Talk:Claremont Lincoln University

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claremont Lincoln University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808050825/http://www.cst.edu/news/2014/04/21/board-of-trustees-announces-end-of-relationship-wi/ to http://www.cst.edu/news/2014/04/21/board-of-trustees-announces-end-of-relationship-wi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with noting non-profit?

An IP editor noted the university's non-profit status in the description. I followed up with a citation to the NCES database. Then @ElKevbo: reverted it all out, saying it isn't necessary. I'm puzzled. Whether a private university is for-profit or non-profit makes a huge difference for regulatory purposes, and also for many people who might want to attend. I don't see how this information isn't a useful part of the university's Wikipedia description, and I certainly don't see the harm in leaving it in the article. – M.boli (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of colleges and universities in the U.S. are non-profit so we usually omit it as unnecessary. I am not a fan of making case-by-case exceptions without really good reasons so I'm not in favor of having this handled differently in this article than others. However, I think that this particular practice could, and perhaps should, be changed project-wide as it appears to be out-of-step with how most scholarly and expert sources (e.g., IPEDS, Carnegie) classify institutions. A discussion at WT:UNI would be entirely appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Righto. I think another reason the convention could be changed is that it is easy for readers unfamiliar with the terminology to confuse private and for-profit. Thanks for explaining it. – M.boli (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)