Jump to content

Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Faculty criticism

I would like to consider removing this section:

  • Approximately 95% of UPX faculty are part-time compared with an average of 47% across all universities.[16] UPX's position is that it only hires faculty with masters or doctoral degrees, requiring that most be actively working in the fields that they teach.[39]

from the Criticism section and incorporating it into the Faculty section. The NYT article itself is highly critical of UPX (see also, Yellow Journalism), but this particular quote seems to be referencing a conversation with Dr. Pepicello. There is a later critical observation by John J. Fernandes of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (the direct competitor of the accredidation agency UPX uses, ACBSP) that it is his observation that UPX's faculty is too come and go, but does not reference the above statistic. Moreover, there is no contention that by using this model, UPX has a lower educational standard, which is inferred by placing it under Criticism. There is too much elitest innuendo and no research to back up this idea. I see no documented, verifiable reason to believe this is a widely held position. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to implement this change. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:08, 26 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:

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,[4] 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.[5]
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.[6] UPX only hires faculty with masters or doctoral degrees, requiring that most be actively working in the fields that they teach.[7]
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[8] and uses measurements that skew against economically disadvantaged and minority students.[9] The university response notes that the federal standard only applies to 7% of the total UPX student community[10] and publishes its own nonstandard graduation rate of 59% to account for its overwhelming population of non-traditional students.[6]
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:

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.[18][4][6][19][20] 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.[21]
  • 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.[22][23] It is presently being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for alleged religious discrimination favoring Mormon enrollment counselors.[24] 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.[25][6][4] 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.[4]
  • In January of 2008, UPX’s parent company, Apollo Group, Inc. was found guilty of fraud for misleading investors. [26] U.S. District Judge James Teilborg recently overturned the verdict, ruling that the evidence was not sufficient. [27]
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."[28]

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[29] 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.[30]

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. [31]

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. [32]
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:

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.”[6] The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams,[33] forms of which are used by other schools,[34][35] in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.[33]

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,[4] 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.[36] 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.”[6]

--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.[6] 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.[33]
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.[6] 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.[33]

--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

Shortcuts

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.[6] 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.[33]'

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.[6] The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime.[37]

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.[6] The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime.[38] --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:

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:

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.[42]

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.[43] 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).[44]
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).[45]
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.[46]
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).[47]
======

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)

Faculty criticism

I would like to consider removing this section:

  • Approximately 95% of UPX faculty are part-time compared with an average of 47% across all universities.[16] UPX's position is that it only hires faculty with masters or doctoral degrees, requiring that most be actively working in the fields that they teach.[39]

from the Criticism section and incorporating it into the Faculty section. The NYT article itself is highly critical of UPX (see also, Yellow Journalism), but this particular quote seems to be referencing a conversation with Dr. Pepicello. There is a later critical observation by John J. Fernandes of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (the direct competitor of the accredidation agency UPX uses, ACBSP) that it is his observation that UPX's faculty is too come and go, but does not reference the above statistic. Moreover, there is no contention that by using this model, UPX has a lower educational standard, which is inferred by placing it under Criticism. There is too much elitest innuendo and no research to back up this idea. I see no documented, verifiable reason to believe this is a widely held position. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to implement this change. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cased Dismissed

I would recommend removing this section from Criticism:

In January 2008, UPX’s parent company, Apollo Group, Inc. was found guilty of fraud for misleading investors.[56] U.S. District Judge James Teilborg recently overturned the verdict, ruling that the evidence was not sufficient.[57]

There is no reason to include a court case under Criticism that was dismissed and isn't showing any further appeal activity. Another fine example of the deep pockets principle. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the time limit to file an appeal is exceeded before removing it.
I am curious though about your comment, "Another fine example of the deep pockets principle." It implies that you feel someone other (lessor) than Apollo should have been charged. Who? -- Mike (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mike - not charged, per se - but accountable, yes. My frustration with our litigous society ia a frustration shared by many. My research into this case was that this is a situation of a shareholder suit, one in which investors sued because Apollo didn't completely disclose material within a freely available and discoverable Department of Education report. In fact, that's exactly what happened; investors, doing due diligence research into their investment, tracked and learned of the review and the associated report (via a news article). Their suit was because they felt Apollo should have revealed the complete contents rather than they having to perform the research themselves. While it certainly would have been NICE for Apollo to inform the investors, the judge's ruling basically stated there was insufficient evidence to link the event with the cause of harm (stock drop some time later). The deep pocket, as I've used it, refers mostly to Apollo as an attractive target for civil litigation considering its size and resources, and only in a secondary manner as to my opinion that the investors have far more responsibility to wisely follow their investements than does Apollo to advertise the rhetoric of their critics. As to waiting to remove, that doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. The time to appeal has probably passed, and though I can't find any third party source documenting an appeal, it's more likely than not that there's one on file. I admit to a touch of discomfort with that logic for leaving the criticism intact, however. Without documentable evidence that there's an appeal, we'd be proceeding on an assumption. I'd prefer not to leave negative material predicated on an assumption. What do you all think? --Caernarvon (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
First let me say that I have very, very rarely seen a stock holder lawsuit that I approved of. I'm not even sure I agree with this one. That said, I really don't know whether or not Apollo was "guilty" or not in this case. Apparently a jury thought they were. The USDOE report itself is pretty damning. Apollo knew about this report and chose not to disclose it in a share holder meeting. Apparently because they thought that they could either make it go away, or get it changed before it became "more public". Once the analyst reported it however, it was apparent that Apollo knew something that could affect the stock value, and they chose to not reveal it. I hardly see this as a deep pockets matter. In fact, it appears to me that Apollo got off on a technicality that might be overturned on appeal. I'll try and find out how much time the claimants have to file the appeal. Either way, it seems a notable event in UPX history. Especially in light of the pending Qui Tam lawsuit. -- Mike (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, you say, "The time to appeal has probably passed, ..." I'm not so sure. It only happend in August, less than 60 days ago. I would think that 90 days would be a minimum, but I don't know why. If it is only 30 days, then you are right. I don't know how to find this out. -- Mike (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Personal opinion - I generally agree with what you're saying. I don't think it was a technicality, though. I say that because the judge found fault with the plaintiff's ability to link the action (failure to disclose) with the harmful result. That's just plain death to any lawsuit - there must be a causal relationship. It may be overturned on appeal, but it will be a difficult case to make - the judge doesn't disagree that UPX likely should have disclosed, he ruled that the failure to disclose was not proximate to the damage (lower stock) a week after. That being said, I think you make a good case to leave it where it is for the time being. Appeal times can vary widely - don't worry about digging in too far for my sake for the timeframes. You've made a good enough argument for leaving it be for at least another two months or so? If you don't mind, we can take another look then? --Caernarvon (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked an attorney and she said that federal is appeals limit is usually 60 days. The problem as I understand it is that the judge overturned the jury on a factual item, and those don't usually hold up on appeal. Because it is the jury's job to weigh the facts and determine the truth. Either way, we should know soon if it is a 60 day limit. -- Mike (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool, your suggestion is very acceptable. As a side note, true, the jury should be the trier of fact and the judge of law. Purely as a point of discussion, this seems to have been overturned on a matter of law, i.e., no causal relationship between harmful event and damage suffered (law) rather than whether or not there was an intent to withhold info, or whether or not there was harmful action, etc (fact) - though I'm not an attorney. I have several judges I am socially acquainted with - I'll try to corner one or two in the near future to ask their view (irrelevant to the final determination as to if we keep this line and probably not deserving of much attention on the talk page, but interesting to us both, it seems). Thanks, Mike. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: It appears the lower court judgement to dismiss this case was affirmed.

http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CC09%5C2008%5C20081015_0004343.C09.htm/qx

