new National Research Center, as the institute is called, will be led by Jorge Klor de Alva, a past president of the university who now carries the title senior vice president for academic excellence.

The university has recruited as founding advisers for the research center David W. Breneman, a former dean of education at the University of Virginia (who has both praised and criticized the institution in books and articles); Carol B. Aslanian, a consultant on learning and a former official with the College Board; and Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

In addition to studying new adult-focused approaches to teaching and the use of educational technology, the university said in a news release, the center will focus on “issues of student achievement and retention, accountability, affordability, access, and inclusion.”

In a departure for an institution that has historically focused on hiring a practitioner faculty and providing “real-world education” to its students, the new center will also seek to enhance the university’s support of faculty and student research.

With 330,000 students, the university, owned by the Apollo Group Inc., is the largest private institution in North America. (BG_Jackson 5/7/2008)

I don't see this as being particularly noteworthy. OK, so they got some big names on a committee to research stuff, big deal. This is not an uncommon thing, IMO --Azmojo (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section Deletions

"The main points of criticism include:

• The coursework is perceived by some as lacking meat and that the stripped-down schedule rushes students through the academic schedule too fast.

Strongly opposed. I already integrated this bullet more tactfully: "...perhaps fostering a "stripped-down" academic schedules that rushes students through their studies." "Lacking meat" is too colloquial and uncontextualized in this case. --Eustress (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. This seems like information that is supported by a reliable source and is notable. Perhaps the wording could be improved though? TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. This is information from a reliable and notable source.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. for the above reasons stated, plus I think the wording is carefully precise and accurate (perceived by some). --Azmojo (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• That UoP's tuition cost is greater than most public schools and is seen by some as disproportionate to the educational value it gives to its students, as compared with community colleges and other public schools.

Strongly opposed. Not only is this bullet irrelevant since UoP is a private university (not a public one), UoP's tuition is close to average, as stated now under section Academics. It's source says the following: "Undergraduate tuition rates at University of Phoenix are generally equal to or less than most private postsecondary institutions. According to a report from the College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2005, total tuition and fees at four-year private colleges and universities average approximately $22,000 a year. (This figure is tuition only and does not include room and board.) University of Phoenix undergraduate tuition and fees are generally considered mid-range for private universities and average about $12,000 a year." --Eustress (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. This seems like information that is supported by a reliable source and is notable. This has been the most common knock that I've personally seen voiced against UoP. Not that personal experience means much but since it is supported by a reliable source, it seems to me that it should be included. TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. Notable and reliably sourced.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. Good sources. The reason for opposition is illogical. Yes, UOP tuition may be average compared to private schools, but the comparison to public schools is valid and worth noting and should not be ignored or excluded. --Azmojo (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• That a degree from UoP is seen by employers as inferior, and that students graduate only to find that their degree doesn't get them the jobs they hoped it would. According to the Online University Consortium, a 2003 study of HR professionals indicated that "the majority of the HR professionals surveyed would select a job candidate with an online degree from a traditional school such as USC or University of Michigan over a job candidate with a degree from an organization such as the University of Phoenix."

Opposed. The first sentence, I believe, is an unfair extrapolation of the work cited. The only thing the article says about UoP's "inferiority" is "Some workers left or were planning to leave because their new degree didn't help them advance at Intel." The second sentence seems to be a moot point and an unfair comparison—USC and Michigan are some of the highest ranked universities in the nation. These are old, experienced, well-recognized universities with completely different education models, even though they too offer some online programs. You might compare UoP to Devry University or some of the others listed by OEDb (see section Academics), but this is an apple-to-oranges comparison. --Eustress (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. Perhaps change the first sentence from "employers" to "Intel"?TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. Again, this is a reliable, verifiable source for the information and should be included. We do not do original research here. We cite sources for our information. The fact that a degree from UofP, regardless of the reasons, was perceived as not helping a worker advance, is quite notable and should be included in the article when it comes from a reliable source. Not including reliably sourced information because of personal disagreement or animus is not legitimate. If the text based on the source needs to be restructured somewhat then we can restructure it, but simply leaving it out is not NPOV.Mysteryquest (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. Good sources. There are additional sources which may or may not be able to be used due to the fact that I don't know how much longer they'll be available. I'm referring to the job postings which tell UOP grads not to apply. --Azmojo (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• The UoP's perceived balance between value to students and profits to shareholders is a major element of criticism. Critics cite that the recent success UoP has seen on Wall Street has come directly at the expense of a declining quality of education to students. They note that they believe people don't have a problem with a university making a profit as long as it is delivering a good value to its customers.

Opposed. I think this bullet is very weak in its case and is given ample coverage in the current statement, "The University has been criticized for various reasons. One is that a conflict of interest may exist when a for-profit company administers education." Moreover, UoPsucks.com is a blog at best and unreliable (see the site's disclaimer at the bottom of its page). --Eustress (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor.' The statement "The University has been criticized ... One is that a conflict ..." is a generic statement that can be applied to all for-profit colleges and is somewhat of a dodge here. The criticism that was removed in favor of that weak, generic statement was and is specific to UofP not all for-profits institutions. For-profit institutions have an inherent conflict of interest however some rise above it. So by removing criticism specific to UofP's alleged failure to rise above that inherent conflict of interest in favor of a generic criticism potentially applicable to all for-profits is a needless dilution of criticism specific to UoP. It's like removing a statement: "Jimmy pulled Julie's pigtails" in favor of "All little boys pull little girls' picktails". This article is about "Jimmy" not "all little boys." UoPSucks may be a blog, however, it is featured in the NYTimes article which bolsters and legitimatizes it.Mysteryquest (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor.' UOP is without a doubt the poster-child for for-profit education. As such, it receives almost all of the focus of the profit-in-education debate, and this is worth noting. UOPSucks.com is not a blog (although it has one), they are a consumer news website not unlike any other website that publishes its own materials. As a site dedicated to the subject, the material presented is reliable. The disclaimer pertains to user-provided content. The specific page cited is not a user-provided page. --Azmojo (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• That UoP accepts enrollment from anyone, such as first-time college students whom UoP caters to, even if UoP is not suitable for them. This is seen as favoring profits over education."

Opposed. This point is not entirely correct and full of wasel words. As now stated in the Academics section, all applicants to UoP must meet certain requirements, and specific programs further require more (e.g., GPA, previous work experience, immunizations, background checks, etc.) as supported by citations. The purported fact that UoP caters mainly to first-time college students is irrelevant, as all universities recruit the most for its undergraduate programs. I would dare to say the few universities if any have more graduate students than undergraduates. The statement "...even if UoP is not suitable for them" seems highly subjective and unmeasurable. Who's to tell you that Harvard is not for you—even if you have to go into debt to obtain your education. This point seems nonsensical. --Eustress (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor. This seems like information that is supported by a reliable source and is notable. TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor I echo TallMagic's points and further point out that information that is reliable and notable should be included. If you disagree with a notable and reliable source, cite one that disagrees with it, do not oppose it with personal opinion and WP:OR. The fact that an editor disagrees with a source is no reason not to include it in an article. All universities do not recruit the "most" for their undergraduate programs, in some are are rather selective. However, again, attacking a source based on your own disagreement with it is WP:OR. The fact that you find the source to be subjective and unmeasurable is your personal opinion and should not preclude its inclusion. Moreover, the citations supporting the Academics section come from UofP and are hardly independent and certainly cannot be a reason to not include information from a reliable source contradicting them. Mysteryquest (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor Partially. I agree with the above comments but would support the deletion of "even if UoP is not suitable for them." as this is an unsupported argument as far as I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmojo (talk

- original source needed

The above are some of the valid and well sourced criticisms of UofP which were removed in the "overhaul". I do not see any reason for the deletions. If the goal was to summarize the section, then they can be summarized not just ignored. Especially since much of the information in the article now is heavily supported by UofP self-published and potentially self-serving information and a blog (footnote 17). If the article is simply going to parrot University of Phoenix's information, why bother. Just send people to UofP's website. The deletion of mention of the $277 mil shareholder's lawsuit victory on the grounds that it was Apollo who was sued is not compelling to me. Apollo was sued because they conspired to hide information ABOUT University of Phoenix, thus it is relevant to the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I find myself in general agreement with Mysteryquest's concerns as expressed above. I suggest that all of the above be added back into the article. Although I'm open to arguments targeted at specific points not being added back in. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting some concerns. I have addressed each bullet and invite others to do likewise. More broadly speaking, I overhauled this entire section as the bullet points were not parallel in structure and very poorly worded. Moreover, lists of this nature are discouraged as prose can more clearly, impartially, and concisely convey the topics. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't add the blog citation (footnote #17). It was there before I started editing, so it must have been inserted under your watch. --Eustress (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what footnote #17 means, I expect it refers to the UOPSucks site. The UOPSucks website is not a blog reference although I do agree that it is probably not a reliable source. On the hand, that argument seems irrelevant to me when discussing the above points because the two references to UOPSucks also reference the Yung article which is a reliable source. Also, please keep in mind that this is Wikipedia and we enjoy open editting and no one has been assigned responsibility for watching articles. I edit Wikipedia out of general respect for knowledge, the sense of community, a sense of accomplishment, and gratitude for the valuable Wikipedia resource. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You assumed incorrectly (see the main article). Footnote #17 refers to http://phoenix.about .com/b/2003/07/17/university-of-phoenix-has-largest-graduation-ever.htm.

It appears to me that footnote#17 in the current article has nothing to do eith this section of the talk page. It seems to be a reference for a non-controversial statement. Why did you mention it above? Did my "watch" statement answer/address/relevant to your watch statement? Who was your "watch" statement directed at? What is the point of your "watch" statement? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mysteryquest brought it up again in the paragraph in this section starting "The above are some of the valid...." My comment was directed to him because I was erroneously blamed for including that citation. --Eustress (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense now. Thanks TallMagic (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I have not had access to the internet. If I erroneously implied that Eustress put in Footnote #17 (not #7) I apologize, however, I do not recall it being there before. I have reviewed the talk page in my absence and see no reason for the deletions of well referenced criticisms which were deleted without cause or consensus. The fact that one editor has a "problem" with them is not enough to delete them from the article and I intend to put them back in when the "cooling off" period has subsided.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit dumbfounded at your responses, but that's how it goes. (Note: bullet #4 has not been refuted.) I really don't feel you've done anything to rebuttal any of my reasoning for exclusion of these bullets other than say that the sources are reliable—in most cases, my argument isn't that the source is unreliable but that the sourced information has been misinterpreted, already covered more concisely, or is irrelevant. Anyway, it appears from above that TallMagic has a COI-vendetta against UoP and is determined to oust the institution; I, however, just want to see this article improved—this section was especially a mess with all of the bullets and superfluous info—half the article is controversy and law suits already...not much balance, not broad in coverage. Will the two of you at least please modify the current text below to how you would like it to appear when the protection is lifted? I feel we need to do it here first or we'll just be back-and-forth again later. Also, be sure to bring up any serious issues you may have about the other sections. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no conflict of interest on my part regarding UoP. I have never attended the school, I have never worked at the school, I'm only interested in the quality of the Wikipedia article. On this very talk page I've expressed concerns in the past that this article needed better balance in that more positive information needed to be added. I searched general news sources and really didn't find anything. My next idea was searching self published material. The generally wrong way to balance the article is to delete the well sourced and notable negative information. This is commonly referred to as censorship and is incorrect. Eustress, I appreciate your improvements to the article. Please assume good faith and believe that my only interest in the article is improving the article. My firm belief is that everyone here shares that same interest. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the accusation. I was confused by your comment above "Not that personal experience means much..." and jumped to conclusions. --Eustress (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the history of the talk page the following was done by Eustress. I assume that it is a proposal for a new section to be added to the article. As such, I consider it a fine improvment to the article. TallMagic (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't think we're on the same page. My proposition is that you and whomever add to what is currently on the article (what I posted below). It's not an addition to all the bullets that were discussed above. If this is unacceptable, we may need to request mediation. --Eustress (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused at your contention that TallMagic has a conflict of interest and am bewildered at the specific foundation for it other than he believes the deleted controversy information is relevant. Presumably I must have a conflict of interest as well since I believe that as well. So, you are an altruist who wants to see the article improved and because we disagree with you, we are ... anarchists? Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. I believe that your reasoning that the sourced information has been misinterpreted, already covered concisely or irrelevant is flawed and is and has been easily rebutted per my earlier comments. I'm also amused at your request that we reconstruct the page in talk so you can vet them, when you did not see fit to do that. However, when I have an opportunity I will endeavor to oblige.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this comment is needed since I already apologized. (P.S. Please keep comments in chronological order.) --Eustress (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My comment was composed before TallMagic responded to your accusation and you apologized, however a series of edit conflicts stopped it from being entered. I placed it where it would have been had edit conflicts not preempted it and where it made sense to place it.17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal notice

