Talk:Grand Canyon University/Archive 1

Untitled
Should there be a section concerning the Cabinet of GCU? Explaining and identifying who the Chairman, the CEO and others are? Perryrnathan16 (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice: Numerous copyright violations
Please note that it is a violation of WP policy to fill an article with verbatim material from copyrighted sources. This article contained a large amount of copyrighted material, and those sections have been removed. Please paraphrase and cite all information in line with WP guidelines. -Nicktalk 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Issue addressed over past nine years. Left this section in, remarked out, for historical reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Vchapman  (talk • contribs) 06:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand this sentence.
"Grand Canyon University College of Education ground, traditional graduates have a 99% placement rate." I'm a native speaker of English, and I can't understand this sentence. Is it me, or is this actually amuck?211.225.33.104 (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over "leader in online education for 30 years"
An unregistered editor is insisting that the following text be added to this article: "Current television ads claim the university has been a leader in online education for 30 years despite the first website at CERN dating to 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_founded_before_1995"

I'm not going to continue an edit war over this material although I will again remove it if he or she refuses to discuss the issue.

My specific objections to the material include:


 * 1) It doesn't cite any sources for the "current television ads."
 * 2) A Wikipedia list is cited as a source for another claim.
 * 3) It's original research for a Wikipedia editor to make this claim without a reliable source making it first.
 * 4) It's sloppily written (which can easily be fixed but it's still telling when an editor blindly edit wars to include poorly written material.)

ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Grand Canyon University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100620113819/http://ncahlc.org/component/option,com_directory/Action,ShowBasic/Itemid,184/instid,1005/lang,en/ to http://www.ncahlc.org/component/option,com_directory/Action,ShowBasic/Itemid,184/instid,1005/lang,en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Classification
The article describes GCU as "for profit, Christian", which is how GCU describes itself on its own page. But I'm not sure that it is an appropriate title - the question is, what does it mean to be Christian, given the wide range of institutions that lay claim to that title. In the non-profit sector, it can be clearly demarcated by control. An institution is Christian if a Christian denomination controls membership on the controlling board. I realize even that is open to argument, since some people who claim to be Christian are not recognized as such others making the same claim, but I think it draws a relatively bright line. On the other hand, what makes a for-profit Christian? A required course on the New Testament? GCU doesn't appear to have such a requirement. A code of conduct based on Christian principles? Again, pretty vague.

To me, a Christian university is one whose governing board is controlled by a recognized Christian denomination, as GCU was when it was non-profit. The governing boards of public institutions are controlled by elected officials, and the governing boards of private, nonsectarian, nonprofit institutions are typically self-perpetuating.

