Talk:2U (company)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

History section is getting overwhelmingly large[edit]

Can someone take a look at the History section and determine what is unessential and can be deleted? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The History section continues to grow. Some of the minutiae has to go. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CollegeMeltdown: Good idea - I'll take a shot at removing some of the info to shorten it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some excessive detail and minutiae, including info about a program that came and went. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business model sources from 2014?[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the "Business model" section has sources from 2014? This is 2021 and many things have changed. Are the numbers even valid? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The business model is further complicated by the edX acquisition. 2U's programs had completion rates of 84 percent, but MOOCS like EdX have completion rates in the single digits. ^[1] --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CollegeMeltdown: I did some updates last night and removed the update template. The business model section only refers to 2U. The subsidiaries are listed separately. Since edX has its own article, there's no need to put more detail about them here - you can add it to the edX article. I get what you're trying to communicate, but you're veering into WP:POV and WP:SYNTH territory by applying criticism of the MOOC industry to put edX in a negative light, Unless you have a source that specifically criticizes edX versus MOOCs in general, you'd be better off just adding any general negative industry info to the MOOC article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Shaw, Jonathan. "Can MOOCs Predict the Future of Online Education?". www.harvardmagazine.com. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved 11 November 2021.

TimTempleton, thanks for your help. The Harvard Magazine article was particular to edX. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Shaw, Jonathan. "Can MOOCs Predict the Future of Online Education?". www.harvardmagazine.com. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved 11 November 2021.

[1]