I will no longer be editing University of Phoenix (or at least for a while). Below is my suggested rendering of the section. Best wishes --Eustress (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

The University has been criticized for various reasons. One is that a conflict of interest may exist when a for-profit company administers education—perhaps fostering a "stripped-down" academic schedules that rushes students through their studies. Moreover, the university's business program is also not accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. UoP has also been criticized for not having qualified professors or teachers, but rather facilitators that encourage students to teach each other. Additionally, UoP's overall graduation rate is 16% while the national average is 55%. The federal standard measures graduation rates as "the percentage of first-time undergraduates who obtain a degree within six years". Supporters say that the comparison is not a fair one since UoP follows a significantly different educational model than traditional universities, but critics find the statistic troubling.

UoP has also been the subject of several lawsuits in recent years. A federal whistle blower lawsuit accusing the university of fraudulently obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid was filed in 2003 and is currently pending—the university receiving more federal student financial aid than any other university in the United States in 2004. In September 2004, the university paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of Higher Education Act provisions that prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives.

The University also paid $3.5 million in back wages to 1,700 workers related to overtime pay and exemption status given to its recruitment advisers, under a settlement reached in July 2004 with the United States Department of Labor. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a sexual harassment claim filed against the university by a former employee for $225,000 in August 2007. Currently, the University is also being sued by the EEOC for alleged religious discrimination favoring Mormon enrollment counselors.

Editing after lock

As I suspected, as soon as the lock expired on this page, there was a flurry of editing to restore all of the disputed information. I am not going to weigh in on whether or not that section should exist, but it if remains, it needs a lot of work.

Right now, that section reads like a laundry list of grievances, and looks like it's a bulleted list in which someone removed the bullets. In addition, there are far too many citations for each section; one (or maybe two) cite should be sufficient to establish the facts. Some of the citations are repeated for the same statement; that needs to be fixed. Also, the site "UoPsucks" is not a reliable source; please remove it and either find a reliable citation for the statements for which it is used as a reference, or remove those statements. Horologium (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The citations were put in there to firm up the allegations. Didn't realize that you could have too many citations. Yes, it was indeed a bulleted list but the editor who overhauled the article had a problem with the bullets. I have no problem consolidating it into one paragraph. UopSucks was "given legitimacy" by its mention in the New York Times article, however, it can be deleted. There is nothing in it that isn't supported by several reliable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to use the undo button if necessary. GreenJoe 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't have too many references, but I agree with Horologium, their site (UoPSucks) probably isn't a reliable source... except if you're citing one of the news articles (like the New York Times), that is on their site. GreenJoe 22:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. UOPSucks.com is a reliable source, as they are dedicated to the subject at hand. While the site contains a lot of opinions, it also has collected lots of facts and reliable information and is 100% focused on this subject. I think anyone who runs a website dedictated to a subject with as much info as UOPSucks.com does has is indeed an expert on the subject and worth listening to. --72.222.243.48 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A website completely without credit. This should not be used as a source. Like GreenJoe said, perhaps you can use it to find more reliable sources. Tan | 39 01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I took out UOPexperience.com from the reference links and it was replaced today by Azmojo and Reswobslc. The site is a mirror to UOPsucks. Horologium had stated above that he didn't view it a reliable source (and I agree). I believed and stated that this user is an admin. I may have been incorrect about this (Reswobslc corrected me).17reasons (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

This section needs severe editing. I may revert it back to the pre-unlock state. GreenJoe 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the pre=lock state was that it excluded a lot of criticism which was legitimate and reliably sourced. Per the talk page there was consensus for including it, thus I do not see that as a legitimate option. Why don't you just make the edits you feel are warranted to what is in there and we can discuss it or explain what specific problems you have, either way.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus up there. GreenJoe 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Look again under controversy section deletions. After the "overhaul", I placed a list of the items which had been deleted and we weighed on whether they should be kept or not. TallMagic and I agreed that they should. The vote against was cast by the editor who withdrew from editing. That is one of the reasons I put a lot of the criticisms back in. I trimmed them way back which is why they look like a list of grievances. If the problem is just style they can be consolidated into one paragraph. It is not clear exactly what the problem is, whether its the criticism or the style. There is more than enough reliable sources to support their inclusion. So what exactly are the problems you have?Mysteryquest (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic and you don't make a consensus, and even if it did, he only agreed to one part, not the entire thing. I think your reading glasses need to be replaced. And IT'S NOT A VOTE but a discussion, so you could have 5 - 1 in favour and still not have it carried out. GreenJoe 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Eustress wrote the proposed criticism and controveries section above. He was the one editor that seemed to have a problem with the old version. No one said they had a problem with Eustress's proposed version. That seems close enough to a consensus to me to at least avoid insults and accusations needing reading glasses. TallMagic (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case there are any misconceptions, I am not an admin. GreenJoe 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to note how criticism is presented in another article : [2] PeregrineV (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of a single incident causing criticism. West_Virginia_University#Allegation_of_academic_fraud TallMagic (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

uopexperience.com link

I thought I'd start a discussion about the link, as there seems to be some minor revert warring over it. While it may not be a reliable source for references, it being included in the links section is another ballpark alltogether. As for me, I'm undecided on this. GreenJoe 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a mirror of UOPSucks.com. This should most definitely NOT be included in the external links. There's no way this meets WP:EL - it's all unverifiable, bloggy, and completely POV. Tan | 39 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but it doesn't have to be verifiable to meet WP:EL. In fact, it specifically meets this one guideline... Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. GreenJoe 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect - and I do respect your opinion - I don't think it meets that guideline. While the material might be "relevant" to people choosing whether to attend the UoP or not, it's not relevant to and not appropriate for this article. It's akin to adding "Americasucks.net" or something similar to the United States article. Linking to a negative NY Times article is one thing; this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I suppose that I'm not going to fight this tooth and nail - and if this link is added, it should be in the main article with a paragraph explaining that there are different views on the quality of the university. "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially." Adding this site to the external links section gives this view undue weight, especially without a counter "UOPRules.com". Tan | 39 15:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See, I have no issue with both a pro and a con site, though I generally think of the "official" site as the UOPRules.com. However, if you know of such a site, I see no reason we cannot discuss its merits and inclusion in the EL section. As for "Americansucks.net" I'd generally refer you to Other Stuff Exists, that said, maybe that link should be in that article. Not everything for every company/entity is all daises and roses. In fact, when I visited UOPSucks.com they had a link to a site that has all kind of similar sits for all kinds of companies. Should they be included in the articles here? If the links still work, I generally think they should. That said, sometimes everyone has a site like that, and there can be more than one, when you only require one in the article. Then you have to discern which one to include. GreenJoe 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that UOPSucks.com, UOPRules.com (I like GreenJoe's argument that the UOP site is like a UOPrules.com site), and Americansucks.net should all be included as an external link in their respectful articles, assuming that the POV page is meaty enough, especially if the POV page is referenced in a reliable source somewhere. A Wikipedia external link is not intended to be an endorsement of any particular point of view. Including material from such a POV site in Wikipedia based on the POV site alone is another matter. An important service of Wikipedia is providing references to information, in this case it means just an external link instead of including material in the Wikipedia article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

External links are meant to enhance the article, give the reader something more to read if they wish. POV sites are specifically allowed because that's stuff you can't put in the article. External links are allowed to be POV. GreenJoe 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The link definitely should be included. UOPSucks.com has compiled tons of information (much of it from other reliable sources) completely dedicated to UOP. It is a valuable resource for anyone seeking information about UOP for any purpose. If UOPRules.com existed and had good substance I would approve of its inclusion as well. The fact that such a site doesn't exist does not mean that UOPSucks.com can't be mentioned. --Azmojo (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section & Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

• Criticism section had this super-huge on-going paragraph that I broke up because it was too much to read at once.
• Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business - Who says it's prestigious, and where's the verification? The only citation for that is the Intel dropping UoP, which is obviously invalid for that argument. GreenJoe 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi GreenJoe, CHEA is responsible for recognizing the legitimate accreditation agencies in the USA. Here's the CHEA link showing that AACSB is recognized. Regarding the prestige of AACSB, IIRC there is text in the article that I thought attested to that? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on that. Yes, AACSB is recognized, so it their competition, the accreditation that Phoenix does have. I don't agree that the article attests to the "prestige." It simply says that Intel dropped anyone not using AACSB, but that only shows they have "better" standards, or higher standards, it doesn't say anything to support the peacock term of "prestigious". GreenJoe 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a clear distinction between "prestigious" and a higher standard. Look at Harvard University for example. Even I'll admit they're "prestigious", of course that comes with a UoP-style tuition. However, no where have I seen that Harvard has a "higher standard." Of course the Harvard article is probably very-carefully watched, and probably doesn't use many peacock terms. (God, I sound like a Bank of America commercial now, LOL.) GreenJoe 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi GreenJoe, how about?

Although Phoenix is regionally accredited, it lacks approval from the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.ref#24 in current article

TallMagic (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG, someone's using a talk page!!! Let me check the temperature in Hell.... all kidding aside, I have a proposed re-word too....

Although Phoenix is regionally accredited, it lacks approval from the most recognized accrediting agency for business schools, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.

00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC) GreenJoe

The blockquote I made above is from the New York Times article that I linked to. If you're not familar with AACSB, it is a very safe statement to say that AACSB is in fact the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools. I would consider regional accreditation more recognized than AACSB, although I guess it could be argued that RA does not specialize business schools. TallMagic (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) TallMagic (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh, ok. Well I was bold and simply re-worded the statement. If it doesn't meet your satisfaction, I can give it some more thought. GreenJoe 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just learned that the UoP Associate & Baccalaureate/Graduate programs (including its MBA program) are now all accredited by the AACSB (as of earlier this year); see AACSB UoP and UoP Accreditation. I will be bold and remove this bullet, as it is no longer valid. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be nitpicky, but AACSB accreditation, and ACBSP are different organizations. AACSB is the more prestegious of the two, thus the point does still stand. GreenJoe 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Man...those acronyms are so similar. I reverted...thanks! --Eustress (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Your total bill for this issue comes to $139.95 plus tax. Please pay the cashier on your way out. GreenJoe 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Going for the silver!!