If people disagree with me, that's fine, but we need a test we can apply to an institution to determine whether or not it is Christian. If not, then it's just an arbitrary adjective that institutions can aplly to themselves, and as such, it would not be appropriate to apply it unconditionally on the first line of a Wikipedia article, as it is here. AlexFeldman (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly Christian
Aside from the prayers before all the games, before exams, and at the start and end of each semester, the university also requires a course on "Christianity from the Christian world view-point". The university has 6 BA programs in Christian Studies, 4 BA programs in Worship arts, 4 master degrees in Christian studies, several graduate certificates in Christian studies, and various other programs, I'd argue it's a Christian college. Myself, as brick and mortal student, and Jewish Alumni, of GCU (BSN 2013), I can attest it is a Christian university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Private For-Profit Christian Research University
This writer, looking for staying within the established standards for similiar size NCAA Division 1 Research Universities in Arizona modeled the first paragraph and infobox classifications for GCU after examples found on pages for Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, University of Arizona as well as other the Wikipedia page of other private universities, such as Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Cornell University. None of these examples, all following the same pattern, include the schools financial model as a key component in their description of the institution. The for profit status is addressed, in depth, in the second half of the first paragraph and history sections on the page about the University. As to reference [3] to the School's classification which states, "Private For-Profit Doctorial University with Moderate Research Activity/Research University". If this reference is an unclear reference, this description shall have to be removed from all Wikipedia pages for Research universities classified by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. We can start by removing 'Private Research University' from the following page Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which also, does not include the schools financial model as a part of it's initial description. -User:VChapmantalk 10:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But articles about for-profit colleges address the fact that they're for-profit colleges in the first graf. If you really want to make an argument for keeping the profit line out, go ahead, but it's inappropriate to categorize this institution as "private Christian metropolitan research university" because that isn't a category of college used by anyone. The Carnegie distinction is Public/Private/ For-Profit. It says nothing about "private Christian metropolitan research university." Flyte35 (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's not get carried away. Wikipedia articles aren't as consistent as some of us may like and proposing mass edits simply to make a point is a poor tactic.
 * I opine that most editors insist on including "for-profit" in the lead of articles about for-profit institutions for two reasons. First, the vast majority of U.S. colleges and universities are not-for-profit so it may make sense to only explicitly label those institutions that are not.  That makes sense to me and it also aligns with what I believe be to the common reader's understanding and assumptions of U.S. higher education.  Second, I imagine that some editors believe that readers should be prominently warned about for-profit institutions and insist on the description in the lead as a kind of "scarlet letter."  That's not an acceptable motive and should be discouraged whenever possible although identifying it is probably very difficult.
 * In any case, it's a very bad idea for Wikipedia editors to invent their own classifications or categories. We should be following the lead of scholars and researchers in this field; it may be helpful at times to pay attention to how institutions describe themselves but we absolutely cannot allow them to dictate the content of articles.  So the question on the table is: How is this institution described in reliable, independent sources?
 * It seems undeniable that most sources place significant importance on this institution's for-profit status. The first source to which I turn when exploring or learning about a U.S. college or university is the Department of Education's College Navigator tool where we see that the institution's type is classified as "4-year, Private for-profit."  The second source to which I turn in these cases is the institution's classification in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education which after the name and location of the institution first lists three data elements: level ("4-year or above"), Control ("Private for-profit"), and Student Population ("62,304").  In fact, Control is a key data element in this (and many other) listing in that it's something that researchers can use to search or filter search results.  