Talk:National University (California)/Archive 1

Cleanup
This article has no references. Also, greater care needs to be used in adding categories and templates fto make sure they are appropriate and not redunant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

History
Some history would be great. Why is the university called National University, despite the fact that national universities in countries around the world are public institutions, organized or overseen or otherwise associated with the national gov't, while this National University is private? Why does it have so many campuses, when the vast majority of private universities do not? Why is the university relatively unknown (I for one, for example, had never heard of it), despite having so many students (or, perhaps, the question should be vice versa)? Just some thoughts for expansion. Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Military Friendly Schools
In looking at this listing in Military Friendly Schools for NU, I see info that certainly looks legit and useful to the reader, particularly military personnel. The SOC, DANTES, and base support programs are valuable to any servicemember seeking to complete a college degree. (I know from first hand experience.) And assuming that MFS has truly researched this info, I think they are a WP:RS. Include this info in NU and other websites. --S. Rich (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Here is the page describing their methodology: . It is certainly subjective, but friendlyness itself is a nebulous concept from the get-go. Nevertheless, the methodology produces a result that is useful to the reader.--S. Rich (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)06:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty undetailed as far as methodologies go. It looks to me like this is just another webpage created to advertise (mostly for-profit) institutions.  I don't see much that indicates reliability, including any real information about who created and maintains the site and its listings.
 * Is the military-specific information available somewhere else that is more reputable? ElKevbo (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the prior comment, is the "mostly for-profit" comment an ad hominem dig at profit making institutions? In looking at the search results for all schools  (I hope this link works for you), I see 1221 schools listed.  I have not sought out which are for and which are not-for profit schools, but I do see numerous state colleges listed (presumably non-profit).  In any event, getting beyond the ad hominem aspects of the argument, are we getting into OR by making our own judgments on whether the inclusion of profit schools is legitimate?  Or worse yet, is POV intruding?  Again, getting beyond profit, OR and POV, the real question is whether this is a RS?--S. Rich (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)  And let me expand on this.  In clicking on what looks like a state school  I see lots of information for it that is certainly not advertising. --S. Rich (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter too much if the listing has more or less for-profits. What's more important is determining if the listing is (a) reliable and (b) reputable.  The first we can try to determine in the usual ways - who publishes the information, how is it collected, how much vetting and responsible editorial control is applied, etc.  The second can primarily be determined by examining who else references this listing. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See for MFS's advisory board.  Looks like a pretty reliable bunch of people. (And certainly looking at the listing is not the be all and end all of our analysis.) --S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed - that advisory board appears to be very reputable and that goes a long way to establishing this as a potentially useful resource. Have you come across anything, particularly anything not published by this organization, that would help establish the directory itself as a well-regarded tool with a reputation for quality?  Or anything about the broader organization itself?  (Although, in all honesty I'm almost swayed just by the advisory board.  I trust that something with ACE involvement is quite reputable.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing this would be like citing an encyclopedia. The material is useful, but not as accurate as the primary source and doesn't say anything particularly notable.  I don't think the inclusion of National in their list of 1,000+ military schools is worth noting, and I found a few instances where they mention a school is not part of the SOC degree network when it in fact is, such as Capitol College.  The website would deserve a Wikipedia article if third-party sources (like the press) were talking about it, but I couldn't find any instances of that.  JamaUtil (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Excessive detail
When looking for content to add into Wikipedia, I usually stick by, if someone has written about it, it belongs in Wikipedia. I am certainly not a deletionist, but this article has the absolute most detail I've seen that absolutely no one has written about. Here are a few items I was surprised to find in this article:
 * The unsourced concentrations of every department of every college at the school.
 * The listing of every learning center in every military base where this school has a presence.
 * The mission statement.
 * The committees of the board of trustees.
 * Six in-text mentions of the Henderson, NV campus which lists a suite in an office building as its location.
 * The location of every on-line learning center of this university.

None of this information is sourced, and I imagine a lot of it changes from year to year. I'm tempted to condense it a bit. Any ideas on how to do this without removing the useful information? I'm thinking the National University System should have its own article, and I think much of the governance can go there. But what in the world do I do with the recognition information that states National's endowment is 200/796. Is that supposed to be notable? JamaUtil (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Should there be a category and navbox for every branch education office? Hardly.  WP:UNIGUIDE is the proper format and guidance. --S. Rich (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

National University US News Ranking
In the section titled "Recognitions," it states "Since 1994, U.S. News & World Report has listed National University among America's Best Colleges and Universities in the western U.S." However, the link to the US News website shows the university as unranked, both in the national university list, and in the western regional university list. Moreover, a footnote on the US News site suggests the ranking was due to National University opting not to fill out the necessary US News survey for ranking. Given this information, I'd strongly suggest this bullet be either removed or changed to show the current status of the university as being "unranked."

If the bullet is ignoring the fact that it is unranked, and merely referencing the fact that US News acknowledges the school's existence, then I strongly recommend removing the misleading information that it was listed "among" the top universities. It was not listed "among" the top universities (as that would indicate it too was listed) but rather listed "in addition to" the US's top schools.

If anyone is interested, the site is: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-university-11460

2602:306:3034:63D0:29:1927:E391:CF4A (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National University (California). 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/20160913155526/http://www.nu.edu/assets/resources/pageResources/National-University-Student-Achievement-Data.pdf to http://www.nu.edu/assets/resources/pageResources/National-University-Student-Achievement-Data.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017171755/http://www.nu.edu/assets/resources/pageResources/vision-2011.pdf to http://www.nu.edu/assets/resources/pageResources/vision-2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920020054/http://www.wascsenior.org/wasc/MI_Directory.htm to http://www.wascsenior.org/wasc/MI_Directory.htm

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) 10:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with San Diego Institute for Policy Research
Institute has been part of National University for all but two years. Is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Rogermx (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge on the grounds that it is so arms-length from the University (see their website) that it seems, despite the name, to be barely associated. However, I do suggest changing the name to its current one (since 2009): National University System Institute for Policy Research. Klbrain (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of San Diego Institute for Policy Research into National University (California)
Subject not notable on its own merits Rogermx (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)