I have an idea to bring us all together... let's try to achieve GOOD ARTICLE status!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The criteria that we need to aim for:

1. It's gotta be well written. Does it have that now?

2. It's gotta be factually accurate and verifiable. Meaning no fact tags. If we can't cite it, we gotta take it out.

3. Broad in coverage

4. It's neutral

5. It's stable. We gotta stop edit-warring, and start using this talk page!!!

6. Images... We kinda need some. Can anyone go to the Uni and take pic's? GreenJoe 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it and support this goal. I probably don't have a lot of time but I'll try to help! TallMagic (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree and will do my best, too. I was disappointed that my successful nomination of the site to the University Project (University Collaborations of the Fortnight) didn't bear much fruit (if any). Happy to roll up my sleeves.17reasons (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

rv/rv revertion/ rv rv reversion

someone made the following change (amongst others).

• A business degree accredited by Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is perceived as superior by some employers due to its research orientation

Here's the original

• A business degree not accredited by Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is perceived by some employers such as Intel, as inferior to top-tier business schools that have the organization's accreditation

The original is supported by the references. The change claims the exact opposite with no support that I know of.

Please stop making changes to Wikipedia that are not supported by verifiable references.

Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I read it over and found the "new" wording to be highly POV. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my response to the following edit comment, "Don't undo all because you don like 1 sentence; fix it instead" I generally agree with this statement. However, when I look at a long edit and the first edit is changing a sourced statement to mean the exact opposite and there's no new references being added and I'm familar enough with the existing reference to be pretty sure that it doesn't support such a change and I don't have time to go through all the changes one at a time and double checking the accuracy then I will revert the whole thing. That is my style. My thought is that protecting the integrity of the Wikipedia article is probably more important than some minor improvements. Perhaps later today I will have time to look at some of the other changes and include them if they turn out to be good improvments. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the first sentence is confusing and appears to be POV. (Frankly, I would prefer to eliminate it.) I have been following Caernarvon's edits and that is the only one that I was uncomfortable with. (Most of) The others, to me, make for a better article and, in fact, make it closer to being a proper Wikipedia article. When I see a blanket revision without comment and without regard to content, I take it to be POV or vandalism. IMHO, most of the changes are valid and improve the article.

Regarding the first paragraph, I would like to see all discussion changed to state that 1) That there are 2 "recognized" accrediting councils [AACSB & ACBSP], and 2) UPX is only accredited by AACSB, and 3) Some businesses, like Intel, do not reimburse for AACSB. Then, include citable text that explains why this is controversial or worth criticsm. Mike (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. There is a distinct difference between AACSB & ACBSP - however, those are probably best for the articles of the accrediting agencies. But the edits made were changing the facts of the very critiques themselves, and everything I've seen in that section is cited. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I don't have any problem with what you say. In partcicular, I see no problem with your three points except to say that the references currently in the article do not support those statements. Your three points appear to be original research unless you have the references to back it up. I would like to say, as I believe that I've previously mentioned on this page, that I believe the UPX article could be improved with some more positive material on UPX. I think part of the problem is that the nature of journalism is to generally report on problems and crticisms. I believe that this has made it difficult to find more positive statements to add to the article that are verifiable. I've given up trying to find positive stuff on UPX on Google. I have concluded that the best source might be self published material on UPX websites. Although one must be much more cautious with the type of material used from self published sources. Another possibility though is relooking at the existing references for positive type statements that aren't already in the article. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a fascinating topic. The more I delve into it, the more interesting it becomes. The school definitely inspires some stong feelings! I have to say though, everyone seems to have bought in to the idea that the AACSB/ACBSP issue is highly relevant and appropriate. I've checked several other schools that offer MBA's with ACBSP accreditation and the Intel article isn't mentioned in their websites. Why is one company's abberant dropping of non-AACSB schools mentioned here and nearly nowhere else if it isn't a POV? I would venture to say that Mike is right that, "1)That there are 2 "recognized" accrediting councils [AACSB & ACBSP], and 2) UPX is only accredited by AACSB, and 3) Some businesses, like Intel, do not reimburse for AACSB. Then, include citable text that explains why this is controversial or worth criticsm." Thoughts? --Caernarvon (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi all - I agree that the first sentence under Criticisms could be better supported. The problem with using a NPOV argument for this section is that many of these criticisms have been answered in the media or are answerable in fact. Criticism itself implies a point of view - the question is, are the criticisms noted referenced properly and has there been a reasonable opportunity to answer the criticism. As for AACSB & ACBSP accreditation and organizational philosophy, they are right on, per the specific organization's websites. I have reverted to the changes I made yesterday. I will go back in and change SPECIFIC information on AACSB & ACBSP until I get better supporting research. Any changes from that point I ask be made per revision rather than wholesale. Sorry for any confusion! I promise to start here with comprehensive edits in the future! --Caernarvon (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal feeling as to why there are news articles written about Intel dropping UPX reimbursement etc. is simply because UPX is a huge business. As a business it dwarfs other schools. The figure for revenue being lost from Intel alone was a large number. A stock holder in Apollo should rightly be concerned it will be hard to make up those kind of numbers and to continue to grow at the rate that the stock holders have come to expect. TallMagic (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is possible, though the article states that only 5% of Intel's workforce even take advantage of any tuition reimbursement - which seems a bit low. UPX would only be getting its share of that 5%. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In 2007, Intel had 86,300 employees wordwide. source. 5% is a heck of a lot of money to UPX, just based on 5%. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken; it is quite a bit of money. 5% of 86,300 is 4,315. Estimating high, let's say UPX had 20% of that market, which would be 863 students. At about $4,634 (budget -20% overhead/863 students) per year per student, thats about $3,999,142, (updated monetary calculations for reasonableness --Caernarvon (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)) or about .0028% of the school's student population - a pretty hefty sum. On the other hand, using those same estimates as a baseline, with a combined student population of 300,000 source it does seem to be a bit of a drop in the UPX bucket. I'd be more inclined to believe UPX would be more worried about it if other employers followed suit. To date, that has not happened, and even the original citing article talking about Intel dropping non-AACSB schools suggested it was more an abberation and possibly as much a result of tighter economic times as it was an attempt to improve educational quality. source The article calls it, "an unusual move" and noted Intel's own spokesperson, Gail Dundas, suggested the impetus behind the decision was because of the $25m price tag for the reimbursement program. The article goes on to mention other sources that found the policy odd with plenty of speculation about the motive being cost driven, with school quality being the secondary consideration. UPX is mentioned in the article, along with Capella, Chicago State, and Xavier University, though there's no mention of the Intel article on those WP pages. What really concerns me is there is no mention of the policy on the Intel public website, either. Out of the public domain, it is possible that a new and odd reimbusement policy like this by Intel, interesting to the press as it was when implemented, may not be so interesting if reversed. For all anyone knows or could know, the policy may have lasted two weeks, or will last two years or two centuries and no one in the public domain would have access to that information to correct the WP page. I don't know, I worked at the University of South Florida for 10 years - they got sued over personnel issues and hiring practices and beat up over accreditation problems at their regional campuses (one is presently on probation after failing to fix some problems) and none of that makes it to their WP pages. Their firing of Sami Al Arian did, and rightfully so. I'm trying to understand the UPX rancor. I believe with so many folks obviously annoyed with the school there must be something behind it. It's a regionally accredited school, with numerous specialty accreditations; can the problem really be so notably with its quality that the topic deserves such exhaustive treatement of the WP page? Or maybe I'm just supporting an underdog. I'd hope not, considering UPX is obviously an evil megacorporation! (They're all evil, nothing personal!) In court there is some evidence that one side may try to introduce that truly does have value, like grisly photos of a murder, but draws such a strong response from a jury that anger and a desire for justice (against someone, anyone) may prejudice the jury against the defendant. This evidence is not allowed. I think all of what's on this page is documented and well cited, and standing each alone may not be POV, but I could do a similar workover job on any school out there. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Repairs and Corrections

I am going to repair citations 15 and 31 tomorrow, both of which have problems. I will see if 15 is repairable. 31 doesn't seem to exist anymore, though I believe the article may reside at stable internet sources, so I will see if I can just find a better home for the article to cite it. I believe there is one UoP mentioned still in the body of the article (not a citation) and there is a reference at the end of a sentence in the Criticism section that appears inside the period instead of outside, as it should be. I will make those corrections at the same time if there are no objections. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed 31. It was a reference to the New York Times article. IIRC, that is a very large article, I'm surprised it wasn't referenced any place else in the article. It used to be referenced multiple times. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of improving the article, I would like to briefly compare and contrast the learning teams used by UPX with the preceptoral system developed by Princeton University in 1905. In the next few days I will present a draft in this forum (unless someone else wants to work up and present some preliminary research before that). Meanwhile, those interested can review some of the material at -

http://www.princeton.edu/admission/whatsdistinctive/experience/the_preceptorial_system/

I propose the new material be added under Academics. I think it is relevant because the UPX learning model is based on similar teams, which are at the same time cited as a weakness and a strength, depending on the source. I believe my proposal would benefit from a lively cross-section of viewpoints - so I encourage respectful debate! --Caernarvon (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording: The University model stresses the use of out of class learning teams, bearing some resemblance the the well-established Princeton University preceptoral system in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.

The cites would be formatted to be appropriate for the article - the discussion page doesn't display them correctly, so I don't format them to appear in references here. Let me know what you all think! --Caernarvon (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I have added a sentence contrasting the programs. --Caernarvon (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I have made the punctuation and abbreviation corrections and posted the new material. If you all would, take a close look at the synthesis of the new material. Although each statement is individually verified, the link between the two schools is really my own observation. Is that crossing the line to original research? Based on the above discussions I propose a re-write of the Criticisms section grouping and summarizing the major themes of the criticisms and answers and ensuring the remaining links are still valid if readers wish to read elswhere for the in-depth opinions. I will, of course, post any proposed revisions here inviting intelligent debate prior to making any serious changes. It is my serious conviction that this WP needs to lose the tabloid feel if it is going to move beyond starter page rating. There are some good criticisms sections for other schools, we should try to research those (especially the better developed and rated pages) when deciding format and content. Thanks for everyone's input. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Cite tags are the proper way to do a citation. Don't ruin them.
2. Give other editors time to read what you post. We do have lives you know. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep things nice, but once again we're dealing with a complete undo because someone didn't like part of an edit. I posted that I was going to make a correction to the citation days ago. If you think I fixed it wrong, then fix it yourself, but look at the citation you've reverted to, it clearly has problems. You even added back the extra period at the end of a sentence. You removed the added material without discussion or comment as to the material itself. If you're trying to be disruptive, you are succeeding. Expanding and improving an article doesn't happen by itself and no wonder this is a start-class WP years after its origination. If you don't like that I gave only a day for notice for my changes, then ask me to make it longer, I can do that. We haven't gone a day since beginning this round of improvements without discussion yet. I apologize if it appeared most of the interested crew here were sufficiently engaged for that to be enough notice to at least make a comment. Last, please be civil in your responses. A glance at the top of the discussion page would probably do us all some good every now and then (Be Polite - Assume Good Faith - No Personal Attacks - Be Welcoming). I would much rather work with you and polite commentary, even criticism of my efforts, will get you anything you ask for within reason. There, I'm almost done being annoyed at the tone you took. Seriously, take a look at the reference - if you can fix it in a way that you like, I'm all for it. It starts with ^ "date=2008-25-05 and that's clearly not correct. Have it your way on the format, but its messy and needs some cleanup. Much better than a global revert. You also undid a separate punctuation fix. I'm going to try again tomorrow to remove the extra period at the end of the second sentence of the second bullet under the Criticism section and move cite 34 to the outside of the second sentence of the third bullet under the Criticisms section. I will try the other changes again sometime after that (three days of notice and opportunity to comment here). --Caernarvon (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the statement that Princeton's method is similar to UPX's method is original research. Although I don't really consider it controversial and I thought is was presented in a neutral tone. It improves the article, IMHO, but it technically is probably a mild violation of WP:NOR. The bottom line is that I don't really care one way or another. I wouldn't add it myself but I'm not really motivated to want to delete it either. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I need to think of a different way to present the material that doesn't draw a conclusion unless I find a researched article that does. Actually, I did find an article that does this, but it's in the subscriber section of the Chronicle of Higher Learning, so I am not comfortable quoting it. Not all cites need to be to online sources, but maybe with a little extra effort I'll be able to pull something together that is. I'm really concerned that the mention of an Ivy League school in the comparison adds too much weight to the learning team practice. We might be able to go with something more like:

Proposed wording: The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams, forms of which are used by other schools, in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.