Moreover, some of the most recent news in the local and national media focus explicitly on the institution's for-profit status. ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the fall of 2014, with the school in a better place financially, it announced the exploration of a return to non-profit status on October 29. The university's president and CEO, Brian Mueller, said in a statement: "We do not have a philosophical issue with having a for-profit status and having investors. However, the stigma surrounding the for-profit industry – some of which is deserved, and some not – is real and it is not improving. And no matter what GCU does to separate itself, its detractors continue to try to use this stigma to detract from GCU’s success." Mueller has noted that GCU has been immune to a lot of the problems associated with for-profit colleges, mainly because of its regional accreditation.
 * This statement, from the page itself, is derived from a quotable source. It can be argued that the term 'For-Profit' has become pejorative   in usage.  There is a stigma associated with the term 'For-Profit' and therefore we should consider the term to be a 'Scarlet letter', a term already circulating and applied by the media to the 2012 Tom Harkin's Report regarding For-Profit Colleges, when placed in the opening statement about the University.  The school's 'For-Profit' status is a matter of fact, however, when placing this phrase in the opening statement of the page, the general tone of the opening line conveys anything but a neutral point of view.  -User:VChapmantalk  7:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. I think for clarity for the reader "for-profit" is fine. Because it's a for-profit school. It may also be Christian and metropolitan, but that's not a useful distinction to make in the lede or the info box. Flyte35 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about synonymous that are less 'politically charged'. I can see removing metropolitan.  I suggest
 * Grand Canyon University (commonly referred to as GCU or Grand Canyon) is proprietary Christian research university located in Phoenix, Arizona, United States.
 * Based on the following examples
 * The University of Notre Dame du Lac (or simply Notre Dame ) is a Catholic research university located adjacent to South Bend, Indiana, in the United States.
 * and
 * Duke University is a private research university located in Durham, North Carolina, United States.
 * and
 * Scott Christian University (SCU) is a private Christian university in Machakos, Kenya. It was established by the Africa Inland Mission in 1962 as Scott Theological College (STC), and named after AIM's founder, Peter Cameron Scott.
 * -User:VChapmantalk 9:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the suggestion to change "for-profit" to "proprietary." I'm not well schooled on the specific history of for-profit education in the U.S. but I have a hazy understanding of "proprietary" being used primarily to refer to career training especially at the less-than-2-year level so I fear that the term could be misleading here.  Further, I do have a better understanding of the changes that have occurred in the last decade or two when some institutions have tried to move away from "for-profit" since it has acquired a stigma so I'm not comfortable with us following their lead and moving away from such a simple, straight-forward term. ElKevbo (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting?
 * Grand Canyon University (commonly referred to as GCU or Grand Canyon) is for-profit Christian research university located in Phoenix, Arizona, United States.
 * -User:VChapmantalk 21:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * -User:VChapmantalk 21:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, that would be fine with me and in line with what seems to be used in most other articles. I'd shorten it a little bit and update the reference so it reads:
 * Grand Canyon University (commonly referred to as GCU or Grand Canyon) is for-profit Christian research university in Phoenix, Arizona, United States.
 * ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Grand Canyon University (commonly referred to as GCU or Grand Canyon) is a for-profit Christian research university in Phoenix, Arizona, in the United States.
 * Seems like bad English, or at least is awkward, without the preposition 'in' before 'the United States'.
 * I'll concede to adding the for-profit and dropping the metropolitan if we keep the Christian link to the Christian University page, and the research university, which does have a link with classification thanks to the Notre Dame page, a concern of User:Flyte35. This seems to fit the format of other similar pages but notes the notable exception as well.  I don't like it (the for-profit in the lead), but a compromise is a solution no one truly likes.
 * -User:VChapmantalk 09:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Archiving
I have set up auto-archiving to deal with threads that nobody has commented on for 2+years.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the photo Camelback Hall or Cypress Hall