Do you read this the same way? --Caernarvon (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
No. The case you cited is "Hendow v. University of Phoenix": The Qui Tam case, not the "shareholders" case, which is what this topics is about. (This opinion looks like someone (Leland White?) was trying to get himself included in the lawsuit, and the appeals court is denying his motion.) Mike (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why a case as large as the one against Apollo, regardless of the fact that the judge dismissed it after the jury verdict, should be deleted from the criticism section. It is quite notable, well supported with DoE documents. Just because a case was dismissed does not mean it is not noteworthy and this one certainly was. It should stay even after the time to appeal expires. Personal opinions of the editors, or consultations with their personal acquaintances or other original research should not be used to determine what is relevant or not. The reader is supposed to ultimately decide that.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You have a point. It is a Fact that there was a jury verdict that found them guilty. Mike (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. The fact that an editor's personal opinion is that the suit had no merit or Apollo was sued because it had "deep pockets" should not govern what is in the article. Editors are certainly entitled to their opinions but those should not serve to preempt readers from being given unbiased information. In reading the discussion in this section, most of if is based on personal opinions that don't appear to focus on whether the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The item is certain noteworthy and it is certainly not "undue" to include a lawsuit that went to the jury, that the jury held for the plaintiff (quite handsomely) even if the judge vacated the ruling. The reader is quite capable of deciding if the suit was filed because Apollo had deep pockets or because investors were deceived. I see no reason why an editor's personal opinions should be used to deprive the reader of that choice.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Fact does not make for relevance. Abraham Lincoln was a human. You don't find this fact anywhere in his bio. Schools get sued, yes, even traditional schools. We don't find those lawsuits pasted all over their wikipedia pages, though there is a clear bias against for-profit schools in this regard. I have not strongly advocated for particularly hasty removal of the material - Mike and I originally thought a couple of months would probably be sufficient to see if there were an appeal before again considering its relevance. It has been many months since then and I too wonder if it is too soon (or if it should be removed at all). As I've been editing here with you all I've seen my opinion changed, particularly be the more well thought-out arguments of both Mhedblom and Mysteryquest. For profit schools, for many reasons, probably do deserve a different level of attention to their problems than many traditional schools because their core problems seem to be of a different type. On a side note, editor's personal opinions as to what is appropriate to be in wikipedia articles (based on wikipedia standards) is exactly what should govern what is in these articles. My personal opinion is exactly that, mine, just as your personal opinion belongs to you. My personal opinion is that it has been our tendency here to list every lawsuit involving this school while traditional schools get a free ride in their articles. It is my personal opinion that this practice is, to some degree, appropriate - especially when there's a pattern that can be shown. I simply prefer that we discuss it here in well thought out argument before posting - the article is the better for it. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The Abraham Lincoln argument is sophomoric, the fact that the man is a human is self-evident and thus not notable which is why needs not be mentioned in his bio. Your contention that because a suit is ultimately overturned by a judge after a multi-hundred million dollar verdict makes it irrelevant is not impressive. The suit arose from a highly critical Program Review by the Department of Education and the fact that Apollo hid its effects from its investors. That's relevant. This suit does not fall into the category of "every little lawsuit that has been filed". Respectively, your personal opinion may play a role in deciding what should be placed in article, however, it should not override the standard for inclusion, such as notability and independent references. For example, your personal opinion that a suit is based on a "deep pocket" theory is totally irrelevant, when such an assertion is not supported by any independent reliable source, as to whether the lawsuit should be included in the article when it is notable and there are independent references that support its mention. Mentioning the lawsuit is not a judgment on whether it was jusitifed or not. The reader can decide if it was justified based on the references and their personal opinion. Mysteryquest (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found a reference for it yet, but I understand from asking around that the appeal has been submitted to the U.S. 9th District Court of Appeal. Final submissions are due in the next few weeks. Mike (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mysteryquest: My humble thanks for allowing my opinion to be included in the formulation of the article contents! I agree that no editor's opinion should override standards for inclusion, which is a comment we should all consider while trying to work through consensus to develop appropriate material. I also agree that the lawsuit has more relevance than a simple observation of our 16th President's human condition, but the concern is one of degree, not quality. I went around on this question with Mike some time ago and we agreed to leave the lawsuit in for a few months to see if anything came up as far as an appeal. During the discussion he certainly convinced me that the issue is notable because there seems to be a pattern. Although we had agreed to remove the article after a few months pending the impact of a possible appeal, it may stand on it's own merit. I don't think that's a foregone conclusion considering the judge's ruling that there was a lack of a causal relationship between the bad behavior and the harm incurred. My original concern was that dismissal of the suit decreased the notability and suitability for inclusion and it was appropriate to re-evaluate. I can still see the argument that it may be notable based on the concern of the pattern of bad behavior, not as being worthy in terms of this lawsuit as an isolated incident. I think it was appropriate to leave it in rather than act hastily and I'm glad I did not insist on re-evaluating immediately after the two-month time frame we originally agreed on - no real harm done and it's probably better to err on the side of too much info in the article rather than too little. To be clear, my editorializing using the "deep pocket" comment was an expression of my cynicism toward qui tam lawsuits in general and, as was suggested back when I made the comment, is irrelevant to the suitability of this lawsuit for inclusion to the article. NOT because it is not correct, but because any exploration of that logic would be original research and a violation of WP policy. Mike: I will try to remain aware of developments in this suit as I know you are, too. At the risk of tempting further criticism for editorializing, I actually think this is a highly interesting suit - I'm curious as to where it's going to go as a point of law. --Caernarvon (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike, good updates! Your writing style is highly focused, great job! --Caernarvon (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MAPP Quote

Hi Mike - I think the new quote, "However, Bill Wynne, the MAPP test-product specialist at ETS, said 'The magnitude of the change is in the eye of the beholder.'" is interesting but does not add enough value to warrant inclusion. To add this part invites a response from the same article that says that even with Bill Wynne not knowing specific demographic information that the test does show that University of Phoenix students still improve such that, "they were at least as good as those reported by the national cross section." And the debate rages until we should just copy and paste the article into Wikipedia to save time (kidding). The original text notes the concern and the university response includes data collected from the MAPP and SAIL tests. I suggest we let readers go to the article for much more specific data. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the unnamed editor citing the UPX report as proof that the concerns raised are invalid. Reading the cited article I see that Bill Wynne appears to be an expert and he is noting that the results might not be as impressive as UPX asserts. i think I've tried to be fair about including he unnamed editor's changes, while noting facts, and not belittling the initial concern. I'm open for suggested changes. Mike (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Some of the recent edits changed language that was the result of some extensive edit efforts. I can see your concern in maintaining balance. Would you consider going back to more neutral language in reference to the tests themselves? I'll throw something up here for a proposal later today if I get to it. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's see - how about something like this:

There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders. The university's 2008 Annual Academic Report asserts that various standardized tests have shown University of Phoenix students improving at a better rate on average in many testing areas than for students at most other schools.

It's concise without losing the intent of the viewpoint of both sides of the concern. If readers want to learn more about the testing, including specific tests and opinions about their meaning they can still go to the referenced article. What do you think? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
What are "other schools"? Need some comparison I think. Mike (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The quote from the acadamic report is, "students performed comparably to or better than students at other institutions surveyed." How does this sound? --Caernarvon (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders. The university's 2008 Annual Academic Report asserts that various standardized tests have shown University of Phoenix students improving at a better rate on average in many testing areas than for students at other institutions surveyed.

If this sounds reasonable, do you all mind if I implement? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. Mike (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice blog post

I found a nice blog post about the turnover at UPX. If anyone wanted, you could investigate it further and publish the results at wikinews, after which that wikinews article could be cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.77.161 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism

I removed the following passage from the article:

The university has been highly criticized for having unqualified instructors teaching its programs. Most of the instructors have acquired their academic degrees from foreign countries such as Iran, India and China. The Master's and Ph.D programs provided by the institution are not welcomed in mainstream academia since they lack many of the fundamentals and research required by established institutions in order for students to qualify for these higher educational degrees. Their undergraduates have a very difficult time getting admitted to established universities to continue their graduate work and end up finishing their graduate degrees at this institution.

This sounds like it was written by a disgruntled student. The part about the instructors acquiring their degrees from countries such as "Iran, India, and China" is pretty ridiculous. shotwell (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that this passage is not suitable and should be removed, the issue raised in it has not been adequately covered in the article. UoP graduates do not, as a rule, get accepted into credible graduate programs, and undergraduate work accomplished at UoP is not accepted by accredited undergraduate programs in many cases. In the professional job market, UoP degrees are often regarded as inferior. Many UoP instructors have degrees from UoP and other online institutions with problematic certification; fewer have degrees from strong, accredited graduate programs. Disgruntled or not, this person makes points that need to be addressed and documented in the article. Tithonicus (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Tithonicus

Return of Federal Funds

Hi Mike - I'd like to reconsider the inclusion of the newest lawsuit. First, it appears to be based on (good) original research and blog postings. Nowhere does there seem to be a third party accounting of the issue. Second, anyone can sue anyone for anything. In this case, three deadbeat students are upset that UPX returned Federal backed money to the lending institution and assumed the recovery of the debt themselves. Even if this were noteworthy, there is no third party concern that the activity wasn't completely valid - only an assertion on the part of the plaintiffs. There isn't even a contention that the plaintiffs don't owe the money, only an attempt on their part to get out of paying based on a technicality. They seek class action status but there has been no ruling (apparently) on this yet. Heck, if it was my desire, I could spend a couple of hundred bucks on filing fees and file a few more lawsuits that won't go anywhere just to pad this criticism page (not my first choice, I need my money!). Can we forego this section until such time as there is a reputable, third party, non-blog, reporting of the incident? *Special Note: - there are more plaintiffs' attorneys on this case than there are plaintiffs! Anyone else smell blood in the water? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As an aside - here's some research on the blog site that initiated the "reporting" of this information:

http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/stocks/bidzcom-bidz-citron-research-stocklemoncom-soap-opera-continues/