I am implementing this change. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This may still have a hint of original research, but hopefully not too objectionable. The weight of using the Princeton name is removed and I've added an additional school that uses the same style. I have also found a UPX ground campus near my location. I'm thinking of going and taking a picture. It's an excellent example of the UPX method of leasing office space near major traffic arteries! --Caernarvon (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is preferrable to not use references that require subscriptions, I really believe that it is still acceptable if that is the only reference that can be found. My perspective is that if you perhaps copied a paragraph or so here that contained the quote or point that you wanted to make so that everyone here could look at it. Then reference in the article it would be okay. Or, your proposed wording looks wonderful to me as well. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I added Mexico and The Netherlands to the Campus locations and added a citation to support the new material. Small change, pure fact, adding to a list that was already present but not complete. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Online Course Materials

I am planning another addition to the Academics section. It is an explanation of the somewhat uncommon use of an online resource page that provides the books for students.

The UPX uses its large size and commensurate resources to acquire course textbooks inexpensively. Upon registering, students pay a fee of $75 ($95 for graduate courses). This resource fee provides them full access to an electronic library, textbooks and other ancillary material required for the course. UPX uses a standardized course format that does not allow individual faculty to choose the course materials, as is common for many other traditional schools. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This too looks like a wonderful addition to me. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition implemented. I am considering removing the fee amounts since they can change without notice. The only thing that makes them relevant is that they are so much cheaper than normal book fees. What do you all think? --Caernarvon (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On what basis to you believe that the fees are cheaper than normal book fees? Do you have a reference for that? Mysteryquest (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heya Mysteryquest - sure, here's one of several I've found. Should we insert this reference into the article, you think?

For one price, $95 per class, students also have access to the entire library of e-books and other online resources offered at the university. Traditionally, students pay upward of $300-$500 each semester for 20-30 pounds of books they end up lugging around all season.

--Caernarvon (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

University Abbreviation

Several different abbreviations are used in this article: UPX, UoP, UOP, UofP. Seems like it should be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.208 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed some UoP and UOP to UPX. I didn't find any UofP. Note that I didn't change some of the reference titles because that is supposed to be the title of the web pages. Thanks TallMagic (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The abbreviation was orginally UOP then it was changed to UPX. Today someone changed the article in only one place to UOPX. I went to the University of Phoenix website and did a search for UOPX and got zero hits but the UOP search engine suggested that perhaps I mispelled my word and was actually searching for UOPHX. So I searched for UOPHX and got zero hits. Then for fun I searched on UPX and got zero hits. To continue my fun I searched for UOP and got a few hits. To complete my fun I'm posting this story here and stating that I personally prefer UOP but I don't know what the correct abbreviation is. (If there even is a correct abbreviation.) Outside Wikipedia I usually see it abbreviated UoP. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why abbreviate it in the first place? If this were a Wall Street publication, using a stock symbol would be acceptable. If we're talking about Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, then "PHX" is a most acceptable abbreviation for Phoenix. If this were a publication internal to the University of Phoenix, then it can pick its own. For the rest of the world, all of these abbreviations look silly. I realize the average University of Phoenix graduate enters and leaves with a crappy command of the English language that hardly improves during whatever they "study", but that doesn't mean it needs to be reflected in the university's Wikipedia article. If a shorter form is needed, "the university" (or "the University") should suffice. Reswobslc (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong preference. "UPX", as it is presently filed with the SEC seems technically accurate:

http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%2f2007%2f10%2f29%2f0000950153-07-002225.html#FIS_BUSINESS

I agree mostly with Reswobslc. Extensive use of the abbreviation probably detracts from the article and would be better in an encyclopedia as, "the school", "the company", "the university", etc. I won't even dignify the "crappy" comment. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Implemented. --Caernarvon (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Much better, if UPX is just the stock market abbreviation then that is even more silly to use, to my mind. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I found this campus for UPX in St. Petersburg. Is this good in the Campuses section as an example of a branch campus? Should I reduce the image size? --Caernarvon (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

UPX West Florida branch campus in St. Petersburg. The bottom floors are used by UPX for undergraduate/graduate courses.

The image looks good, you can simply reduce the size in the image tag. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I reduced it to 400pix and will allow for text to float. I'll make the addition this week sometime. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This change is implemented - and I removed the capitalization of the word "Internet" from the body of the Campuses section and added the word "wi-fi" to internet access per info from the related cite. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stadium Photo

I thought we agreed that the stadium photo was not an appropriate representation of the university, since it is just paid advertising. Should that photo be removed or reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhedblom (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. I don't see the advertising value, but obviously the school does. If whoever posted it doesn't respond here within the next few days, you have my vote to revert. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Rewrite

I'd like to get this area down to the merely ridiculous, if we can, without watering down the seriousness of the concerns. It looks like this section just grew a bit every time someone had a gripe. I'm going to post a draft proposal of a re-write. I know it isn't going to be acceptable to everyone (anyone?!), so feel free to make additions, deletions and comments. I can already see some things I'd change, but I need to just post it to get the process started. I don't have any strong feelings on the topic other than readability and fairness/NPOV. We can probably even trim it down further and have it make more sense than what I've done. I expect this to take a fair amount of time. I'll start by posting the draft, then anything you all don't agree with, please ask my reason for the change and/or post your reason for wanting it a different way. There's no reason this shouldn't be FUN, as long as we all keep an open mind. Let's keep the proposed wording between the solid lines and make our comments below the draft. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike for the first round of edits! --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted the discussed changes. I did remove the accreditation bullet due to the concerns discussed. I also wonder if the wrap up section at the end by Brian Muller really adds anything to the piece. There is an excellent WP page on For-Profit Schools that this material would be more appropriate for. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Quality of education and accreditation:

• Although only the AACSB and the ACBSP are recognized by the CHEA for accreditation of business programs through the graduate level, a business degree not accredited by AACSB is perceived by some as inferior to top-tier business schools that have the organization's accreditation. UPX is regionally accredited by the The Higher Learning Commission as a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and its business programs are additionally accredited through the ACBSP.

I put the criticism first in the bullet, it makes more sense that way, though I would still prefer to remove it. The NYT article cited mentions this is one company, Intel, (established as, at best .0028% of the UPX business income) that implemented this policy. The reasons for the policy were economic ($25M price tag of the reimbursement program) as much or more than it was a concern with quality. It is impossible to verify if Intel ever changes the policy back, that's just not as sensational as them yanking the non-AACSB schools. No other ACBSP school, even the other one's mentioned in the article, have this mentioned on their WP pages. Frankly, reading the article, its more about an unusual decision by Intel than it is about UPX. The perceptions concerning these accrediting bodies should be discussed either on the MBA WP or the individual pages of the accrediting bodies. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would reverse the order of the two sentences. 1) UPX is acredited by ..., but 2) this is controversial because... Mike (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd-class accreditation talk isn't right for UPX and is already on the MBA page. Other b-schools mostly only take accreditation heat in Wikipedia if there's no regional accreditation. NPOV mentions undue weight shouldn't, "give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." But if we keep it, Mike's format definitely reads best. There's alot of valid criticism, stuff like this just waters the section down.

My thoughts are along the same line, obviously. The POV and margianality issue is important, though I'm a bit more concerned about the ability to verify the Intel continuing policy. I'll probably make the changes from this entire section this weekend. Don't forget to sign your posts! --Caernarvon (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a concern that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders, though standardized testing reveals that reading, writing, and mathematical skills for UPX students improve at a better rate on average than for students at most other schools.

To me, this is a different topic. Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. I was trying to compact too much and it probably deserves its own bullet. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to re-check this referenced article to see what is meant by "a better rate on average." I get nervous about a statistical reference without numbers and better than average might just be 51%-49%. It would be worth considering if that close of a margin would be a valid counter argument. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Approximately 95% of UPX faculty are part-time compared with an average of 47% across all universities. UPX only hires faculty with masters or doctoral degrees, requiring that most be actively working in the fields that they teach.

I say remove the first and last sentences. The 2nd sentence is the only critism or controversy. Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with nixing the first sentence - if someone wants to read that type of opinion they can go to the reference article. I think the other sentence supports the "fair" other side of the coin and maybe it would read better if the criticism comes at the beginning of the sentence. I'll try that, let me know what you think. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• By the United States Department of Education graduation standards the UPX rate is only 16%. Compared to the national average of 55% it is among the nation's lowest. UPX and some education experts assert that the federal standard is antiquated because it only measures first time students with no previous college credit and uses measurements that skew against economically disadvantaged and minority students. The university response notes that the federal standard only applies to 7% of the total UPX student community and publishes its own nonstandard graduation rate of 59% to account for its overwhelming population of non-traditional students.

I want to streamline the remarks about the SC campus and online programs. This is just a re-hash of the downside numbers that went into calculating the overall 16% cited in the first sentence without noting the part of the equation that brings it up overall to 16%. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues:

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a second sexual harassment claim against UPX $225,000 in August 2007.
• In September 2004, UPX paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of the Higher Education Act provisions which prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives. The United States Department of Education has recently targeted numerous universities for improprieties in the administration of student loan programs.

In the last sentence, are the targets only "for-profit" universities, or are "traditional" universities included? Do we know? Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests the govt is coming down across the board, without mention of private, public, or profit status. numerous institutions have already settled or are coming up on a court date. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• A 2003 federal whistle-blower/false claims lawsuit accuses UPX of fraud in obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid. It is set for trial in September 2009. The school counters that the lawsuit is a legal manipulation by two former UPX employees over a matter previously resolved with the U.S. Department of Education.
• The university has had various labor and government regulatory related issues. It paid $3.5 million to settle alleged violation of overtime compensation provision with the Department of Labor. It is presently being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for alleged religious discrimination favoring Mormon enrollment counselors. It settled allegations by the United States Department of Education for $6 million in March 2000 because government auditors noted that the teaching schedule fell short of the minimum time required to qualify for financial aid. The United States Department of Education also ordered the university to pay $650,000 for failing to promptly refund loans and grants for students who withdrew.
• In January of 2008, UPX’s parent company, Apollo Group, Inc. was found guilty of fraud for misleading investors. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg recently overturned the verdict, ruling that the evidence was not sufficient.