An editor has changed the label on the above photo from Camelback Hall to Cypress Hall. Having looked at the photos of  Camelback and Cypress Halls on the university website, I think he/she is right. I have left a message on the talk page of the editor who uploaded the photo.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Canyon 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 tag to http://www.gcu.edu/Documents/phoenix-business-journal-sept-2015.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225201525/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17607 to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17607

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

For-Profit Transition
Some editors "jumped the gun" after the school's accreditors approved its transition from for-profit to non-profit. I reversed these changes while making it clear that the university is currently in a transition period. Its should remain like this until a secondary or primary source, like the Department of Education's College Navigator tool or the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education's classification, indicates otherwise. Any other statements are WP:SPECULATION. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are trailing indicators that aren't updated very frequently, sometimes taking a few years to update or change information. If we have reliable sources and the information isn't contested or complex then there's no reason for us to wait for those specific sources to catch up. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I added a cited sentence regarding the steps the school still needs to take before becoming a non-profit. We can make further changes once a secondary or primary source indicates that the school is actually a non-profit. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed! ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The university is still uniquely working with its for-profit arm - Grand Canyon Education Inc. as is noted by multiple reputable sources. Including this in the intro makes sense seeing how no other university presumably has its CEO working for its contractor and itself, and it is disingenuous since multiple employees and resources are involved in a for-profit publicly traded company, not solely a non-profit institution. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I stated almost a year ago the suspicious circumstances surrounding GCU's transition were spot on. The Department of Education ruled that the "university is a for-profit" and rejects its attempted transition to non-profit. Along with this new development, ErieSwiftByrd's links still prove the same point, that the school been a for-profit this whole time and only certain media outlets/editors jumped the gun. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand (and share) your concerns about this institution and its recent actions. However, the article needs to reflect what reliable sources say, not our personal opinions. The IRS and Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education have approved the institution's conversion to non-profit status as has the institution's regional accreditor. The Department of Education appears to be the lone holdout and it isn't accurate to only represent its ruling when many other prominent and important organizations have ruled otherwise.
 * Given the complexity of the situation, I see two viable ways to handle this. The first is what we have right now: Omit the classification from the infobox and lede sentence with some explanation later in the lede and detailed explanation in the body.  The second way would be to include something in the infoxbox and lede sentence - I'm not sure what - and have a detailed footnote explaining the situation.
 * (Incidentally, there is at least one other institution in a very similar situation - Bridgepoint, maybe? - and I would not be surprised if a few other institutions end up here, too, given the decreasing enrollments of for-profits and the constant skepticism by legislators and policy experts. So it would be good if we can establish a workable precedent for this article that could be applied in other similar articles.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have it clearly state that the university is a for-profit college in the lede and infobox - to be consistent. I would take a quick glance at the federal government's actual ruling located here that state's GCU is still a for-profit. Most notably "GCU must cease any advertising or notices that refer to its "nonprofit status". Such statements are confusing to students and the public, who may interpret such statements to mean the Department considers GCU a nonprofit under its regulations". For every other university wiki page we look at the classifications listed in publications and the Department of Ed's website so it would make sense to list its for-profit status in the lede and then explain (as it does now) in the body of it further. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not beholden to a ruling by one agency of the U.S. government particularly when another agency has made a different ruling that are consistent with several other prominent organizations. So I still don't understand why you believe that we should place so much weight on one agency's ruling when this is so clearly a complex and contentious issue with contradictory rulings by different groups.
 * (It's also confusing to refer to the Department of Education as "DOE" when that abbreviation is customarily used to refer to the Department of Energy.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * i agree we aren't beholden to a specific agency. What is being used to determine if a school is a for-profit or non-profit at this time? I thought we used the ed departments website along with other 3rd party sources. That would be the easiest and most consistent to have in place throughout wiki. As of now the ED's website lists GCU as a for-profit, so does Carnegie classifications, and recent local and national news articles (inside higher ed, ect). Furthermore while it's good to mention in the bosy of the article that the IRS considers it a nonprofit for tax purposes and so does its accrediting body (after multiple attempts) those were all just steps necessary to convert the school into a non-profit based on the department of education's requirements - which it was ultimately denied. As of now the school is a 'for-profit university' as a higher education provider. Let's see what some other editors see and I apologize on my abbreviations I have since fixed it. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a very unusual situation. We can almost always reference any reliable source because they all say the same thing. This situation of conflicting sources would only typically only arise when an institution is in the midst of a transition and some sources are out-of-date with new information. This specific situation is unusual in that reliable sources accurately describe contradictions among different agencies who each make their own determination.