There's more like this out there on them. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Caernarvon, a couple of points:
  1. You need to be careful about terms like "deadbeat students". I have read plenty of allegations about UPX enrolling unqualified students who can't meet the course requirements, and the students are then forced to drop out. Who's fault it is for the enrollment is debatable — similar to the current home loan fiasco — but hardly one to be categorized by terms like "deadbeat". By that definition, all home owners who have defaulted on their home loans are "deadbeat" until proven otherwise.
  2. According the Apollo's Form 10-Q, there are eight (8) outstanding lawsuits against Apollo and UPX. IMHO, most are not notable in this Wikipedia article. I would have ignored this one too if not for Apollo's stock dropping 10% in one day. That caught my attention and lead my research to the Citron blog, which lead me to the court filing. After looking into it, this lawsuit seems as important — if not more so — than the other legal issues cited, and it goes to the heart of many of the criticisms about UPX.
  3. No where in the complaint are the students trying to "get out of paying", as you allege. Again, please be careful with your terms.
  4. I think you miss the point of the article. The issue is not, as you say, about students being "upset that UPX is taking over their loans". The issue alleged is that UPX appears to be doing this to avoid reporting default rates. If this is true, it can get UPX kicked out of the Title IV funding program, which is where almost 70% of their money comes from. THAT is very significant. I don't even think the Qui-Tam lawsuit could have that affect on the company.
  5. Finally, your comment about more attorneys that plaintiffs sounds rather snide to me. This is how most class-actions begin. Class actions require large teams of attorneys to manage and run the case.
  6. Lastly, the blog site is not the issue. Whether or not it is a reputable source of information, it does have a factual copy of the court filing. Feel free to remove the reference to the blog if you wish, but do keep the link to the filing until we can find another.
Mike (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe these links would be better:
http://www.aacrao.org/transcript/index.cfm?fuseaction=show_view&doc_id=4157
http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/01/9570n.htm (subscription required for full article)
Mike (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Those links are much more reputable and seem to lend more credibility to the article as a significant issue, please do make the change. The only part of the "deadbeat student" description that isn't accurate is, presumably, the "student" part. It is my opinion that the students in the lawsuit have no conceivable concern whether the money they borrowed is paid to the lending institution or to the school if they agree that they did borrow the money and do have a legitimate obligation and intent to repay it. There is probably a technical problem with how the school is handling this and arguably it has no legal right to compensation if it paid off the loans with company money.

I do believe the students are trying to get out of their loans and I can't see the possibility of a hint that they actually care about how the school is handling the loan, except as a basis for them to avoid paying (heck, maybe even to make some money on a settlement, wouldn't that be great). There is a part of the complaint that requests the school be enjoined from further collections activity, so frankly you are wrong in saying that nowhere in the complaint are they trying to get out of paying.

I think we are going to have to disagree on the "deadbeat" thing. *If* UPX is enrolling students who aren't qualified just to get their money, and that is a BIG IF, then that is fraud by UPX, not deadbeats trying to get out of a loan. Mike (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not miss the point of the article. I think that there's more to this on the student's part than a civic-minded attempt to get the school to handle these loans properly. I think by their lengthy enjoinder section in the complaint that they are trying to profit from their own irresponsibility and I'm sorry if you find it snide, but "deadbeat" is the nicest term I can think of to describe that behavior.

The blog source WAS a large part of my issue. What I was trying to say nicely was that blogs are not appropriate source material according to wikipedia standards of verifiability and to please (as you have just done) find a more credible source. I have always tried to word my posts in your direction politely, even when we disagree, because of your intelligent and thoughtful contributions to this site. I am unlikely to edit your contributions or the sources you use - I would much rather discuss them with you and try to convince you of my viewpoint. Direct editing of another's work is heavy handed. If I seem to challenge you occasionally then please take that in the spirit it is intended - with a better article as a result and a better understanding of the issues on the part of those who read our behind the scenes discussions. Also examine another result - the article normally remains consistent with your version. That's either because you are generally more "right" than I am or as a result of my ability to have these discussions with an open mind and willingness to compromise.

By the way, the school is probably engaging in the reported loan repayment behavior to lower the school's default rate, I agree completely. However, if this is prohibited activity then it's another example of horrible government. Imagine if all schools were allowed to pay off their student's default amounts and then go after the students as an internal matter. Result - the govt gets all its money back to provide to other students who need it and the monetary loss is shifted to the school (who in some cases might have avoided the situation to begin with if it had better vetted its incoming students, yes?). At the risk of sounding snide (but really just mildly sarcastic with a hint of irony), maybe administrators in the federal govt should get an MBA from UPX - the school seems to have better sense at getting repayment on student loans than they do. Imagine a business that punished a client because it intentionally paid the bill of other clients. Peace. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. Suppose, hypothetically, that UPX is enrolling students that cannot possibly meet the requirements to pass a class. Lets say that their "enrollment counselors" tell the students that they are qualified and will get 100% tuition from a government backed loan. The student enrolls, attends a couple of classes, realizes that he/she is in over his head, and drops out. What financial debt is owed and to whom is it owed? If this happens too frequently, it is a red flag that maybe the school is being to aggressive in its enrollment. Which is why the school must keep drop out rates low. I don't see that as "another example of horrible government". Seems to me that the government is just trying to protect students from predatory practices.
You are right that the monetary loss is shifted to the school. Why would they do that?
This is not a case of "paying the bills of other clients". The students are also alleging that UPX is changing the terms of the loan. Imagine if you had a home loan with ABC Lender, and XYZ business pays off your loan, changes the terms without notice to you, and then tries to immediately collect the money from you. Is that legal? The students are alleging that UPX is doing just that.
Mike (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say that isn't a hypothetical. It's probably happening. UPX is very likely enrolling students of questionable ability. I would not use the phrase "cannot possibly meet" for a variety of reasons, but won't quibble. Here's the kicker - Every other school enrolls students that cannot pass, too. Most are just more careful to pre-screen the students though there is NO evidence that UPX fair worse than students at other schools, despite the Federal standard criticisms. We've grown used to it being the school's responsibility to pre-screen students and I argue that it should not have been a school's responsibility. The UPX model places the responsibility for determining capability completely with the student. Your argument seems to suggest this is a bad thing. I suggest that allowing students to make the determination gives students a chance to get an education who never would have been allowed to enroll at a traditional school, previously.
Example: High school student barely gets by and gets a diploma. Starts community college then a 4-year school and his/her head just isn't in it - family, job, whatever, get in the way, and they pass, but with a horrible GPA. Twenty years go by and the person now has it together and wants to go back to grad school. No one will admit him/her even with decent GMAT because of a 2.0 undergrad GPA with a failed class or two on the transcript. This person is hosed for life because of an unguided academic direction when they were a kid. Who are we really talking about here, demographically? Minority and lower socio-economic background. Not the silver spoon my daddy bought me a Yale degree so I could be president kind of guy. In order to give people like that a chance, you must give them all a chance, even the ones that might not make it. That's what a chance is. There's a reason UPX graduates more minority students than any other school and that they're such a high percentage. There's also a reason that traditional schools are graduating minorities from grad programs at much lower rates.
The flip side to this is that UPX is making a profit for the service they're providing. Your focus on profit being the school's motivation seems to be at the heart of your problem here. Granted, they're probably a greedy, evil corporation, I'll stipulate to that (aren't they all). But they're also damn near the only chance, because of their open enrollment policies, for alot of people to make it who would otherwise be academically ostracised. As far as I can tell, there are only two general reasons to go to UPX. The first is because no other Nationally, Regionally and Specialty accredited university will accept you (GPA or other issues) and the other is that they are just so damn convenient.
At any rate - the question is one of the merit of this topic's inclusion in the article. After my initial concern with the cites I would say that your further research and better sources support inclusion. If you would like, let's continue the discussion on one of our personal pages - I think it's a fascinating topic and your view definitely makes me think about it in a new way. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the UPX model does NOT place the "responsibility for determining capability completely with the student". If you are not qualified but call a UPX "enrollment counselor", tell them your qualifications, and they say that you are qualified, then UPX has taken the responsibility. And that is the UPX model. Mike (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
My point is, how do you define, "not qualified"? Every school defines it differently and while, yes, UPX does have enrollment standards, they're pretty loose - but if you do not meet those standards, the school does not just admit a student anyway. I don't think anyone has yet argued that UPX enrolled them in violation of its own standards. It is my assertion that the lower the enrollment standards, the more responsibility shifts to the student to determine their own academic readiness (the word "completely", as you mentioned above, is not technically accurate - just more completely than any traditional school with which I am familiar).
UPX clearly does this for two reasons; the first is that they can cast their enrollment net wider, thereby increasing profit (the reason upon which you are seeming to focus almost exclusively). This UPX behavior is not terribly altruistic, though anyone that condemns a company for profit enhancing behavior should do so only if that behavior has an egregiously socially or economically irresponsible tone to it. I think that's your concern, that the company's behavior does damage to members of our society (economically) that exceeds the benefit they provide as their main product service.
The second UPX stated reason is that it gives more students a chance (as mentioned above) to earn a degree. The question here is, from most students' perspectives, whether the UPX product adds sufficient value to its customers in one of two ways. The first is in the value of the education itself. Is there intrinsic quality to the education? The second is in career enhancement. Does the degree add value to the recipient's career? The answer is probably "yes" to both questions in the vast majority of circumstances. I say that based on nothing more than my own observations of students' posts on the web and the couple of people I know personally to have attended and completed UPX programs. Most naysayers seem to either not have attended the school personally, or to have begun studies and failed to complete for a variety of reasons. The actual degree completion rate seems comparable to most other schools. I think I see your point, Mike, but I disagree with your conclusion. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. I understand what you are saying and agree and disagree with you. I agree that UPX is enrolling students that meets its own qualification requirements. My argument is that the requirements appear to be so low that many students are destined to fail. UPX just wants the money — either from the student or from the government. That is what both of the fraud cases seem to be saying. Mike (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, you can always include lawsuits if you use the actual court records as your source. 173.3.77.161 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I should concede I'm being a bit nit-picky over the references. That's probably just force of habit over the standards some others have tried to enforce here. Blogs, etc, appear on many non-controvercial sites, even though technically they're not considered to be reliable, and no one says much about it. I vacillate on the topic at hand. I recognize that with lower entry standards the school is probably admitting some students that are less capable of succeeding. I also concede the reason they do this is motivated by profit. I just think the service they provide to underrepresented demographics justifies the practice. It's hard to remove the genuine concern folks should have about the motivations of a for-profit school for their financial practices. For most traditional schools, the motive is (slightly) more pure. Probably, there is no way to equitably administer financial aid using the same rules for traditional and for-profit schools. Perhaps the only way to do it right is to have a separate set of rules that help for-profit institutions keep their practices above board and not tempt them to push the envelope on rules designed for traditional, non-profit schools. I still don't necessarily blame the company. In an efficient free market, businesses will fill needs for which there is a profitable outcome. Because I'm not PURE capitalist, though, I hope maybe with the shift our government has taken in the year or so (i.e., increasingly favorable to corporate regulation) we'll see some legislation enacted that actually deals with these problems. For instance, and this is just a wild idea - maybe the loans for students attending for-profit schools should be made on a per student basis to the school, not to the student, with the school bearing the responsibility for repayment. Failure to complete a class means they repay that part of the federal loan. Talk about being a little more careful about who they enroll... maybe that would be just the ticket. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Then all the school has to do is pass everyone to keep their share of the loan? And, Title IV rules clearly lay out what a school must do to get funds. I expect that most schools follow the rules. The accusations are that UPX doesn't. Finally, I agree that in free market, businesses will fill the needs where there is a profitable outcome. Just look at the home loan business! In this case, I don't believe that any more regulations are needed. We just need to see enforcement of the existing rules. Something the recent administration was not willing to do. But I rant... Mike (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Now once report (Apollo Group (NASAQ:APOL): Actionable Short Alert!) is saying that the case was dismissed, but is expected to be refilled in Phoenix. I can't find anything to confirm either of these assertions. Mike (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to move quickly on this either way. The criticism is fine the way it is presently - you've done a good job in defending the notability and in citing the references. I'd like to wait and see if there's confirmation. Though as for the observation that the school would just have to pass everyone to keep their share of the money, I think logically they would then need to be concerned with the competing forces of accrediation standards and marketing their product. Either would suffer if the standard fell low enough. Catch ya later! --Caernarvon (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section has been completed diluted to the point where the text does not embody or elaborate on many of the valid and well documented criticisms of UPX's policies. For example, the phrase: "There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders" does not begin to reflect the actual criticism. I would propose more elaboration. For example a statement such as: "This includes allegations that admission advisers are pressured to admit unqualified students, that the university instructors are all part-time and that University of Phoenix's method of teaching depends on group discussion among students." or words to that effect. This is all well documented by neutral and reputable sources and should be included. The article now appears to be more weighted toward and supported by UPX's views.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the criticism section already includes many times the amount of material that can also be easily found on traditional schools, including the lawsuits and quality issues. The section is well cited and is, in large part, the product of a great amount of argument (intelligently and thoughtfully prosecuted) on your part from some months ago. I would be hesitant to agree to a great deal of modification, but it does seem that in at least one part, some form of your observation would be informative and appropriate. Especially after recent discussion from Mhedblom, I think (there goes my personal opinion again!) maybe the observation concerning pressure to admit less qualified students may deserve more attention. The university faculty are not all part time and this issue has been dealt with, again, after great debate and compromise between you and I some months ago, in another section. The same goes for the teaching method relying, in part, on groups. I would propose, to address the underqualified students issue adding this to one of the already existing criticisms to better explain what's going on:

In September 2004, the university 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.[43][44][45][46][47] "The school faces criticism that it admits students with weak academic credentials to many of its programs." (Add: appropriate citation, pretty easy to find one on this issue, I think)

I think this issue might go hand in glove with the recruiting practices suit. Together they show a relevant pattern. Or does it deserve its own section? --Caernarvon (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As I state before the simple statement: There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders" does not begin to reflect the actual criticism does not reflect the true range and nature of the criticism. UPX is not a traditional school so how traditional schools are treated should not have that much bearing on how this article is treated. "The school faces criticism that it admits students with weak academic credentials to many of its programs." should be in the criticism section which is what we had agreed to some time ago. It obviously does not belong in the legal section as it is criticism.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of being too agreeable, you may be right. Assuming no one else strongly protests, would you take a couple of days to give others to voice their opinions but presuming none, go ahead and add this to the criticism section? I won't nitpick - this probably needs to be said more clearly. I will probably promote some sort of counter balanced statement to the effect that this policy is defended by the school as presenting opportunities for underepresented and minority populations in higher education, but we can work that out later. Something like this for now:

There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders.[38] The university faces criticism that it admits students with weak academic credentials to many of its programs.[cite] This policy is defended by the school as presenting opportunities for underepresented and minority populations in higher education.[cite] The University's 2008 Annual Academic Report asserts that various standardized tests have shown University of Phoenix students improving at a better rate on average in many testing areas than students at other institutions surveyed.[31]

Back to argumentative: I do think that for-profit and not-for-profit schools do, and should, relate strongly, especially on the quality of education issue. Detractors want it both ways - hold for-profit schools up when it's convenient to show how they fall short on academic quality but suggest they're not the same when it becomes obvious they're being treated as the red-headed step children of post-secondary education. For-profits make it difficult to compare them neutrally on the quality of education issue because they're so easy to dislike for their business practices. Add to that the fact that many for-profits have VERY weak records on the educational quality issue then it becomes difficult to defend a school like UPX (very arguably a reasonably mediumish quality education according to objective, third party evaluators like Goldie Blumenstyk) and I think that's where much disagreement over the content of this page comes from. Although I want to be fair to them, I find myself being convinced more lately that they should face criticism, just and otherwise - I think their fear of bad branding probably keeps them just honest enough to answer the criticism with improved educational programs. I think it's working, too - looking historically back at UPX criticisms on the web they seem to be becoming less pronounced - with older problems fading as they've been addressed. For instance the use of teams, (which I know seems to be a personal pet peeve of yours), earned them a nasty and expensive rebuke from DOE at one time and which today has been addressed as being permissible under department guidelines. I read an article that said the school had to tighten up its management and tracking of out of class team time and other aspects of the practice. This was probably a direct result of the criticism and censure it received. Talking about these problems can only help. Disclaimer: None of the aforementioned opinion is designed to express an view on the suitability of any specific article content and is intended solely as a watermark for considering the topic (neutrality and POV) in a very general manner for future content inclusion. Peace! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wrt "teams": I think that they can be a great tool when used properly. However, I know a guy who went to UPX and was in a team where he was the only member who understood the assignments (several of his team barely understood English). The others simply could not do the work. Because his grade depended on how well his team did, he did the work for the entire team so they could all get a good grade. When he complained to the instructor the reply was, "Sorry, I have to pass everyone and this is the only way I can justify the grade for everyone in your group." This guy blew off the last assignment, but the instructor just used the same grade from the earlier mid term. I know it is anecdotal, but ... there are reasons why the criticism section exists. Mike (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind anecdotal information, it provides perspective. I had a similar experience while attending a graduate class at the University of South Florida some years ago. I would guess that the argument in favor of teams would be they teach lessons that can't be found in textbooks - like some people slack on assignments, how to get along in groups, life isn't fair and covering for slacker students (which is what I did) means a ton more work for the hard working students. I argued hard against including "teams" as a criticism and only including it in the body of the article because I actually see the value of the life lessons. Should we reconsider/re-discuss? --Caernarvon (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about adding anecdotal evidence to the article or airing my pet peeves or anyone else's in the article. I'm talking about including criticism which is overwhelming documented by independent and reliable sources in one section. How I feel about learning teams or the issue of non-profit vs. profit education is not that relevant quite frankly. What is relevant is what the sources say and that is what I feel is being diluted or not included. One form of dilution is moving criticism to other sections of the article. For example, moving the criticism about the model of teaching, to wit the "learning teams" and the fact that the university "admits anybody" or has very lax admission standards, to the academic section where it doesn't really belong since its criticism. Also moving the criticism about the recruiting violations to the legal section where it doesn't belong. Thus the criticism section becomes a single paragraph which does not enumerate the true scope of documented criticism and is immediately countered by UofP one statistics which are of course, self-serving. We can debate amongst ourselves the pros and cons of University of Phoenix, but our opinions don't really matter. What matters is the criticism which is documented by reliable sources and whether or not it should be included in the article and what format it should be in. At the moment, I believe well documented criticism from reliable sources is being diluted in favor of information from UofP which is obviously not independent. The criticism needs to be in one paragraph, not scattered through the article which tends to dilute it.
The proposed paragraph: "There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders.[38] The university faces criticism that it admits students with weak academic credentials to many of its programs.[cite] This policy is defended by the school as presenting opportunities for underepresented and minority populations in higher education.[cite] The University's 2008 Annual Academic Report asserts that various standardized tests have shown University of Phoenix students improving at a better rate on average in many testing areas than students at other institutions surveyed."
does not address the issue because it does not include all the critical information aired in by independent sources. The phrase "does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders" is needless vague and should be expanded to encompass all the criticism. To with the controversy of learning teams, part-time faculty, weak academic standards and recruiting violations. The attenuated criticism section makes it appear as if there is not that much criticism of the school which is incorrect. Let's confine the debate to these issues, not anecdotes, personal opinions or legal research not supported by reliable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
MysteryQuest, I'm sensing some concern that you think there are a few minor problems with the article. First, pay close attention to the thread - I don't think Mike or I were condoning the addition of anecdotal information to the article. I think we meant here on the discussion page, only for adding occasional perspective, it has a minor but appropriate use. If you don't care for a brief topical anecdote, feel free to ignore it - we weren't particularly addressing you. As to personal opinions and legal research, we've been over this. Our personal opinions are based on well founded and reliably researched news concerning the school. You may feel free to express your personal opinion that we shouldn't have personal opinions and we may continue to disagree with you. Most of the legal research done concerning recent lawsuits was done by Mike, (frankly, he's damn good at it and it has been his well researched and neutral viewpoint that has swayed my perpective several times) and I FIRMLY believe it was from reliable sources. I think most of what he or I posted on the matter was referenced back to the legal pleadings.
I understand that the proposed compromise paragraph, (the original of which was the result of prior consensus developed on this discussion page), does not meet your personal standard of criticism against the school. I have to say, I will never agree to allow what appears (by looking at your posting history) to be a personal bias on your part against "For-Profit" schools to set the tone for the article. I have compromised my earlier harder line position by suggesting that your thoughts deserve more voice in the article. The issues of learning teams and part-time faculty are addressed in the body of the article, with the (well researched and cited) opinion noted that some question these practices. The article leaves it to the reader to decide. The issues of weak academic recruiting standards I have proposed addressing more fully in the criticism section - if you don't like where I was suggesting to add it then make a counter-proposal, no one will be unreasonable, I think. We agree in principal that it deserves mention and citation. The issue of recruiting violations is sufficiently addressed and noted as a pattern in several lawsuits mentioned in the criticism section. I am certainly willing to re-visit them, but if I may be so bold as to make a request of you, let's deal with one issue at a time. These shotgun blasts of what you don't like about the article are difficult to handle in a logical way and lead to long-winded, meandering posts.... Sorry, what was I talking about again? --Caernarvon (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well we can disagree and in fact we always have, but I grow weary of your accusing me of being biased based on my posting history. One could easily argue that you are biased based on your posting history as you appear to have disagreed with any inclusion of negative information about UofP and various comments you have made such as calling the NY Times article Yellow Journalism and caling plaintiffs in lawsuits against UofP "disgrunteled students." but I suggest we stay away from such accusations. I have not been not been making "shotgun" blasts, I have consistently been concerned with the fact that valid criticism continues to disappear. I see no reason to not voice my concerns, even if they are numerous, because you desire or can only deal with "one issue at a time". It appears that you might have some WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article. It's not your article or "Mike's article or my article. I suggest we get some input from an administrator to deal with the neutrality issues as I dot feel that you and I are going to reach concensus.Mysteryquest (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Leslie