This is not a government lawsuit; it is a private "shareholders" lawsuit

True, and as such should not be lumped with the others, good point. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to criticism, Brian Mueller, of the Apollo Group wrote an essay on the "clash of cultures between traditional academia and newer, market-oriented colleges and universities." He wrote: "As with all innovation, skeptics abound to feed the culture clash between the old and the new. Those invested in the status quo objected when land grant colleges were introduced and also when community colleges came on the scene, railing against their supposed lack of quality. For-profit colleges are the latest target."

---

Student / Faculty

I've found some good information on the UPX student and faculty makeup. I would like to add it under the People heading. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Diversity

The 2008 UPX Academic Report shows a highly diverse student and faculty makup. According to demographic information in the report, the student/faculty population is significantly more diverse than that of most higher education institutions, on average. African-Americans make up more than 15% of UPX's 22,000 faculty members, with about 6% as Hispanic. The national average in recent years showed about 5% as African-American with about 3% as Hispanic. The UPX student population is approximately 25% African-American and almost 13% Hispanic. This is as compared to national statistics from recent years showing 12% African-American populations and 10% Hispanics nationally.

I like it. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Even with just one day, I'm going to go ahead and post this information. It should be non-controvercial, straight documented fact. The 2008 UPX Annual Academic Report seems to have quite a bit of great information. I've read about 25% of it, so expect some further updates with this as the source. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Another addition - I've found an article in the Chronicle for Higher Education discussing the opening of student centers nationally. I propose the following addition under Campuses section: --Caernarvon (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Online students are also now able to utilize tutoring/social centers. These centers make tutoring services available and can also be used for other social and student learning interactions. The first center opened in 2007 in Plano, Tex.

I found some additional diversity related material I would like to add to the Diversity subsection. Proposed wording: --Caernarvon (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

UPX graduates a larger number of underrepresented students with master's degrees in business, health care and education than any other U.S. School. It is also ranked as the highest in graduating African American and American Indian students with master's degrees for all other disciplines. The underlying data for these conclusions was provided by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the '05-'06 academic year.

I'm implementing the rest of the suggestions in this section at this time. --Caernarvon (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts that are documented by only University of Phoenix are not neutral and are naturally skewed toward the Universities views. The use of UofP sources risk making the article POv and turning it into merely a sock puppet for UofP. The Academic Profile and Diversity sections are now perilously close to simply promoting UofPMysteryquest (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, though I reject the argument that an entity is incapable of stating unbiased facts about itself. The statement seems somewhat biased. I looked over the changes you made and generally think the article is better off with them. I was going to originally post a bit of a rant here - but looking at the actual changes you made convinced me you seem serious about improving the article. I still don't see how the Academic Profile or Diversity sections are promotional. They contain information similar to what is found at many other school WP pages. The University of California, Yale, George Washington and many others have information posted on their pages about diversity, too. The UPX numbers are highly diverse - I think that's worth noting without being promotional. You're probably right to be concerned about promo's - UPX is a for profit school - but if they do well at some things - especially if it stands out in a crowd and can be cited from a mixture of sources, isn't it acceptable to note it as such? I have to say, if anyone editing this page is truly "pro UPX" they're hiding it well - this page has about the biggest controversies section, even after recent editing, of any school I've seen. Good job on the editing. --Caernarvon (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I'll be making a few minor edits (typographical, link problems, grammar, punctuation, etc) over the weekend. I just fixed reference 21, the one we were having a problem with from before. I'll post the changes here as I make them. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This reference (^ University of Phoenix lands stadium naming rights-Cards and biggest private college in the U.S. agree to a 20-year deal, The Arizona Republic, by Dawn Gilbertson, September 26, 2006.) on the stadium leads to a page that is no longer accessible. I found another article in the Chronicle that has the same information and will replace it with the new citation. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic Profile and Diversity Issues

The Academic Profile is now filled with information which is more boosterism than information and exclusively supported by information provided only by University of Phoenix. Statements such as "UPX uses it large size to ... and etc. are not NPOV, not neutral and merely parrot UofP positions in fact much of it appears to be just a recapitalization from the University of Phoenix website. I believe that non-notable, promotional material needs to be removed. The diversity section has the same problem, as many of the "sources" are merely promotional rather than informative.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mysteryquest! Welcome back around, I haven't seen a post from you in awhile! By and large, I have to disagree on your assessment (obviously, I posted some of it!). I do agree the wording of the sentence you are quoting above might be expressed better in a different way and would be open to suggestion on how to do that. The sources in the diversity section are from the school's academic report, from an online article (not a blog), and from a couple of other school's websites. The academic report quotes the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the comparison data. Diversity information is included in many university sites in WP articles. I apologize if it seems to parrot other sites, it's hard to include new information properly cited from other sources and not do that to some extent. I am against wholesale removal of information that was properly posted to the discussion page and reviewed before being listed. Can we work on how to improve what's posted now a piece at a time? Perhaps we can come to a compromise on wording, etc. If we do that, I would ask that you provide an alternative to what's already there or provide specific reasons for each piece you would like to see removed. I would also ask that you review other university sites and the project template - I hope and believe you'll find it's not as far off as you are suggesting. Thanks for taking a look back over the site, though! I'm sure you're input will help to improve the article! --Caernarvon (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I read some of your prior "rant" and though you "deleted" it, I thought I would address some of the issues you raised. "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." That is all I was pointing out. I was not saying that UofP (or any entity) is incapable of dispensing independent information though it is my opinion that all commercial endeavors tend to circulate information most favorable to themselves. That's the nature of commerce, which is to profit and profit is sometimes incompatible with forthrightness. That is one of the reasons we should support articles with "third-party" sources per Wikipedia. I found it troubling that so much information in the article was solely supported by UofP especially the Diversity and Academic sections.

The reason there is so much controversy about UofP is perhaps because many of its policies are controversial. Additionally it has apparently run afoul of several federal regulations and suffered the consequences which is its own fault. Some of those polices appear to stem from its for-profit design but that's not to say the school should be bear undue scrutiny because of it, however, I don't think this article does that. In the same token, I don't feel the article should be promotional either.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your points are all valid. This is all a relatively new concept in higher education and leaving the formation of the policy, etc of how it is to be executed to a multi-billion dollar corporation seems perilous! The school is at the forefront of higher education distance learning and, painful as it may have been for them, they have benefited from public criticism, including from this site. When I mentioned Goldie Blumenstyk the other day I went back out to review work she's done on the school because I hadn't researched it in awhile. I found this podcast, which, considering it's a researched investigative piece from a major player in higher education reporting, seems quite reliable. It's not as clear to me that the WP article we're working on has any promotional bent. I'd be very concerned to think it does - the problem is, what's the difference between mentioning facts and being promotional. For instance, the part about them opening study centers in some cities - is that promotional or just noteworthy since it is a feature of their unique "campus" structure. The school has taken criticism about everything from its curriculum and delivery methodology to its staff competency. Isn't it appropriate to mention that it's changing its campus structure (basically, to address concerns)? I saw one site recently that has a list of campus locations for the same type of school as UPX - it's longer than the article. Now that's promotional. The driving question is if our editing efforts actually improve the article. You're making high quality edits and the discussion is helpful to the article. As long as no one gets offended/stubborn we are going to make some quality improvements, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caernarvon (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well when a reference link has a popup enrollment form and is not even related to the text, I would say that is promotional. Statements taken from UofP's website and not supported by independent references which state "The UPX uses its large size and commensurate resources to acquire course textbooks inexpensively...." are promotional. Saying a university has wi-fi access and workshops or computers is like saying a car has wheels. I don't see a reason for information like that to be put in unless its for promotional reasons. I could list all the instances of promotion I recently deleted if that would prove helpful.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the podcast, I haven't had a chance to look at it or what form it is in, i.e. audio, so I cannot weigh in on that.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs Are Not Reliable Sources

I have at least three blog references. Blogs are not reliable references. I have taken out several of these and left the text hoping that an alternative reference can be found. I did leave in Footnote 37, which is entitled "University of Phoenix Responds". This a response to blog post! Hardly a reliable post. I know that there was a University of Phoenix response to the NY Times article. That needs to be found or the text needs to be removed.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct! I think one of those is mine - though I know information about The Netherlands and Mexico campuses can be found in numerous locations. I don't remember the cite going to a blog; I'll see if I can find another source in the next couple of days. It's probably good that you noted that, as much of the demographic information like number of campuses, etc, is out of date and appears to be contradictory throughout the article. I'd like to find one place and then ensure that it's consistent throughout. I think you were right to leave in the UPX response if it is not a blog in and of itself and it's just an online source that references one. I know it's not your responsibility, but if you have a few minutes to check for alternate online sources and post same if you find them, I'm sure it would be appreciated by the original author, especially if the material is generally sound for the article type. Thanks again for your review! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have searched for a reprint of UofP Response to the New York Times that is not part of a blog which has the problem of many comments that will be included as part of the reference. There will need to be some reference for the text however, and ultimately I feel it will have to be removed if an adequate source cannot be located.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I had mentioned previous concerns with this section but hadn't gotten around to acting on it. Unless anyone else has an objection I think my post addressing these concerns a few weeks ago should be sufficient notice to warrant removal at this time. I will make the change. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, the campus resource center commentary does cite a blog, by Goldie Blumenstyk - a well known and respected writer for the Chronicle of Higher Education who has written neutral articles shedding both positive and negative light on the school in the past. It is relevant information, notable because it speaks to the controversy over the balance of education and profit for the school and because it's a tactic not used by other schools - it's unique. I will see if I can find another source, though!! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether blogs are by respected authors or not, they are still blogs and are not reliable, verifiable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the "Ugh", at the beginning. Luckily, there are other, better sources for that info. Again, good editing. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The citations have been fixed. They now reference articles and a business fact page for an organization other than UPX. I also undid the math someone calculated in coming up with the 35 year "average" age. 34 for undergrad and 36 for grad students does not make for a true mean (though it does if one is calculating the median). The calculation constituted original research on the original author's part (or the blogger they were quoting - I don't care enough to check which!). I see some other opportunities for strengthening citations and will work on it through the weekend. --Caernarvon (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New Material