 * I also think it's inaccurate to say that the news articles describe the university as "for-profit" when the articles very explicitly say exactly the opposite. The lede of the Inside Higher Ed article is "Grand Canyon University, one of the few remaining success stories among big for-profit universities, has become a nonprofit" and the lede of the azcentral article is "Grand Canyon University is officially a non-profit school again."
 * Finally, I don't think it's helpful for readers to give primacy to the Department of Education's ruling because I don't think that is the agency that most people think of as making the definitive ruling on this issue. My best guess is that most people would defer to the IRS and its rulings for tax purposes i.e., is the organization a 501(c)(3)? The Department of Education's ruling only seems to apply to federal financial aid. ElKevbo (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are providing old articles that are outdated from 2018. I would argue those news articles jumped the gun as did GCU with its massive advertising campaign of it being a "nonprofit" which it was forced to stop. More recent articles of the insidehigher ed and  identify the university as a "for-profit" due to the department of education's decision. AZCentral also notes the university has been denied its nonprofit conversion.
 * I have to disagree with you on your second point - I imagine most readers are interested in how the Department of Education labels the institution. This is a school in which the US Government sees it as a for-profit, the university president is an active CEO of a publicly traded company and is giving earnings calls (something that is truly unprecedented). AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you misrepresenting those news articles? They clearly don't "identify the university as a 'for-profit'" but describe the complexity of the situation including the relationship of the university with its (unambiguously) for-profit parent company.  Please provide exact quotes that directly support your assertion.
 * And I'm extremely skeptical that the vast majority of readers even know that the Department of Education has the independent authority to consider an institution "for-profit" for its own purposes. For nearly everyone, the primary (and perhaps only) definition or consequence of being non-profit is exemption from taxes. ElKevbo (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not - I said 'due to the department of education's decision', both articles go into the for-profit status significantly so I will just leave it as that. Again I'll have to disagree with your analysis that its all about taxes (and taxes are still being paid by the for-profit arm, so this isn't totally in the clear). The primary benefit (as noted by various articles and the university itself) is the ability to advertise itself as a non-profit to get more students since there is less stigma and more respect academically/publicly. GCU is now unable to advertise itself as a non-profit, and the department is labeling it (along with other 3rd party's such as Carnegie as a for-profit). Its also the understanding that the schools main role is not providing profits to shareholders - which GCU is still doing. The school is in the business of creating profits for it's for-profit company, which the dep of education noted. I'm not sure there is much up for debate - it is clear that Grand Canyon University is a for-profit college, but I would like to see how other editors feel about the precedent we should move forward with in the future. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here from the WikiProject Universities noticeboard and just read through this discussion and the two more recent IHE articles linked. ElKevbo, I don't think they're misrepresenting them; the November 13 one, for instance, says "The decision...could be relevant to other for-profits that are seeking to change their tax status" (emphasis added), which clearly implies to me that it's still considered for-profit. I'm in favor of listing it as a for-profit and clarifying further with a footnote. Sdkb (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is probably the other institution that I was thinking of because it's in nearly the same predicament (it has been a for-profit institution and the IRS and regional accreditor have said it's now non-profit but ED has not yet said it's non-profit). ElKevbo (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * From that article it seems to distinctly state that Ashford is a for-profit "Several large nonprofit universities have expressed interest in purchasing for-profit Ashford University, potentially following the controversial playbook of the 2017 takeover of Kaplan by Purdue." and "Ashford University is in limbo. The predominantly online institution announced its intention to convert from for-profit to nonprofit in March 2018. Now, more than a year later, the transition is still unfinished." Indicating that the transition into non-profit status is not completed and the university is still a for-profit. This was also before the big GCU decision (that makes it seem likely these types of transitions will fail). The Department of Education's College Navigator tool and the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education's classification also indicate it is a for-profit college, just like it does for GCU. So I believe we are on the same page. FYI I reverted the Ashford wiki article, an IP editor just changed the lede 2 hours ago with the false assertion. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Carnegie data are almost definitely from IPEDS so they're not independent sources at all. There are only a handful of organizations that make independent determinations of this status.
 * I still think your approach is untruthful and misleading for readers so we're not on the same page at all. Selectively quoting tiny portions of news articles that are explicitly about how this situation is complex is especially dishonest. ElKevbo (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that is an unfortunate that you feel that, but I truly don't intend to come across as such. I was just stating how even though there's obviously multiple issues (which you've mentioned) at the end of the day the article still calls it a for-profit college. And along with everything I've reviewed and the sources, and input for another editor - it's clear to me that it's a for profit college and should be stated as such in the article. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonprofit status
Edits made to the Grand Canyon University Wikipedia page in the aftermath of the Department of Education's recent ruling are not accurate. The Department of Education, in its decision letter to GCU, recognized that the university is legally approved to operate as a nonprofit by the State of Arizona and acknowledged that GCU is a 501(c)(3) organization according to the IRS. The Department of Education ruled that it considers GCU a for-profit institution "for purposes of Title IV funding" -- source: https://www.educationdive.com/news/grand-canyon-u-ed-dept-to-treat-it-as-for-profit-for-title-iv-funding/566792/.