I know Lisa Leslie from the LA Sparks and Olympic basketball teams graduated from UoP, but I can't find a reference anywhere on the web. I was at the commencement where she spoke however I don't know how to reference that.--Froalskiner (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source to verify the claim, it can't be on Wikipedia (especially when dealing with living persons). --99.156.92.12 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep looking. She got her MBA and was the speaker at the ceremony.--Froalskiner (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Guess I didn't look hard enough! Found pictures of her at the ceremony holding up her diploma--Froalskiner (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

A NPOV tag has been added to the article. I assume this is in response to my recent edits and edit comments associated edits. Here's one paragraph that I removed.[1]

<quote>Under the terms of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the U.S. Secretary of Education is required by law to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies that the Secretary determines to be reliable authorities on the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education that they accredit. The University of Phoenix is not accredited by any organization on the U.S. Secretary of Education's list, but is regionally accredited by a few other agencies with long names but tiny offices or P.O. Boxes. It is notable that any individual can in any state can create a completely legal corporation with a name that sounds like it might be a legitimate accreditation agency, with no qualifications or obligations whatsoever. The only requirement for such an agency to issue an accreditation is for it to obtain a desktop laser or ink-jet printer on which to print the certificate.</quote>

I don't know what list is referred to in the above quote but UoP is accredited by accreditors that are recognized by CHEA and the USDE. The discussion about accreditation mills is not relevant to the article and seems only to be there to insinuate that UoP claimed accreditation is bogus, at least I don't see any other purpose. This is unsourced and seems to violate wp:NPOV and wp:NOR.

Here's the earlier today edit where I removed three paragraphs.[2] Here is a copy of them.

<quote>The University of Phoenix was once abbreviated as "UoP" but is now preferentially abbreviated as "UPX."<-ref name="apolloreuters"->Reuters, Officers and Directors For Apollo Group Inc, Accessed July 18, 2008<-/ref-> UPX is its stock ticker symbol, and the change is intended to draw greater emphasis to the fact that UPX makes money, as opposed to providing education.<-ref name="apolloreuters" /->

Although it can be said that the university "makes" money, it is possibly more accurate to describe its activity as "taking" money. UPX's main mode de vivre is to find students who qualify for financial aid and are the least likely to possess the critical thinking skills or the grades necessary to obtain the best educational value for the money. Such students are likely to have been disqualified from numerous other institutions and are often neurologically disconnected from the value of the money being spent on a UPX education, even if it is money they may have to pay back at a later date. The money "made" by UPX (in addition to executive vacations and generous salaries) goes towards laudable goals to further the educational resources and enrich the experience of its students - such as by purchasing the naming rights to an NFL football stadium.</quote>

<quote>In addition to reducing environmental waste, the fee also helps pad the university's profit margin, as the average cost of providing access to this electronic library ranges between 65 and 95 cents<-ref name="deseret" /->. Additionally, unlike traditional textbooks that the student can resell to recoup their investment, at the end of the semester, the student is left with absolutely nothing. The university can count on the entire fee going straight to the bottom line and a monopoly uninhibited by used book sales that forces students to pay the entire fee again each following semester - a practice that ensures that the University of Phoenix remains competitive in profitability and attractiveness to shareholders. In practice, this is not a major concern for students, as the purpose of a University of Phoenix education is to get a diploma with minimal effort, with a secondary goal of learning<-ref name="deseret" /->. </quote>

I never saw any real source for switching from UoP to UPX. The above reference doesn't really point at UPX anywhere that I can find. In any case, I don't really care if the abbreviation is UoP or UPX in the article but if there's going to be an explicit claim that it is now UPX and not UoP in the article then there should be a source that supports it. The second and third paragraphs also appear unsourced (the deseret reference is a broken link) and in my view a violation of both wp:NPOV and wp:NOR.