Mysteryquest, the material on coursework is new for this article, though the article you are citing is not. The Criticism section just underwent a major re-write after discussion here on the talk page. Please remove the additional material and post it to this page for discussion. You've been around long enough to know better - let's talk about this stuff before just doing a major change like that! Thanks! --Caernarvon (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you probably haven't been back on since I posted above, but I did notice that you tagged the entry in the criticism section with the thought that you were unsure as to why mention of the general topic had been removed during previous edits. First, see above - there's a good general discussion on the reasons behind recent edits to the Criticism section. To get into it in a little more detail, It just seemed the criticism section was too long/detailed considering WP:UNDUE. It started sounding like a schizophrenic argument. We tried to consolidated and re-arrange the criticism so it flowed more logically. It seems the citations are more appropriate to provide detailed insight. Conceptually, the 20-24 hour issue was consolidated into the first controversy about the school not balancing student and investor concerns. I would like to propose removal of the new material and inclusion of the NYT article as an additional citation for the first listed criticism. I don't think it deserves it's own bullet point, especially considering the school was sued on this issue previously and is mentioned in the legal issues sub-section (sued in March 2000 for receiving financial aid when class hours fell short of the minimum). The United States Department of Education has given UPX a waiver on the issue and they're the ones that set this standard. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't believe that the issue of shortened class schedule is addressed by the issue of the school allegedly not being putting student's needs in front of shareholders' needs. The issue of having students allegedly teaching themselves and have significantly less course work; 20-25 hours vs. 40 hours is important and worth mentioning. It is all of two lines so I'm not swayed by the argument that it unduly per Wikipedia standards. The criticism section is still much shorter than it was. The fact that the Department of Education gave UofP a waiver regarding class hours does not negate the fact that their class hours are significantly less than a traditional university and there has been concerned expressed about it. The fragment "There have been concerns that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders..." hardly addresses those concerns or even a fraction of the other concerns that are raised in the article. So, I see no reason at all to remove the "new material". Mysteryquest (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is persuasive. Still, the concern is that the overall length of the criticism section is what starts to create the WP:UNDUE issue - not necessarily the individual arguments. I actually agree that the amount of instructor facetime is noteworthy, but once that's in the criticism section, then, to be fair, the other side of the story has to be mentioned - and so it grows. We could write a book on these topics. One problem I have with the way it's written is the use of quotes, as if quoting the article. Only the phrase, "learning teams", of everything in quotes, is actually a phrase contained within the article. This is good material and should be included in some form. I'll make a deal; lets move the issue to the Academics section, putting it near the already in-place discussion on learning teams and go with this part of your wording (using the NYT article as the source):

"Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in learning teams."

This leaves out the quoted POV wording that's not in the article, leaves the meat of the concept intact and places it in the Academics section so there's no WP:UNDUE concern with getting another argument section going under criticism. Is this acceptable? --Caernarvon (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No its not. I'm not persuaded that if a controversy section becomes beyond a certain length then it "automatically" becomes an WP:UNDUE issue which appears to be your argument unless I'm mistaken. Valid and well documented criticism need not be omitted simply because there is an abundance of it. The wording is okay, but I do not think its appropriate to move it out of the controversy section though I do not have a problem with the wording. It is a controversy, not an "academic" issue. UofP was sued over it, and then was granted a waiver. Having significantly less coursework than a traditional university and having students "teach themselves" is very noteworthy and goes to the quality of the education and, unfortunately, controversial and I believe is not Undue to mention it. Again, I do not believe that valid, legitimate controversial items become subject toWP:UNDUE simply because there are a great deal of them. As it stands now, the controvery section size, is small, and not an issueMysteryquest (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not my argument. Every situation should be judged on a case-by-case basis. For instance, a user recently made the suggestion in the ITT Technical Institute article, a school accused of at least as much as UPX, stating:

"Not that I am a fan of ITT Tech, however, the controversy section is disproportionately large when juxtaposed against the rest of the article. Without passing judgment on the validity of the items in the controversy section, it might be good to find some way of consolidating some items thereby shortening the section. Perhaps a narrative for some of the older lawsuits but keep the references for those who want to read in depth." Mysteryquest (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, please be careful about the use of quotation marks. They make it seem as if you are quoting something. The word "automatically" is not in my argument, nor in my intent, just as neither of the phrases "little meat" or "stripped down schedule" are in the NYT article you've quoted. I still believe it's an academic issue. The original reason for these rules was the promulgation of diploma mills in the burgeouning internet age and the standards were based on traditional school formats. Only the most rabid anti-for-profit viewpoint would characterize a school with numerous accreditations, including national and regional like UPX, as a diploma mill. UPX was sued because it was in technical violation, but received the waiver because USDOE is being forced to re-consider what constitutes a sound educational model. So consider - the suit was settled (no admission or finding of guilt) over eight years ago, was based on a standard that was questionably relevant to online learning and is already mentioned under the Legal Issues section concerning the 9.8 million settlement with a nod to the accusation that UPX doesn't balance student/investor interests as the first Controversy bullet. Add to that the fact that some people apparently believe there is a point at which a controversies section becomes, "disproportionately large," (apparently a point that is discernable only to them (just teasing!!)). I'm still somewhat willing to place just my proposed new wording, found above, under the first bullet of the controversies section with a reference to the NYT article, but would still rather list it under Academics. It's a verifiable structural characteristic of the UPX academic model. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? --Caernarvon (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the text of the NY Times article which is the basis for the text: "Government auditors in 2000 ruled that this schedule fell short of the minimum time required for federal aid programs, and the university paid a $6 million settlement. But in 2002, the Department of Education relaxed its requirements, and the university’s stripped-down schedule is an attractive feature for many adults eager to obtain a university degree while working. But critics say it leaves courses with little meat." As you can see "little meat" is in the article as is "stripped down schedule." Please be careful about reading references before you accuse me of mischaracterizing them. My use of quotes around automatically was not because you used the word, it was my characterization of your argument.

I never said that UofP was a diploma mill nor is it stated anywhere in the article so I'm not sure where you are going with that.

Its your opinion that that it was UofP's "stripped down schedule" was a good educational model or at least I have not seen any reliable independent reference for it. Nor have a seen a reliable independent reference for the proposition that the USDOE model was not suitable for an online school. If UofP's system was such a good educational model, I personally wonder why the Department of Education didn't just adopt it instead of having to grant a waiver?

Okay, maybe you're confused, but this matter did not involve the 9.9 million dollar fine but the 6 million dollar fine, however, I will speak to your arguments. No defendant or potential defendant who settles a lawsuit admits liability. That has always been one of the advantages of settling so that fact is insignificant. It being a technical violation, is again your opinion (do you have a reliable independent reference for it?), and reading the Department of Education report hardly makes it seem technical, nor does the almost 10 million dollar fine, the shareholder lawsuit and the false claims act lawsuit. So the fact that it was 8 years ago does not make it insignificant, especially when litigation concerning it continues today. I do not agree with putting it in academics, it does not have anything to do with academics, its a quality of education issue, which belongs where it is.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, as for my contribution to the ITT talk page which is taken out of context since one cannot view the ITT article at the time I made it, that article was almost all controversy and nothing else. This is hardly the case here and what ITT has to do with UofP, I'm not sure.Mysteryquest (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ITT Technical Institute is a for-profit institution of higher education that has been the subject of much criticism in the media and courts, has a wikipedia page, has had a large amount of criticism mounted on that page and has been edited by you on the topic of the size of its criticism section, just like UPX. This seems in-context considering the crux of the discussion is WP:WEIGHT. The diploma mill observation was in reference to why the standards which UPX was alleged to have broken were put in place in the first place. UPX - not a diploma mill - was caught by legislation designed to stop diploma mills. Why? Because the standard was based on traditional school educational models. To be fair to USDOE - it was the only model with which they were truly familiar at an organizational level at the time. Respectable models for internet-based distance education were, and still are, just being developed. How can you support the contention that the UPX 20-24 hour/learning teams class model, "does not have anything to do with academics"? It is central to the school's accelerated learning format. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We are editing the UofP article, not the ITT article! Your opinions continue to be wholly unsupported by any reliable third party reference. You did not produce any to support the ones I cited previously and now you propose that federal regulations that might have been designed for diploma mills are not suitable for UofP and that UofP should not be held to account for violating them and that the USDOE sanctioned UofP because "to be fair" it was the only model with which they were truly familiar at an organizational level at the time". So, it was the USDOE's fault that UofP violated the USDOE's regulations, more or less. Do you have any reliable source for any of this proposition?

The issue here is UPX's 20-24 hour coursework vs. a 40 hour traditional coursework. It's controversial and that controversy is well documented as is the use of "learning teams." You are making it much more complicated by bringing up ITT and your many personal opinions and interpretations concerning the suitability of UofP's models and USDOE regulations. If you have any reliable sources for this information I suggest you place it in mitigation, however, none of them justify moving a controversy to the academic section nor is it UNDUE to list it in the controversy or quality issue section, where it belongs.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Margin Reset

Woah, easy there champ. I know typing as a form of communication makes it easy to misunderstand the tone of what's being said. I mentioned the ITT article again because I thought you were asking a question with your statement that you didn't understand how ITT and UPX are the same. I simply pointed out that you have indicated one opinion in the past about ITT and another this time under very similar circumstances about UPX and I question your neutrality on the topic, just as you have mine, on occasion.

We may be getting a little too deep into discussing the topic here, as opposed to discussing the question of weight (both guilty). It is neither your nor my duty to convince the other, though I'd happily continue the discussion on either of our talk pages. I would prefer to settle this via consensus and continue the discussion, limited to where we are going to place the compromised wording, in the next section. Perhaps a nod could be given to the 20-24 hour issue in both the Academics and Criticism sections? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what basis you have to question my neutrality. Again, ITT was almost completely controversy and nothing else, whereas, UoP is nowhere near that state. There is very little parallel between the ITT article when I made that comment and the UofP article. You continue not to address this fact. I have never, as I recall, perhaps you may refresh my memory, questioned your neutrality but since you question mine, I will now. At this point I think you are using your opinion that there is WP:UNDUE issue with this article to minimize well documented material that could be construed as negative about UofP, in favor of everything you feel is good and which is, in many cases, only supported by UofP references. For example, most of your discussion about this particular issue, as I have pointed out, is based on your opinions, analysis and interpretations which is not supported by any reference. Now, a simple mention about a well documented issue involving the length of the coursework must be subsumed or cloaked as an academic issue. I don't agree with your proposed compromise language for reasons I have detailed in the latter section of this page. I believe that someone else needs to weigh in on whether there is a WP:UNDUE issue with this article.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I went through the talk page here only one time, so I may have missed some, but here's a list of references I've researched and posted here - not including the six or so simple reference fixes I've been making directly to the page to remove UPX references and make them third-party:

• http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/publications.aspx source
• http://www.cael.org/pdf/publication_pdf/Chronicle_of_HigherEdArticle.pdf source
• http://www.princeton.edu/admission/whatsdistinctive/experience/the_preceptorial_system/
• http://www.phoenix.edu/media_relations/university_learning_goals.aspx learning teams
• http://www.ou.edu/pii/teamlearning/
• http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700253600,00.html
• http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp Programmatic Accrediting Organizations 2008-2009
• http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i40/40a00103.htm
• http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11257.shtml
• http://www.davidbruceallen.com/strategyoped/2007/03/university
• http://kroplaw.com/uop/DOE.report.on.UOP.pdf
• http://www2.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=834 Lawmakers Are on the Student-Loan Warpath
• http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-apollo-group-suit,0,3707385.story
• http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i40/40a00103.htm Diverse Populations
• http://www.phoenix.edu/academicannualreport/doc/2008AnnualAcademicReport.pdf
• http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=9069&cha=6
• http://chronicle.com/media/audio/v54/i40/cyber_classroom/

On the point of you're not having previously questioned my neutrality:

"Facts that are documented by only University of Phoenix are not neutral and are naturally skewed toward the Universities views. The use of UofP sources risk making the article POv and turning it into merely a sock puppet for UofP. The Academic Profile and Diversity sections are now perilously close to simply promoting UofPMysteryquest (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)"