Given that, I would suggest the following changes:

OPENING PARAGRAPH: Remove any reference to "nonprofit" or "for-profit" in the opening sentence since there is still uncertainty. While the Department of Education considers GCU a for-profit institution "for purposes of Title IV funding", the Internal Revenue Service, Higher Learning Commission and Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education all recognize GCU as a nonprofit. Until a court decides which of these organizations ultimately has jurisdiction or authority to make that designation, there is uncertainty.

SECOND PARAGRAPH: To provide more neutrality and balance, list the organizations that recognize GCU's nonprofit status by name rather than referring to them as "accreditors" (technically, the IRS is not an accreditor). And clean up language that the Department of Education "denied that change" -- which suggests the DOE can "overrule" the other government bodies. Current verbiage: Grand Canyon was established by the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention on August 1, 1949, in Prescott, Arizona as Grand Canyon College.[6] In 2000, the university ended its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention.[7] Suffering financial and other difficulties in the early part of the 21st century, the school's trustees authorized its sale in January 2004 to California-based Significant Education, LLC,[8] making it the first for-profit Christian college in the United States.[9] Following that purchase, the university became the first and only for-profit to participate in NCAA Division I athletics.[10] In 2018 the university received approval from its accreditors to return to non-profit status[11] but the U.S. Department of Education denied that change in 2019, and continues to classify the university as for-profit.[12][13] The university also directly operates alongside the for-profit publicly traded corporation, Grand Canyon Education, Inc. that bundles services for the university to operate. The university president, Brian Mueller, also serves as the CEO of GCE.[14][15] Proposed edited verbiage: Grand Canyon was established by the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention on August 1, 1949, in Prescott, Arizona as Grand Canyon College.[6] In 2000, the university ended its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention.[7] Suffering financial and other difficulties in the early part of the 21st century, the school's trustees authorized its sale in January 2004 to California-based Significant Education, LLC,[8] making it the first for-profit Christian college in the United States.[9] Following that purchase, the university became the first and only for-profit to participate in NCAA Division I athletics.[10] In 2018 the university received approval from the Higher Learning Commission, Internal Revenue Service and Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education to return to non-profit status[11] after Grand Canyon Education Inc. sold the academic assets of the university to GCU for $870 million.[11] Grand Canyon Education transitioned into becoming an online program management provider and educational services company to GCU and now 20 other universities across the country.[13] GCU and Grand Canyon Education have independent governing boards, each of which decided to retain Brian Mueller as both president of the university and CEO of Grand Canyon Education Inc.[29] In November of 2019, the U.S. Department of Education disagreed with the designation of GCU as a nonprofit entity and continues to classify the university as for-profit for purposes of Title IV funding.[12][13]