Here's my personal view on UoP. I wouldn't consider going there unless my employer was paying because I think that they are over priced but since I don't and never have, I don't care. Here's my personal view on this article. It needs to follow Wikipedia policy. My view is that the article as it now stands does seem to follow Wikipedia policy. Anyway, there's my attempt to justify my recent edits to the article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The article's NPOV tag has little to do with what you removed, and far more because something important is missing. The opinion you've shared as your "personal view", as you probably know, is pretty much how everybody else views this place (except the otherwise truly hopeless, and/or those in grief over having signed up with them - the first stage of which is denial). The way the article reads now completely evades any notion that this school is considered a joke by anyone, let alone just about everyone. Reswobslc (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
TallMagic and Mhedblom are absolutely dead on target. Although some of what was written may have had some merit, much of what they corrected (pro and anti edits made yesterday) was unsourced opinion not in alignment with Wikipedia policy. wp:NPOV wp:NOR wp:TPG Without even trying to get into rebuttal of the criticisms (i.e., UoP/UPX students maintain a lifelong student login to the library, including the textbooks (printable, if the student chooses) used in the classes they've taken) the reason Wikipedia requires reliable citation is to lend credibility to the articles. Also, especially since this is a somewhat contentious page, most of the editors find the greatest success by posting proposed changes on the talk page in an attempt to find consensus before proceeding. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Reswobslc, the NY Times article by Sam Dillon is very critical and is drawn on as a reference in the article four times. The news media has a tendency to report on negative things more than positive. Which can have a tendency to slant some Wikipedia articles a little on the negative side. I think this article suffered from that malady a year or two ago, but is in pretty balanced shape now, at least in my point of view. (Thank you Caernarvon and company!) I've done Google searches looking for reliable source articles. Perhaps another search is in order? Although what you're looking for might be found with another review of the NYT Dillon article? Although, any rebuttal from UoP should also be included in the article, IMHO. If what you're looking for can't be found then I suggest that the opinion is not as widespread as you believe. UoP is the king-of-the-hill. People love to take pot-shots at the king-of-the-hill. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the King of the Hill Diploma Mill. Their "diplomas" are still garbage. The fact is, a UoP "diploma" is widely viewed by employers as a worthless degree. Even a Salt Lake Community College diploma is worth much more - and no one at SLCC claims to be the king of anything. "Human Resources (HR) professionals attending the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) 2003 Conference were asked the following question: "If you had to hire, or promote, an employee that earned an online degree from a traditional school such as the University of Southern California, or that had matriculated at the University of Phoenix, whom would you choose?" The majority, of HR professionals said they'd 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. Only 22 percent said they'd select candidates graduating from for-profit schools like the University of Phoenix. When asked which employee they'd be more likely to promote – a graduate from a traditional university versus University of Phoenix – the results were identical." (http://www.onlineuc.net/oucarticle.html). That link used to be in the article - now it's long gone, along with anything that even remotely suggests that a UoP "degree" is inferior. Reswobslc (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
My statement that UoP is the King of the Hill was referring to UoP's size. Personally I don't consider UoP a diploma mill. It is accredited and my view is if it were grossly substandard then I'd assume that they would lose their accreditation. I think the quote that you discussed could probably go into the article, at least from my point of view. I haven't reviewed the context of the apparent consensus decision that it should not be included in the article but I think in the proper context it should be okay to quote something like that in the article. The most questionable thing about it in my mind was the Onlineuc organization. I never heard of them and perhaps questioning them as a reliable source was why the quote couldn't go into the article? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, guys. That article and the survey it references are more than 6 years old. That's forever in terms of an opinion survey - moreover there's no indication of reliability data as it relates to the survey. My last concern with it is that it's not even particularly critical of the school - 22% UoP vs. 50% USC? USC is not just any traditional school, it's considered to be among the best. Heck, annual enrollment at the school has more than quintupled in that time. My problem with the Dillon article is similar - it's old data these days. There's a ton of new material both pro and con - I can't see the value of going back years to cherry pick the nastiest articles out there. If our intent is to just go out and find negative material because Reswobslc thinks we haven't been critical enough, Mhedblom and Mysteryquest recently brought up some relevant criticisms concerning enrollment practices that would be more appropriate for exploration. As an aside, and I regret ahead of time that I'm going to upset him by mentioning this, but out of curiousity concerning his viewpoint, I looked at Reswobslc's contribution history. He has a strong track record of disdain for the Mormon and LDS viewpoint, of which UoP is known to be associated. I am not going to be drawn into an argument over this observation, anyone who cares to can do the same as I did and draw their own conclusion. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Big LOL... That's quite a hilarious stretch of the imagination. Twinkie defense anybody? If I'm "picking on" UoP because of its supposed "Mormon" connection, then why am I not picking on Brigham Young University instead? I heard BYU might be remotely associated with the LDS viewpoint as well. Does any class at UoP teach the term non sequitur? Here's some irony... for all the so-called "disdain" I have towards Mormonism, I actually consider BYU to be a real university. Reswobslc (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I spent quite a bit of time reading trough the OUC website. I feel that especially revealing is http://www.onlineuc.net/news.html . It indicates to me that OUC and their surveys have been accepted and reported on by other unquestionably reliable secondary sources. What OUC is basically saying is that distance learning programs provided by well known traditionally brick-and-mortar non-profit universities have greater utility than primarily distance learning for-profit universities. Not only is there that general statement, they refer to UoP by name. I believe that OUC has a valid point that is applicable to the article. True that the study is five years old. I believe that their point of view still is relevant and would have value in the article. Regarding the Dillon article being old, the Wikipedia article is about UoP from its establishment to the present day. The whole history is relevant. If there's something in particular that is felt to be outdated then perhaps we should include the date in the article to make sure that we give the proper context to the statement? Regarding the argument that it is not that critical of the school because USC is considered a top tieir school. I agree. That could perhaps also be included in the article. TallMagic (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The OUC site seems decent, that really wasn't at the heart of my concern. The story references a 6 year (2003) old opinion survey - that is an eternity when talking about internet based technology and, as I illustrated before, much has changed since then. The Dillon piece is already cited 4 times in the article, though the cites don't really pull together the level of criticism expressed. If you feel addition of the material would have value, I suggest putting together something as a draft on the talk page here. I see the validity of the concern that the page may presently lack inclusion of reasonable and well-documented issues - though I still argue that listing every lawsuit, individually, that anyone can find online detracts from more relevant issues, both positive and negative, and is a double standard in how other, more traditional schools are described on most Wikipedia University pages. I doubt whatever you come up with would be too objectionable! Also, I'm not sure the recent title change for the last section "Views of University of Phoenix" is quite accurate. Very little in that section relates to the views of the school, except as they address the criticisms mentioned. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering the numerous edits that have been made since the NPOV tag was added and the flagging level of conversation here, it seems we've worn this issue down. I intend to remove the tag on Monday if there is no further discussion or objection. --Caernarvon (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Objection, since the concerns expressed have not been addressed by any of the "numerous edits". Namely, the article makes no meaningful mention of the well-established opinion among employers that a UoP "degree" is inferior and hence is less valuable to a graduate. This is a very significant piece of information - just as significant as if an auto manufacturer unveiled a new model of car that could only be driven on 25% of roads. Reswobslc (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Further, you have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of the OUC report. It's not "22% Phoenix, 50% USC", like a football game they merely lost by a few touchdowns - because that suggests that Phoenix was good enough to even play in the same league. Rather, given a UoP vs USC graduate with all things equal, it's saying that 50% of the employers would entirely exclude the UOP "graduate" from consideration, whereas 22% would not. (On the contrary, the USC graduate would be considered 100% of the time - the figure of 22% merely refers to who would consider both). In other words, the UoP graduate won't even make it to the employment "tryouts" half the time - let alone be graced with the opportunity to play - just for having a degree from the UoP. They will be lumped in with the people who don't even have a degree at all. That sort of thing is important to consider before dumping a wad of cash into a "University". Reswobslc (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Reswobslc, your opinion (which is based on others' opinions) is that a UOP degree is looked upon as inferior to employers is like saying, "my sister's best friend's husband's son had a girlfriend who attended UOP and she said she wasn't hired because the interviewer heard from a co-worker who's brother told him that UOP is not a real school." And you also seem to be so stuck on an article from 2003 as your source! That's a long ----- time in the Information Age! Then, when you say "the well-established opinion among employers is that a UoP "degree" is inferior..." is "not valid" (edited to remove strong language --Caernarvon (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) because you base this off of the selective interviewing practices of journalists. In addition, Reswo---- (edited to remove strong language --Caernarvon (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)), why is it that anything positive about UOP would violate NPOV, while your nothing-but-negative contributions do not? I think that someone whom clearly has bias for or against UOP should not contribute to this artice and you have clearly a negative bias... ----- (edited to remove strong language --Caernarvon (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) Harpernicus (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I added back the last user's contribution with objectionable material edited. He or she is obviously new and has strong feelings on the topic, but that does not make the entire contribution invalid. His/her observation concerning bias is not without merit, but does not obviate the opinion of Reswobslc, either. Now, to the concerns about the OUC report - OUC is an organization that promotes onlines schools that are part of AACSB and only AACSB - it is a stated goal of the organization on their website and I am still suspicious of the motive behind the report. I disagree with Reswobslc's interpretation of the wording, but will go back over it later when I have a few minutes to spend on it. I would recomend either coming up with some compromise wording to discuss here, or the tag will be removed. Special note to Harpernicus: I am technically not supposed to edit another user's work, but technically, it probably shouldn't have been removed by another user in the first place, either. We appreciate that you feel strongly on the topic, but let's keep the debate civil! Special note to Reswobslc: I believe you have a clear bias based on your posting history. I still think there's something to what you are saying. Let's try to work something in that gives appropriate voice to your concern. I don't think many of the editors here will agree to terminology that includes pejorative intonation, even if you can find a quote to support it. I can argue that a degree from the University of Alabama is "inferior" to one from MIT from the viewpoint of human resources directors, I guarantee I can even find verifiable statistics to show the relationship. I argue that this is NOT the place for those comparative observations or the whole AACSB vs ACBSP debate (probably more appropriate for those articles, if necessary). We've spent enough time on what we don't like about the article, let's roll up our sleeves and get to work! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Margin Reset

Okay, it didn't take long, I just looked it up. These are the exact questions on the survey:

"1) If you had to hire an employee that earned an online degree from a traditional school such as the University of Southern California or that had matriculated at the University of Phoenix, whom would you choose? (please check one box only) 

University of Phoenix
University of Southern California (USC)

2) If you had to promote an employee that earned an online degree from a traditional school such as the University of Michigan or that had matriculated at the University of Phoenix, whom would you choose? (please select one) 

University of Michigan
University of Phoenix

FINAL RESULTS FOR BOTH QUESTIONS 

Traditional Universities (i.e., USC and University of Michigan) - 50%
University of Phoenix - 22%
Split Opinions (either) - 13.8%
Makes No Difference - 13.8%" (http://www.onlineuc.net/shrmstudy.html)

