Talk:Nova Southeastern University/Archive 1

Undergraduate Degree Programs
B.A. American Studies B.S. Applied Professional Studies with a concentration in: Biological and Physical Sciences Computer Engineering Technology Computer Studies Health Professions Studies Information Technology Pre-Optometry Studies Psychology Substance Abuse Studies B.A. Art B.A. Arts Administration B.S. Athletic Training B.S. Biology (premedical) B.A. Communication Studies B.S. Computer Information Systems B.S. Computer Science B.S. Criminal Justice B.A. Dance B.A. English B.S. Environmental Science/Studies B.S. Exercise and Sport Science B.A. History B.A. Humanities B.A. International Studies B.S. Legal Studies B.S. Marine Biology B.A. Music B.S. Paralegal Studies B.S. Psychology B.A. Sociology B.A. Theatre
 * Bulleted list item

National Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education
The addition of this section is lengthy and seems disproportionate. Rather than editing this down, it seems it should be moved to it's own page all about the program, then on the NSU page a blurb linking to the more detailed inforamtion about the program would seem prudent. Butnotthehippo 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SCIS Graduate Program
Perhaps should be moved to its own page to be consistent with the other graduate schools. Butnotthehippo 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oceanographic Center
This section is getting quite lengthy and this topic can be signifigantly expanded. Should it be moved to its own page? Butnotthehippo 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Worker's Unionization Controversy
I re-included the section regarding the Workers Unionization Controversy, as it was removed without any sort of explanation for its deletion. I am not the original poster, but I thought the edit smelled of politics. (I am a new editor, please forgive any slips of editing etiquette.)- Scienter 16:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the deletion of the worker's controversy section by Butnotthehippo. The section keeps being deleted for no articulated reason.  I have no opinion on which side of the debate is correct. I am attempting to provide a NPOV addition of this subject to the NSU article.  I will continue to revert deletions until I hear from people as to why it should be removed.  Additionally, the inclusion of the comment about Shepard Broad is premature.  The law school deserves its own section within the NSU article, but we should not drag down the article by placing random facts about one school within NSU indiscriminately.Scienter 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that some of the wording of the "worker's unionization controversy" is inflammatory. In addition, some of the facts are incorrect. NSU is not "also in Miami" for example. This so-called controversy has a disproportionate amount of emphasis compared to various other aspects of the topic of NSU. Butnotthehippo 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)butnotthehippo
 * First off, I very much appreciate you bringing the discussion over this section to the talkpage rather than reverting.


 * Please be assured I take no sides on the debate between Nova and UNICCO/SEIU. Rather, I'm only interested in documenting the issue, as I feel it is notable and important.  I absolutely do not wish to create a POV subsection within Nova's article.  However, rather than deletion, I'd really prefer editing the article to NPOV status. I didn't write the original work, only added the quotations and pictures. Lets work together to get the article whipped into shape regarding NPOV.  There are plenty of sources available on the internet we can use.  Also, if the subsection seems too long, lets start a different article and link to it from  Nova's article.  I'm totally unopposed to such a change and would be more than happy to see the controversy with its own page, as it is indeed too big when compared to the rest of the Nova article.


 * In regards to your dismissal statement over whether it is indeed a controversy at all, I think your subjective view is showing. The disagreement between Nova's administration is well-documented as well as UNICCO/SEIU's position regarding Nova's decision not to renew their contract with UNICCO.


 * Also, and this may be because I am tired, but I can't find where the subsection states that Nova is located in Miami. Can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scienter (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I took off the part that referred to NSU being in Miami. I have never contributed to wiki before, and as a person with strong views, I am probably not the best to be doing so. But I think the "controversory" is perhaps worth including as long as it is objective. I believe it is now more objective than it was. As an alumni and present graduate student I have a personal and future interest in the reputation of my Univeristy and would like to ensure this page stays accurate and nuetral.Butnotthehippo 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for commenting, I appreciate it. Scienter 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In regards to the information in regards to UNICCO and Nova Southeastern University it should not be included in Nova Southeastern's Article on Wikipedia. It should not be included because its an ongoing issue, and not all the facts are available for it. I have personally heard both sides of the issue and this article is bias towards the striking workers. While it is true some might lose their jobs, I highly doubt they will. The University is planning on taking these jobs in house instead of hiring an outside vendor to do it. We are not getting rid of these jobs, they are merely recreating them. Secondly, I still have no idea why they are striking aganist NSU when their employer is UNICCO. The article should be about NSU and not outside vendors of the University. If we start this slipping slope, eventually we start talking about the under educated citizens around the university and why they should attend NSU for free. Sounds crazy to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.52.244.210 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