"Statements such as "UPX uses it large size to ... and etc. are not NPOV, not neutral and merely parrot UofP positions in fact much of it appears to be just a recapitalization from the University of Phoenix website. I believe that non-notable, promotional material needs to be removed. The diversity section has the same problem, as many of the "sources" are merely promotional rather than informative.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)"

"The "research paper" cited in the above reference is written by a UofP officer, the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, so its hardly neutral or arguably even research (which is why I put research in quotes). One cannot "research" a subject which one has a vested interest in or is intimately involved with. Research implies that there is some distance between the researcher and the subject he or she is researching. I do not see much difference between it and the UPX website and do not feel its appropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)"

I continue to try to work nice with you because, despite our difference of opinion, I am assuming good faith. Honestly, I don't just assume it, many of you're posts have been either completely neutral or have shown me where mine have not been. (I wish I received the same level of respect from you, but that apparently isn't going to happen). Wikipedia does not require that posters be neutral, it only requires that we edit neutrally to the best of our ability. I see where your critiques of my work have helped establish a more neutral tone - unfortunately, you seem to be unable to see any good in the school, so whether or not you like it, or admit it, I will perform the same function for you. Remember, just as I should, that just because we believe something, that does not make it TRUE or NEUTRAL. As a matter of point, you have suggested that I, "minimize well documented material that could be construed as negative about UofP." I don't intend to minimize it - I simply think that for most criticisms there are valid responses - so a criticism gets posted, then the response, then the response to that - and so on... that's how we ended up with the ridiculously long Criticism section we recently edited down. Mention criticisms - I agree most should be here, but let readers go back to the sourced citations if they want to do in-depth research rather than hashing it out on the WP page. I'd like to take this discussion to one of our talk pages, if that's acceptable? As important as it is to we two, I'm not sure anyone else wants to read about it! --Caernarvon (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Placing the Compromise Wording

To summarize where it seems we are at in this discussion - We have agreed to use the NYT reference and remove the extra wording on the bullet and are left with:

"Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in learning teams."

We are considering two options for where to place this entry:

1. Move it to Academics section.

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.” The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams, forms of which are used by other schools, in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.

2. Move it to the first bullet under Controversies.

• There have been concerns that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders, though UPX claims that standardized testing in reading, writing, and mathematical skills for UPX students show that they improve at a better rate on average than for students at most other schools. Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.”

--Caernarvon (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with the wording offered behind Door No. 1. I am not sure that either the University of Oklahoma or Princeton University uses a preceptorial system similar to UofP. I believe that the references that support this concept are tenuous at best. Moreover, I do not believe that those schools offer 20 to 24 hours of school work as opposed to 40, which is one of main issues and will be lost in the suggested academic language. I also see no reason not to include language that makes it clear that this is a concern as reflected in the NY Times article. At this point I believe that the matter should be submitted to mediation or a administrator should get involved because Caernarvon and I are apparently just talking at cross purposes.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't give up now! All I did to get the wording for the first choice was add the wording that we compromised on to what was already there. Let's take it a step further. Part of your concern is the UoO and Princeton references to learning teams. You are correct, the references are tenuous - let's remove that wording unless some better link can be made (I don't think it exists, frankly). How about something like this:

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” a practice questioned by some. The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.

This language includes the fact of the 20-24 hour practice, includes a nod to the concerns about it, removes a tenuous reference to other schools that use learning teams and includes the contention that UPX actually believes students benefit from the practice. Everyone has a voice for their issues and I think it definitely improves the article, overall. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording, because if promotes UPX's view while only giving only "a nod" to the opposing view that some academics feel that it entails too little classroom time, a fact that is documented by reliable third party references as opposed to UPX references. Of course, UPX believes the students benefit from the practice! They devised it and are not neutral. In other words, the five words "a practice questioned by some" minimizes the concerns expressed in the NY Times article. However, the UPX viewpoint gets a long declaratory sentence which does not betray the fact that its UPX's viewpoint and is only supported by UPX's media relations page, which is not a suitable third party reference per Wikipedia standards and it is inherently biased. This appears to be a pattern with your edits, in my humble opinion, giving preference to positive UPX viewpoints referenced solely by UPX sources over negative viewpoints which are supported by independent references. I do not believe we are making any progress here. Mysteryquest (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, as detailed elsewhere in this discussion page, the parallel between UofP's educational model and that of University of Ok and Princeton should be removed as there appears to be a consensus and an admission by you that it is original research.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a thing for UPX being unable to publish factual, neutral information about itself. You also have a misunderstanding of reliable sources per wikipedia standards. Here is an excerpt from that page:

Self-published sources Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above. When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published.

Non-self published info is obviously better, but not all UPX self published info is inherently biased. Here's the crux of our editing disagreements - when I add or edit material that paints the school in a positive light you call it biased. Quick wake up call - education is generally good and even a low end school (which is not necessarily UPX, by any valid measure) can have unbiased, good things said about it. Come down off the ledge, switch to decaf and take a look at our interactions here - not only have I agreed with your view on numerous occasions, I have given credit to the value of your (often non-neutral) viewpoint several times. For instance, you may have missed it, but I agreed with removing the university of oklahoma and princeton prior to your last to posted condemnations of it! I'm not trying to contend with you. Look at Mike and Tallmagic posts - they've both straightened me out or agreed with me several times. I'm not asking you to change your viewpoint or not add to the edits (unless there's an undisclosed WP:conflict_of_interest); you add value to the discussion and I would like to get a better understanding of where you're coming from. Just relax a little, and an occasional implemented compromise would go a long way.

Back to your editing concerns. Let's strengthen the, "a practice questioned by some" phrase and use more neutral wording in the UPX sentence. How's this?

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” a practice questioned by some academicians and former students. UPX suggests that its educational model benefits from the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions.

--Caernarvon (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got your cite as I cannot locate it. However, I did locate the following guideline.

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves

Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In this case, the learning team concept is contentious. No, I do not believe that material from UofP's website is neutral. You do? Their website is for promotional purposes not neutral critical self-analysis. I suspect you would have a difficult time finding anything critical about UofP on their website or even neutral for that matter.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't condemn your your connection of UofP with Ok and Princeton, I simply stated it should be removed and it was not removed when I added the comment or I wouldn't have bothered. I'm not a coffee drinker and don't have access to a ledge, so this would work better if you didn't express any concerns for my well being, as heartfelt as I'm sure they are. It strikes me as patronizing and condescending, but that's just my opinion. Additionally, until you have some bonafide evidence of my purported non-neutrality, I wish you would stop alluding to such.

The following language would be more suitable to me, however, I still believe it belongs in the quality of education section.

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.” The shortened coursework and the practice of having students teach themselves has caused concerns among some academicians and former students. UPX suggests that its educational model benefits from the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions.'

Just to throw in a personal POV here: I think you are both (Mysteryquest & Caernarvon) doing excellent work and I commend your ability to work together through this stuff. I am sorry I am not able to contribute more. Mike (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Thanks Mike. Apparently, Mysteryquest and I will probably never sit down for a cup of coffee (decaf or otherwise!) together, but I agree the article will benefit!

Now, back to our editing! "shortened" doesn't work for me as an adjective. These are supposed to be accelerated programs and "shortened coursework" speaks to the coursework, not the face time. I think the word "compact" is more neutral. Also, we just went to the trouble in the previous sentence to define learning teams, then we repeat the definition rather than use the term in the next sentence. The last (positive) sentence is still longer than the one suggesting the concerns. I think it can be reduced for a more balanced paragraph by adding the purpose of the learning teams to the sentence where the concept is first mentioned. I removed "academic model" and replaced it with "students" - it's more to the point. The opening sentence is pure neutral fact. The second sentence is overall neutral. The next sentence is mostly critical. The last sentence is mostly positive. The references for the paragraph are an almost exclusively damning NYT article and I found a better reference than a UPX website for the final cite. I changed the last "learning teams" to "student groups" purely because the phrase "learning teams" has already been overused in the paragraph.

--Caernarvon (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in the new reference that supports the concept that students benefit from the use of these student groups or learning teams. There is language implying that UofP is convenient for working professionals and that they can log on anytime, but not beneficial unless the benefit is the convenience. If that is the case the text should make clear that the benefit is the convenience. As far as compact, there is nothing to suggest that the course are compact as opposed to just short. Compact implies that the students are getting the same amount of teaching in 20-24 hours plus 5 student team hours as they would with a 40 hour course schedule. That is not supported by the reference. Thus abbreviated would be more accurate.

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” wherein students engage classmates in course material discussions. The abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams has caused concern among some academicians and former students. The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime.

Mysteryquest (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a deal, and a damn well worded paragraph, Mysteryquest. I'd invite you over for well earned cup of coffee, but you don't drink coffee and I'm afraid by the end of our visit I might be wearing whatever it is you DO drink!! Keep holding my feet to the fire and I promise the same - the article benefits from it. I'll implement your wording! --Caernarvon (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, as if you look closely, you will see that I did not agree that it should be removed from the controversy page to the academic page. I still believe that it is a quality of education issue.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, your concern is that valid criticism receive it's just due. Mine is that excessive volume under the Criticism section by itself adds WP:UNDUE weight. The criticism section just underwent major revision and we achieved the state prior to your addition by consensus (see above). With no one else weighing in on the topic, perhaps it is best to request mediation, since I believe the consensus decision prior to your addition will stand. I would not like this to end like that - because, frankly, your position has merit. I would prefer it if we could reach a compromise, but my basic position is it should not be in Criticism. I will not compromise on that as you should not compromise on your basic position that the concern find a voice in the article. I will make another attempt at compromise wording, though I believe you are getting more of your position than I mine at this point. Shall we add some slightly more detailed info on the criticism? Just to warn you ahead of time, there are plenty of sources out there suggesting the quality of the education is fine, and I will bring that here for consideration at some point in the future.