Now, not even taking into account errors in this survey due to surveyed population issues (were attendees a truly representative popultation of HR professionals or were some demographics more likely to attend than others?) and inexactitude of the question (like USC, like UoP, like UoM), for instance, the survey results are EXACTLY what I had stated. I see no samples size or margin of error - this survey speaks only for the individuals actually there on the date the survey was given and could be very different for the same group on a different day. I hate to be this critical, but I hope these folks that put this survey together didn't graduate from AACSB accredited business schools, because they should have flunked statistics. Furthermore, there is no exclusionary verbiage - it is preference. The survey says NOTHING about not including UoP graduates in promotions or hiring. Sorry, this is tripe, tabloid quality research. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would see your point... if it weren't for the fact that you're pointing at a summary of the study from a secondary source - not the study itself (see the link you posted). Basically your point seems to be that the material is "tabloid tripe" because the secondary source failed to plagiarize the entire study onto their website. Reswobslc (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Reswobslc, I think the discussion will go much better if you simply made a proposal for the type addition that you would like to see in the article. Saying that you object to the NPOV template being removed while not bothering to even present a straw horse proposal seems inconsistent. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's their survey and their website, that is NOT a secondary source (and frankly, according to WP standards, conducting a survey, then posting it to your own site hardly makes for a reliable source) - if you have a link to the study better than the one posted I am open to looking at it. I notice you fail to address the fact that you were wrong in saying that the survey stated that HR providers would select from traditional online schools to the EXCLUSION of UoP. Also, just a suggestion; I also notice you frequently use quote marks when what you are really doing is paraphrasing. I'm trying not to be picky on this, but you've changed the meaning of others writing several times, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more significant, by the misuse of quotes. Again, make a recommendation for an addition to the article. My disagreement with your position to date is more one of degree, or more accurately, intensity, than substance. I think we can and should be sure your concern has a voice in the article as long as it can be done in a non-denigrating tone. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"One of the most compelling concerns about the University of Phoenix is that a substantial percentage of potential employers and employment decision-makers do not consider its degrees to be worthy, or that it represents the same amount of hard work that goes into earning a degree from a more traditional school. Other criticisms are that the school's "Enrollment Counselors" are nothing more than hard-selling salespeople tasked with meeting enrollment quotas."

This is the original just posted on the article page. I don't have any strong objections, but would like to discuss here before posting. This will also give a chance to cite the work, which must be done to be included, anyway. I would probably remove the editorializing verbiage - something more to this effect:

"One concern about the University of Phoenix is that there is indication that some potential employers and employment decision-makers consider its degrees to be of less value than most awarded by traditional universities."

We need a cite for this. If we decide to go with the OUC, then some mention must be made for that organization's less than neutral view on the matter.

"Another criticism is that the school's enrollment counselors function more as salespeople tasked with meeting enrollment quotas than as similar peers at traditional schools."

This needs a cite as well - Question - is this a good place to merge the information about the recent lawsuit? They seem related and the criticism might flow better. Thoughts?

Side note: Reswobslc, I commend you on this recommended addition. This topic needed a bit more emphasis and your (sometimes acerbic) persistence is helpful. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest something like "One concern about the University of Phoenix is that there is indication that some potential employers and employment decision-makers consider its degrees to be of less value have less utility than most awarded by traditional universities." Of course, as you point out, a reference needs to be found. Which could impact the proper wording. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me folks, though looking through most of the online info supporting this position it seems to be heavily clouded with blog chatter. I guess we can post it with a {citation needed} tag, not post it or keep looking. Unless there's a reasonable objection, I intend to remove the neutrality disputed tag on Friday whichever way we go. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not put statements in the article without supporting references. Reswobslc can't force other editors to make edits that he wants to see by putting that template there. That template means that content is under dispute and no one has told him that there would be dispute to a properly referenced statement that he alluded to. My view is that the tag could be removed today. TallMagic (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The objection still remains, just the same as the last time you proposed this. Reswobslc (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Since there is no proposal from you that is disputed, your assertion that the article is in dispute has no meaning that I can determine. Nothing is in dispute! Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree; posting without a reference is bad form, at best, and I apologize for suggesting it. Reswobslc has had over ten days to work on the proposal with no progress and it's just not my place to do his research for him. Not that I think he'd give me the same consideration, but I'm genuinely trying to be respectful of his viewpoint. I'll wait and see what he can find by Friday to give a more than fair chance. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but per Template:POV, the criterion for removing the tag is the absence of discussion, not some arbitrary deadline that you get to make up. Given this page is 100+ KB and has lots of recent activity, the absence of discussion is notably absent. Reswobslc (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This part of the sentence bothers me; it is hard to understand what it is trying to say: "...is that there is indication ...". Can someone come up with a rephrase? Mike (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
There is lack of discussion regarding the dispute since there is no dispute. The tag should be removed unless there is a real dispute. Detail discussion of what should be said is irrelevant until a reference is found. TallMagic (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOVD: In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. To recap, the nature of the dispute is that the article gives no hint that a significant percentage of employers consider a UoP degree to be worthless. Reswobslc (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Then provide a link to your reference. Thinking that you can sit on the side lines and do nothing but make pot shots at the article and other editors is not a contructive mode of operation and it is not a dispute. It is something but it's not a dispute. TallMagic (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Reswobslc, you seem to believe that you are a high-level (very intelligent) thinker. However, you are taking a bad thrashing in this incessant argument. It's quite embarrassing. Now you are at a point where you need to bring substantial and hard-hitting evidence to support your "input" to reclaim any semblance of your dignity and credibility. Your vest intellect appears to be failing you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.67.220 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no room on Wikipedia for these type of comments. Please keep your comments focused on the article contents rather than your fellow editors. Please review wp:NPA. TallMagic (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored Reswobslc's version. Let's discuss this version. I suspect that Reswobslc has restored an old version. If I've violated some kind of previous consensus then sorry. It seems to me that this version has some more information that I personally find interesting and thought that it added to the article overall. Please share your opinion. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I always prefer better organization with proper headings. Mike (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of the duplicate info I removed did away with the better organization. It was a choice between proper headings or content that had been achieve by consensus. If you like, I will try to add back the organization to the already existing content, which can also be edited to add back any important points (that we can all generally agree on) from the other version. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
TallMagic, it does go against previous consensus, but I think most of us are bargaining in good faith. I am personally against posting major re-writes to the main article before consensus has been achieved on the talk page, but as long as we're working together as adults it's probably not that big a deal. I will do some editing of the page directly and we'll see if we can come up with something generally agreeable to everyone. This is a pretty major concession for me, since most of the "legitimate" concerns with the school come from one, already overused, source - the Dillon article. This re-write gives that article more than double the airtime that any other source enjoys. That is particularly concerning considering the damning tone of the report. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I just did a round of editing - removing duplicate information. I'm sure I removed some points that should be in but it was clear entire swaths from previous drafts were just dropped in. Let's edit what's there, adding back the important points instead of duplicating... I'm still uncomfortable with the AACSB stuff - it was removed mostly because of relevance - you simply don't find that criticism on any other non-AACSB accredited school. The bottom line is, about 45% of business schools in the US are accredited by CHEA recognized agencies, AACSB or ACBSP - the former is research school oriented accreditation and the latter is a teaching school oriented accreditation. Also, I am concerned about the Intel article for the same reasons mentioned when we decided to pull that portion originally. Intel made a big splash when they decided to not pay tuition reimbursement for non-AACSB schools (75% of the business schools in the US) - I doubt anyone will ever hear about it if they change their minds. It may be appropriate to leave in just because there is some concern out there and it probably deserves some coverage and we haven't found a way to more adequately address it. We should err on the side of inclusion, despite the flaws in that particular situation. I pretty much left the graduation/retention stuff alone. I don't believe it to be a valid criticism - online schools serve a different market and purpose than traditional schools, and Federal standards have changed over the years to take this and direct class time with instructors into account. But it is valuable information just from the standpoint of pointing out that difference. I am also concerned that by rehashing all of this debate, we're losing focus on a more relevant concern - recruitment. Mike convinced me some months ago that this is an important focus, not only in the debate of UoP, but in the differences between profit and non-profit educational environments. I don't argue that there should be an in-depth discussion on the UoP page, but I think it deserves some attention. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I like all the improvements that you made to the article. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The AACSB paragraph as a "controversy" has absolutely no relevance to this article or to the University of Phoenix. I could understand that if University of Phoenix was claiming it had AACSB accreditation when it clearly does not - that would be a controversy. It it in no way controversial that UPX doesn't have AACSB accreditation because they are a Teaching school and not a Research school as would be the requirement of seeking AACSB accreditation. Reswobslc, if you are insisting that it is a controversy that UPX does not have AACSB accreditation, please take it upon yourself (if you are truly neutral) to edit and add a non-AACSB accreditation controversy heading to the Wikipedia pages of the following non-AACSB accredited institutions: Nova Southeastern University, Alliant International University, Argosy University, University of Bridgeport, The College of Saint Rose, College of Mount Saint Vincent, Medgar Evers College, Peirce College, Wagner College, University of Maine at Augusta, Southern New Hampshire University, Plymouth State University, Georgian Court University, Alvernia University, Arcadia University, Bowie State University, College of Southern Maryland, DeSales University, Fairmont State University, Gallaudet University, Gannon University, Marymount University, Marywood University, University of the District of Columbia, Virginia Union University, Webster University, West Virginia State University, Wilkes University, Alabama State University, Anderson University, Campbell University. This should be enough just to get you started, Reswobslc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpernicus (talk • contribs) 05:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Those universities aren't hawking an easy MBA like UoP is. And it is AACSB who is considered to accredit "real" MBA programs. Reswobslc (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
So your real concern is that you believe UoP's MBA is too easy. Unfortunately, CHEA, the national, north central and ACBSP accrediting agencies disagree with you. Call me crazy, I'm going to go with them on this. I would like to hear the opinion of a few more folks, but your reasoning does not seem a proper reason for inclusion of this material. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot contribute on this matter. I have personal concerns about accreditation agencies that are funded by the schools they rate — seems like a conflict of interest to me. But that is PPOV. Beyond that, I cannot help. Mike (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that AACSB is generally considered to carry higher prestige and respect than ACBSP accreditation. This means to me that Intel's position is very likely more general than just that one company alone. Harpernicus's argument that this article can't reflect that fact unless it is reflected in a long list of other articles is a classical Wikipedia argument that is sometimes put forth but should carry little weight. The basic argument being that we shouldn't fix this article because the same deficiency exists in other articles is not a good argument. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Mike, you are absolutely correct. It sounds like a shell game of special interest and adds to the confusion. talk, one thing I have to keep in mind is that whether or not Reswobslc or Harpernicus (or any of us) make particularly good arguments for inclusion or exclusion, the material should be judged on it's own merit. That being said, the accreditation issue may deserves some attention. The problem is, there are several fine lines we are drawing. I think most folks would agree AACSB accreditation is more prestigious - but there's little or no objective research on this to cite. It is likely that ACBSP accredited degrees are viewed with some prejudice, but there is little or no objective research to cite. In many ways, accrediting agencies build their own hype, so when does perception become reality? Nova Southeastern is considered to be a great school. I believe one step toward middle ground is to move the accreditation issue from the "Controversies" section to more neutral ground - it is not a controversy. Frankly, neither is the graduation rate. Maybe leave them where they're at and re-title the section again - it still doesn't seem to fit. I'll try that later and see if that moves us more toward consensus. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the "Controversies" section per my post above. I moved the graduation and retention section to coincide with other information about the university population and I removed the Intel fluff (compared to the statistical research performed in the replacement material) and replaced it with actual research specifically about perceptions of business accreditation. The reference is excellent, I recommend anyone interested in the topic read through the research paper. I am removing the dispute tag - it seems by consensus that the majority would agree that Reswobslc's concerns have received the additional attention they deserve (or more), whether or not he feels that is the case. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the controversy section. The controversy exists and is well documented. When one considers the amount of money the school receives from the federal government and the much of the criticism, again well documented, removing the criticism section seems to be a whitewash. I would also oppose the removal of the NVOP tag as the way the article is written, valid criticism is left out. Constantly moving items from a criticism section is simply a way of "losing" it in the text of the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Margin Reset