SUBSECTION ON NONPROFIT STATUS In the subsection header labeled "Failed return to nonprofit status", remove the word "failed" since many organizations do recognize that nonprofit status. Within the body of that section, there are other inaccuracies related to the DOE's decision on the status change. Current verbiage: In fall 2014 the school announced the exploration of a return to non-profit status.[24] Grand Canyon's regional accreditation body, The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), rejected the university's petition for conversion to non-profit status in 2016, stating that the school's proposed strategy, particularly its plan to outsource some of its activities (such as curriculum development and student support services) to outside vendors, did not meet the criteria for "such a conversion".[24][25][26] In 2018, the university submitted another application to HLC to change to non-profit status.[27] This second application was accepted on July 1, 2018.[28][29] Although some organizations have approved this transition, ultimately the U.S. Department of Education denied the status change and still classifies the university as a for-profit university. The government specifically stated that GCU is a captive client to Grand Canyon Education, and the college is operating for the benefit of shareholders of a for-profit company.[30]. The university plans to challenge the department's ruling.[12][13] Proposed edited verbiage: In fall 2014 the school announced the exploration of a return to non-profit status.[24] Grand Canyon's regional accreditation body, The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), rejected the university's petition for conversion to non-profit status in 2016, stating that the school's proposed strategy, particularly its plan to outsource some of its activities (such as curriculum development and student support services) to outside vendors, did not meet the criteria for "such a conversion".[24][25][26] In 2018, the university submitted another application to HLC to change to non-profit status.[27] This second application was accepted on July 1, 2018.[28][29] While the HLC, IRS and Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education still recognize GCU as a nonprofit, the Department of Education disagreed in November of 2019 and continues to classify the university as a for-profit organization for purposes of Title IV funding.[13] The Department of Education stated that GCU is a captive client to Grand Canyon Education, and the university is operating for the benefit of shareholders of a for-profit company.[30]. The university plans to challenge the department's ruling.[12][13] GCUcommunications (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah um.....this isn't your own personal marketing/PR website. Focus on getting recognized as a non-profit by the Department of Education not Wikipeida.
 * Just noticed that GCUcommunications is banned for spam or advertising and having a username that is in violation of the username policy so probably wasn't even warranted a reply. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What an incredibly unhelpful and ignorant response. All good-faith editors, particularly those who are new, deserve much better from experienced editors. ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * really not sure what you mean. The user was banned by an admin for being a GCU employee. Not much else can be done, it's to protect Wikipedia. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The account (not the user) was blocked (not banned) because it's a role account; it has nothing to with the apparent conflict of interest because posting suggestions in Talk is exactly what an editor with a potential conflict of interest should do. Nor is it because he or she was engaged in "spam or advertising." So berating him or her for making a suggestion is completely out of line and the reasons you've provided to support your harassment are untrue. Please review WP:AGF and review WP:COI if you're going to engage with potential conflicts of interest, too. ElKevbo (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just copied and pasted what was listed on their user-page by an admin, nothing more so your position really makes no sense. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * AlaskanNativeRU it is impolite (perhaps rude) to state that they were "banned" (sic) for "spam" (incorrect) and that means they are not deserving of a reply. ElKevbo was saying that you should treat all people with respect. There are real people behind the usernames. Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * in addition to the other concerns, please read WP:COITALK. Sdkb (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Sdkb. Please see my note below. Bob Romantic (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments on how to describe the tax exemption status of this organization

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should this article, particularly the lede sentence and the "Type" parameter of the infobox, describe the tax exemption status of this organization? ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Per my comment above, I'm in favor of listing it as a for-profit and clarifying further with a footnote. Sdkb (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think the best approach is to not include "for-profit" or "non-profit" in the lede or infobox. The situation is too complex to accurately summarize with just a few words and it's inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to cherry-pick the one source that agrees with their personal views and ignore or downplay the other sources. ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my comments, I'm also in favor of listing it as a for-profit and clarifying further in the article body or with a footnote. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the below discussion and the comments made above. This should be listed as a for-profit. Cook907 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
The tax exemption status of this organization has changed several times over its history, including changes made or sought in the recent past or currently being sought. Most recently, the organization was reclassified as a non-profit organization by the Internal Revenue Service, the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education, and the Higher Learning Commission (the institution's regional accreditor). However, the U.S. Department of Education has explicitly refused to reclassify the organization as a non-profit and continues to classify it as a for-profit organization. For some higher education observers and scholars in the U.S., the manner in which the organization is making this move is controversial.