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” wherein students engage classmates in course material discussions. The abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams has caused concern among some academicians and former students as to the quality of education. The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there has not been consensus on this topic since Mysteryquest's addition of the material without prior discussion on the talk page. I have allowed the disputed material to remain during this debate, but if there is no further discussion, by wikipedia rules I will assume silence to be wp:consensus on Monday and implement the above change in the Academics section and remove the non-consensus version from the Criticism section. If we do have further discussion this weekend but don't make progress on consensus by Monday, also by wikipedia rules, I will revert the Criticism section back to the state it was in when last there was consensus. That would be unfortunate, since I still believe in good faith that his viewpoint deserves a spot on the page. I would prefer that one of several alternatives occur. The first would be that Mysteryquest reviews my most recent compromise as close enough to agreeable (or we can tweak it a bit this weekend) that we can implement the compromise. The second would be that a third party (or more, even better) would weigh in on the topic in either his direction or mine. If I revert the material (worst option) I will start a new section to attempt to achieve consensus to add the compromise wording above to the Academics section. This is out of respect for the time and effort Mysteryquest has put in to trying to work out this compromise and because, at the base of it, I don't necessarily disagree with his view, just the degree to which he chooses to express it. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept the change. Mike (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think these are good changes. I would also like to add that my personal belief is that the article has been improved significantly, good job. I believe that the overall tone of the article is still unduly slanted towards the negative. UPX is a huge school that graduates many successful individuals. I think the unduly slightly negative slant is due to the nature of news. It is much more common to write a news story about negative developments. The best solution to this, in my opinion, is not to delete negative commentary. The best solution is to be extra careful about neutral wording and to take advantage of self published material. Thank you for the great job! TallMagic (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and implement the change then. Mike and TallMagic, thanks for adding to the discussion. Mysteryquest, thank you for your edits - the article benefitted from your efforts. This is a good example of how Wikipedia does work. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, now that this is implemented... Today I was speaking with a former UPX student and I mentioned this edit. She said she hated teams because the entire team gets the same grade, regardless of how much work they each do. She felt that she did all the work in her team, while the others were just not capable of doing it. The only way that she could get a good grade was to do all the work, and then everyone on the team got "her" grade. I wish there was some way to find verified sources that document that this is UPX policy, or to determine if this is an isolated case done by one instructor. If the former, this would fit under criticism. Mike (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Teams, in general, suck as an educational tool, IMHO. I have extreme sympathy for poor folks that have to deal with them. I worked in teams at the University of Maryland and for graduate coursework at the University of Florida and University of South Florida. It wasn't that it isn't possible to do significant learning in a team environment - my gripe with them is exactly what your friend was saying - there's was always someone pulling the group down and getting a grade they didn't deserve. Tell a professor that, and they argue invariably that life is full of teams and the purpose of team learning is to stimulate learning of a different sort - how to get along. I recently saw a syllabus from a UPX class on the web, I'll try again to find it, that talked about learning teams - though I distinctly recall the wording that the facilitator reserved the right to grade individually if there was a clear and substantial difference between the effort of the team members. I have no clue as to if this really happens in practice or if this is a common feature of all their syllabi or just something from that one teacher. I'll check around and see if I can find a link to it. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it - "At the instructors discretion NOT ALL LEARNING TEAM MEMBERS WILL GET THE SAME GRADE for LEARNING TEAM ASSIGNMENTS (papers or presentations)." http://brianperryman.com/UOP/EBUS400/EBUS400ds.html --Caernarvon (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it seems instructors are permitted to reserve the right to assign grades for team projects based on their own discretion. There are some additional online syllabi that address it either directly or obliquely:

• http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:JRF-s0f072wJ:www.realmarcom.com/originator/modules.php%3Fop%3Dmodload%26name%3DPagEd%26file%3Dindex%26p_deliver%3Dmedia%26m_id%3D1+%22University+of+Phoenix%22+mba+510+syllabus&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
• http://www.cebert.net/UOP/MBA520/MBA520r3%20Web%20Syllabus%20070820.htm

I still hate teams! --Caernarvon (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Again, please - can we bring suggested changes here rather than just making them wholesale? I have just reverted the change removing the material on USDOE getting tough on schools for financial aid program violations. It's not that I disagree with the edit, but we deserve the opportunity to discuss this before making the changes. Here is the change proposed by Mysteryquest:

• In September 2004, UPX paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of the Higher Education Act provisions which prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives. The United States Department of Education has recently targeted numerous universities for improprieties in the administration of student loan programs.

The suggestion is to remove the bolded text with the following reasoning:

• (cur) (last) 03:32, 13 September 2008 Mysteryquest (Talk | contribs) (22,937 bytes) (→Criticism and controversies: delete irrelevant text that does not relate to UofP (if other schools violate laws prohibiting financial incentives to "advisors" its okay for UofP to do it?) (undo)

--Caernarvon (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not directly relevant to the fact that USDOE went after UPX on this issue. I favor removing it. Mike (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike! You both raise good points. Here's my problem with the removal. The article talking about USDOE going after schools for similar problems mentions MANY different schools. I checked the WP pages for those schools. Not one of them mentioned the USDOE attention in this regard. This isn't the only point under the criticism section of which this is true. Schools are sued, fined and have accreditation hassles all the time, why is it so much more noteworthy for UPX? The answer seems to be they have ticked off numerous interest groups (established academia, disgruntled employees/students, etc). Enter Wikipedia - Looking at this article 2 months ago, it was only through significant research that I was able to determine that despite some serious miscalculations on the school's part, it seems to deliver a reasonably mediocre educational product for a regionally accredited school. The criticism section started with a reference to the UOPSUCKS.COM website. Talk about quoting a blog, LOL. I visited the site and the first post I saw was the webmaster explaining he had removed some pro-uop answers to criticism found on his site because it was his website and he didn't allow anything pro-UOP on it! Sorry it's taking so long to get to the point, but here it is... Yes, the material relates to the situation but no, it doesn't relate to UPX directly, so would normally be less than acceptable. On the other hand, with USDOE having gone after so many schools, none of which have this material mentioned on their pages, is the criticism itself WP:NPOV? Moreover, the policy suggests that if there is significant controversy, it may be appropriate to include mitigating sources to achieve proper WP:WEIGHT. On this particular issue, I'm sort of near the middle because I think the point you all have raised is valid. I think the weight issue is valid also. If you all still think the relevance issue is strong enough to remove the mitigating answer to the criticism, I'd like to ask we give it til Tuesday to see if anyone else wants to weigh in and we can remove it then. Thanks! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the reference I removed did not even involve the behavior that UofP was accused of, it involved financial aid improprieties. UofP was accused of paying incentives to recruiters! Even if the reference was to similar behavior that UofP engaged it would be totally inappropriate to include it. The article is not about financial aid improprieties, its not about universities in general, its about UofP. The fact that other universities may have performed similar bad acts (again, the text did not even reference "similar bad acts") is not a mitigating factor.

Now is it NPOV to mention it? I do not know how many schools the USDOE went after for paying incentives to recruiters (not a conflicts of interest arising out of financial aid counselors recommending certain loan program), however, I suggest that it was not many. Even if it there were many it is NPOV to mention the case against UofP which involved a huge 9.8 million dollar settlement, spawned a shareholder lawsuit against Apollo, its parent company, and a false claims act which continues today. I would say that it appropriately mentioned.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am pursuaded by your argument - the relevance to UPX is shaky and the accusation against was specifically financial incentives to academic counselors (financial aid improprieties). Other schools violations were not detailed to that degree, though the few that were spelled out were of financial incentives being provided to school officials by lenders, etc (also financial aid improprieties, as a general class, the same behavior as UPX). My WP:UNDUE concern remains for the overall article, but this reference is tenuous. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Review

I think this article is getting close to deserving another review of its quality scale ranking, especially with some of the recent cleanup by Mysteryquest. Would anyone like time to make more edit suggestions before I request the review? I would like to do some more expansion, especially in History, Academics and Campuses sections - that's hard to do for any school site without going back to UPX developed web sources, but I'll give it a try. I absolutely do not want the material to be promotional, but because I have a lower standard for that than some, I definitely want it known that I invite critical oversight and comments while I'm working on it. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at this point, there is a great deal of material solely supported by UPX sources, which are not "third-party" and thus are questionable. I would suggest that more would be inappropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that it depends on the information. I think simple facts that aren't controversial can be sourced from UPX without issue and without limit. (Limited only by the notability of the information.) Controversial information that is self-published is where the danger lies. It can still potentially be used but if it is then it should be qualified, for example, "UPX states". Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what I come up with, then give it a serious, critical review. There's no harm in hashing it out on the talk page for more in-depth discussion. I think that is helpful to the overall editing process. I promise not to add just to be adding, there's a great template for the university project and numerous other schools with higher article ratings to serve as examples. The article is getting better because of the respectful difference. As a side note, I also can't help but believe that some of this material would be GREAT for the For-profit_school section. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncertain as to how information specific to UofP would be "GREAT" for the for-profit school article. Could you elaborate? Mysteryquest (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it over to that talk page in a few days. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's some information on the UPX faculty standards and training from a third party research non-profit organization:

Pre-screened instructional candidates participate in a training program in the modality in which they teach, which has the effect of weeding out (40%-50%) of the less committed or capable applicants.

The website for the source is: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0303/cs/ecs0304.pdf --Caernarvon (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am implementing this addition. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed a reference to the # of campuses and locations under the campuses section. The reference is no longer to a UPX website and the campus material is much more up to date. The info is listed elsewhere in the article as well, and I will make it all match or remove it from other locations soon (assuming this isn't a controvercial edit). --Caernarvon (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed a reference in the history section to the UPX media page. There is a decent research paper from Université Laval, in Québec Canada that provides close enough information to serve as a replacement cite without changing the wording. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The "research paper" cited in the above reference is written by a UofP officer, the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, so its hardly neutral or arguably even research (which is why I put research in quotes). One cannot "research" a subject which one has a vested interest in or is intimately involved with. Research implies that there is some distance between the researcher and the subject he or she is researching. I do not see much difference between it and the UPX website and do not feel its appropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a research paper, whether or not it is authored by a UPX employee. Further, one can absolutely research a subject in which they have a vested interest. Oil companies performing oil exploration - I rest my case. Question: if you were to tell someone your age, would you be able to provide a neutral answer? If you could tell the truth about your height, weight or age, why again is it that UPX is incapable of truthfully listing neutral demographic information about itself? However, let me say, to avoid a conflict between the information and the reference, it's probably appropriate to keep looking for other sources, so I'll do that. Peace, out! --Caernarvon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the header references to a non-UPX site - corrected some information - UPX is the largest private university in North America - I have seen references that claim the world, but most seem to say North America - I think we'd all prefer to err on the side of the smaller claim, yes? I removed duplicate campus information and added a citation to the last sentence that was previously unreferenced. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed an outdated, secondary reference to the number of students at the school from the History section. There's been too much of the same (but different) data spread throughout the article, my efforts today should bring the info pretty much up to date and delete most duplicate information. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I replaced a reference concerening campus resources from a UPX website reference to an online article reference. No change of wording. I'm not sure this is the best change, since the article's inference seems a touch different than what our article is saying. I don't think it's controvercial, but please let me know what you all think about the applicability of this reference. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

UPX's "Preceptoral System" & Comparison to Other Schools

I have had a chance to look at your language wherein you compare UPX's educational model to University of Oklahoma and Princeton University. By your own admission, there was original research involved in drawing the parallel between UofP and this two universities and I do not believe it is proper for the article and believe it should be removed based on the fact that it is original research. I modified the first statement so that it is clear that its UPX's position which was not clear the way it was drafted. Any statement taken from UPX's website, and there are many, should indicate that it is UPX's opinion and not stated as a fact. Moreover, the reference to the University of Oklahoma system is a promotional page for a book, a weak reference at best. Mysteryquest (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation

I would like to consider accreditation for a separate section under Academics. As it stands now, it receives about a half of a sentence. It would read something like:

Accreditation

UPX is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission as a member of the North Central Association. It also has accreditation for a variety of its specialty degree programs, including:

Nursing Accreditation — The B.S. in Nursing and the M.S. in Nursing degree programs are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE).

Business Accreditation — All business programs from the Associate to the Doctoral levels have specialty accreditation through the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP).

Teacher Education Accreditation — The M.A. in Education degree program is preaccredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) for a period of five years, from December 20, 2007 to December 20, 2012.

Counseling Accreditation — The M.S. in Counseling degree program in Community Counseling and the M.S. in Counseling degree program in Mental Health Counseling are accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).

======

Kaplan University, Walden University, ITT Technical Institute and Devry University each have a subsection devoted to the topic, though many traditional schools do not seem to. What do you all think?

--Caernarvon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this formatting instead. -- Mike (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good formatting suggestion - it organizes the topic better. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Any further discussion on this before implementation? --Caernarvon (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it and great work.17reasons (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks, I'm implementing. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)