The title for that section has undergone numerous changes recently. I disagree with the word controversy because I don't believe the word accurately depicts the contents. I would also ask that you check your description, "whitewash" which implies intentional deception. Please assume good faith. Further, I don't believe anyone here has a desire to lose anything in the text. Again, if you have an alternative, please post the suggestion here, we can work out something agreeable, I hope! The NPOV tag may not be used punatively. If the person putting it there has no further edit suggestions then they can't just keep putting it back in. That's not a matter of consensus, but of wikipedia policy. You've mentioned valid criticism being left out in two posts now without mentioning what that criticism is. I'm sure you've got something in mind on it and I am genuinely eager to work on some good old fashioned article editing to be certain that all sides of the issue are represented appropriately. --Caernarvon (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I do not agree with changing the title of the section to something more benign. It is not justified. When you consider the many independent newspaper articles which are unfavorable to UofP's curriculum, faculty, its recruiting abuses, etc. there is obviously controversy which has been minimized. Yes, those articles are referenced, however the substance of them are not explored in the text whatsoever. Yet articles which are less reliable or independent which can be construed as positive are given prominence and quoted or paraphrased at length. I have been saying this for awhile now. I believe that the benign title of "Legal" and the sterile listing of the lawsuits does not fully explore the controversies and that is one of the reasons why the neutrality of the article is in dispute and it has been tagged as an advertisement (I am not alone in this opinion as I did not place either of those tags on it.) If the article is going to be neutral it needs to better explore the controversies surrounding some of the universities practices much more than it does now. However, every time something even slightly negative is put in the article, it gets immediately diluted. I'm going to explore dispute resolution or some form of mediation. As things stand now, I do not believe that we are going to come to a compromise.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Accreditations and Licensures, University of Phoenix
  2. ^ Stu Woo, Intel Cuts 100 Colleges From Its Tuition-Reimbursement Program for Employees, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 2, 2007.
  3. ^ Programmatic Accrediting Organizations 2008-2009
  4. ^ a b c d e Dealing in Diplomas, For the University of Phoenix, college is a big business - and getting bigger, The Dallas Morning News, February 28, 2004 by Katherine Yung
  5. ^ U. of Phoenix Says Test Scores Vindicate Its Academic Model, Chronicle of Higher Education, BLUMENSTYK June 13, 2008
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Sam Dillon, Troubles Grow for a University Built on Profits, The New York Times, February 11, 2007.
  7. ^ http://www.uopxonline.com/FAQs.asp
  8. ^ Underserved Students Make Progress at For-profit Institutions Diverse; Issues in Higher Education, June 9, 2008
  9. ^ Distorted Statistics on Graduation Rates The Chronicle of Higher Education (reprinted at Susan Ohanian.org, July 6, 2007, by Paul Attewell and David E. Lavin, professors of sociology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
  10. ^ University of Phoenix Responds
  11. ^ EEOC Settles Claim with University of Phoenix, Associated Press, August 29, 2007
  12. ^ a b Student-recruitment Tactics at University of Phoenix Blasted by Feds Univ. of Phoenix Audit Leads to $9.8 mil Fine The Arizona Republic, September 14, 2004, by Dawn Gilbertson
  13. ^ a b University of Phoenix Receives Record Fine Austin Business Journal, September 14, 2004]
  14. ^ a b U. of Phoenix Uses Pressure in Recruiting, Report Says - Institution disputes charges that it pumps up enrollment through illegal tactics, Chronicle of Higher Education, by Goldie Blumenstyk, October 8, 2004
  15. ^ US DOE Program Review Report
  16. ^ US DOE and U. of Phoenix Settlement Agreement
  17. ^ Lawmakers Are on the Student-Loan Warpath
  18. ^ University of Phoenix fraud case goes forwardL.A. Times, August 21, 2007
  19. ^ List of Court Documents Related to False Claims Suit
  20. ^ Lisa M. Krieger Lawsuit: University of Phoenix breached ethics, laws, San Jose Mercury , Jun 23, 2007.
  21. ^ United States of America ex rel. Hendow v. University of Phoenix Apollo Group Legal Information Center, accessed July 18, 2008
  22. ^ University of Phoenix, Dept. of Labor Reach Overtime Agreement The Phoenix Business Journal, July 23, 2004
  23. ^ Apollo to pay Department of Labor $2M-$3M to Settle Case Austin Business Journal, July 17, 2004.
  24. ^ Worker Bias Suit Targets University of Phoenix-School Favors Mormons, EEOC says September 28, 2006, by Dawn Gilbertson
  25. ^ University of Phoenix Reaches $6M Settlement The Business Journal of Phoenix, March 28, 2000
  26. ^ Jury Finds U of Phoenix Parent Company Liable for $280 Million Chronicle of Higher Education January 16, 2008
  27. ^ Judge overturns $280 million verdict against University of Phoenix owner Apollo Group Inc. Baltimore Sun August 5, 2008
  28. ^ A Clash of Cultures in Academe A letter sent to students in the School of Advanced Studies at the University of Phoenix and printed at "Mike’s Doc Blog" February 15, 2007, by Brian Mueller, President, Apollo Group
  29. ^ 2008 UPX Annual Academic Report
  30. ^ Diverse Populations
  31. ^ http://www.scup.org/blog/scuplinks/labels/online%20communication.html University of Phoenix Opens Tutoring and Social Centers for Online Students, Accessed 08/29/08
  32. ^ University of Phoenix Ranks #1 in Graduating Master's Degree Students from Underrepresented Populations
  33. ^ a b c d e University of Phoenix Media Relations
  34. ^ University of Oklahoma, Team Based Learning
  35. ^ Princeton University, Preceptorial System
  36. ^ U. of Phoenix Says Test Scores Vindicate Its Academic Model, Chronicle of Higher Education, BLUMENSTYK June 13, 2008
  37. ^ [3] University Of Phoenix Opens Campus In Columbia
  38. ^ [4] University Of Phoenix Opens Campus In Columbia
  39. ^ US DOE Program Review Report
  40. ^ US DOE and U. of Phoenix Settlement Agreement
  41. ^ Lawmakers Are on the Student-Loan Warpath
  42. ^ [5] ECAR Case Study 4
  43. ^ [www.ncahlc.org]
  44. ^ CCNE-Accredited Baccalaureate and Master's Nursing Degree Programs
  45. ^ Current ACBSP Educational Institution Members
  46. ^ TEAC members by state
  47. ^ Directory
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Phoenix/Archive_3&oldid=1276838762"