It's very unusual for these key organizations - IRS, state authorities, accreditors, and the Department of Education - to disagree on this so this question has rarely if ever arisen in Wikipedia. However, a very similar situation has also recently arisen for another institution and the broader movements in the for-profit higher education industry in the U.S., particularly the plummeting enrollments and subsequent institutional closures, make it possible that this situation could become more common. So it seems important to consider not just this institution but a broader, general approach on how to describe institutions when these organizations classify them differently. ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * well I made my point in the above discussion but just a summary for other users - the article should state GCU is a for-profit university. The lede should clearly say it's a for-profit and further in the article its appropriate to describe the other complex situations surrendering the non-profit transition that the Department of Education rejected. Multiple 3rd party sources indicated this rejection by the department and it continue classification of GCU as a for profit is a huge deal. Other sources also describe GCU as a for-profit such as Carnegie Classifications and the departments own website that is used on every university wiki article. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to note that the data used by the Carnegie Classifications are from the Department of Education and not an independent judgement of the tax status of this (or any other) institution. Moreover, the data used in that classification scheme are only updated periodically so recent changes to institutional characteristics like tax exemption status are not immediately reflected.
 * It would also be helpful to provide links to the "other sources" that "describe GCU as a for-profit" especially if those sources (a) make judgments independent of the Department of Education and (b) have been written or reviewed in the recent past as the situation has changed. ElKevbo (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the discussion on this topic and I apologize for the GCUCommunications post above. The intent was to be very transparent in the username and encourage discussion but I now understand such a username, per Wikipedia policy, is not allowed and will be blocked. Still want to be completely transparent and disclose I am a GCU employee using my real name. While I am a GCU employee, I was also a newspaper editor for 25 years and understand the need to report things objectively and in a neutral fact-based way. The intent of this talk page post is to ensure that the Wikipedia verbiage reflects the complexity of this unique situation in a neutral way since multiple organizations classify the university differently. In fact, the Department of Education, in its published letter, acknowledges GCU has the legal authority to operate as a nonprofit by the State of Arizona and has been granted 501(c)(3) status by the IRS. The Wikipedia page, as it exists, seems one-sided. In addition to whether to classify GCU as nonprofit or for-profit, consider the verbiage under the "Failed return to nonprofit status" header. 1) Is it accurate or fair to call it a "failed" return if GCU has the legal authority to operate as a nonprofit? 2) The second paragraph singles out one reason (property taxes) for the nonprofit conversion and calls that into question, yet doesn't acknowledge the many other reasons that have been reported (opportunities for philanthropic giving, access to research grants, the ability to be a full voting member in the NCAA, the increased ability to continue to freeze tuition costs, which it has for 12 straight years). 3) The second graph also cites Brian Galle's NACIQI letter, which is an opinion and contained many inaccuracies which GCU pointed out here . If Galle's opinion is considered a credible or factual source, in fairness, GCU's rebuttal should also be cited. 4) Not sure why the nursing paragraph is inserted under the "Failed return to nonprofit status" header since it's not related... It is already mentioned later under "Academics" in a more thorough and balanced way. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to share this information and welcome any feedback or further discussion. Bob Romantic (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

company infobox
, This article has a university infobox and a company infobox just to show the corp website and stock symbol. I've added logo and founded with no data to suppress pulling in these fields from WD (they are redundant with the info in the college infobox), but I can't suppress the headquarters country. Can you take a look. MB 03:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a way to suppress the HQ location entirely, but I manually added Phoenix, Arizona, per nasdaq.com, which doesn't seem too intrusive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The information and the logo in the infobox is not accurate. Grand Canyon University is not a corporation and is not publicly traded, so such information has no place in the infobox. No other university page on Wikipedia lists the stock info of publicly traded Online Program Managers (OPMs) or other service providers that support the university. Grand Canyon EDUCATION is a publicly traded company. It provides education services to GCU and 23 other universities. Its stock symbol and information should be listed on its own page but has no place in the GCU infobox. (Bob Romantic (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC))

Move lede information to History section?
Any thoughts on moving most of the second paragraph to the History section? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems to me a sensible idea, since first part that paragraph is a summary of the history.
 * Keep in the lede the latter part starting with The university operations partner directly alongside....
 * Relocate the first part as a summary-introduction in the History section, before the more blow-by-blow subsections.
 * Maybe shorten the history summary part a little after the move. -- M.boli (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)