 * The fact that the subsection slants towards one Point of View is not a valid reason to delete it from the Nova page. Please re-write the section to portray the issue in a NPOV manner if you feel its contents are POV.  The fact that the workers are striking at Nova rather than their employer could be included, it is not a reason to disclude it from the Nova article. This subject clearly affects Nova.  Show that you are not driven by politics on this and edit, rather than delete.  Thank you. Scienter 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scienter here. 137.52.244.210's logic seems to be wanting in several respects. First, the claim that something should not be included because it is an ongoing issue flies in the face of all editing practices on wikipedia. But I did just add a tag stating that it's an ongoing issue, so good call there. Second, "I have personally heard" leads to WP:OR, which is not allowed. Of course, what one has heard usually motivates one to edit here, so it's not irrelevant, but you can't just claim that something must be included or not on the basis of what you've heard. Third, who is the subject of this sentence?: "We are not getting rid of these jobs, they are merely recreating them." If that happens, then write it up once it happens, and we can remove the current event tag. Fourth, the article is not "bias," though it may or may not be "biased," and the term s/he's looking for is "slippery slope," not "slipping slope." Fifth, the conclusion does not follow. --Anthony Krupp 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody seen how this has been address on the University of Miami page? I think a new page should be created similar to what was done there. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butnotthehippo (talk • contribs) date

I also think the NPOV tag was appropraite seeing as no substance has been added lately, merely the wording and issue of its conclusion at all is being argued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butnotthehippo (talk • contribs) date

Read about WP:NPOV here. --Anthony Krupp 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather counter-productive to keep reverting this back and forth. I think the "minority status" of the workers serves to add bias. It infers that the University is racist. The reality is none of these employees even work directly for NSU. Free enterprise allows for institutions to contract as they see fit in the interest of economic efficency. Do you agree the section is less biased without the peacock phrase of "minority" inserted to have a politically charged feeling to the section.?Butnotthehippo 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I, for one, concur with you in this view, and I'm fine to see someone (I presume Butnotthehippo) edit that out. That being said, some outspoken people on and off campus have made the point that the possibility of Nova's non-renewal of the work contracts with UNICCO would in fact be a non-issue if the majority of UNICCO's employees at Nova Southeastern were caucasian.  How/If to include that argument is the debate within the debate, so to speak.  I'm striving for a Nova Southeastern University article that is as close to featured article status as possible.  That includes WP:NPOV.  We seem to have a few people watching and casual adding to the article when possible, which is great.  I don't think there is any need to have a debate about the economic or political rights of either Nova or UNICCO's employees. As long as the Nova/UNICCO subsection meets WP:NPOV by the community's standards, all is well. Scienter 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone inserted a sentence like "NSU, a racist university, decided that...", I assure you I would delete it on sight. That's definitely POV. Whether the workers are largely minority is not a question of point of view, it is a question of fact. On wikipedia, a fact is something that is verifiable, meaning published in a reputable source. The question you should be addressing is this: is it, or is it not, verifiable (see WP:VER) that most of the workers in question are Haitian and Latino? I'll look forward to your answer. Of course, one can always talk about wording, but my feeling is this: no editor should censor a fact out of an article because of the POV they believe a reader may assume upon reading said fact. I regard that as being in the neighborhood of censorship. Since my latest edit to that section adds a verifiable fact, rather than a POV that one might conclude from it, I will now remove the NPOV tag. If any editor feels, after reviewing wikipedia policies such as WP:VER, that the section is still NPOV, please bring evidence to this talk page, and let's see what we can do. Best, -Anthony Krupp 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anthony Krupp would you please indicate to whom you are speaking? By my comments I've tried to make clear that I'm only interested in WP:NPOV, not censorship of facts, or even opinions of the disputing sides. I agree with both your comments and most of those expressed by Butnotthehippo.  With you, that clear facts should be included, and with him that comments that place Nova in an unfair (and factually untrue) light should expunged.  I hope that I am not giving the impression that I am attempting or condoning censorship. Heck, I haven't made an edit to that section in days. If you feel your comment applies to my actions as an editor, please follow this up with a comment on my talkpage.  Sincerely, Scienter 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was responding most directly to the 23:06, 9 December 2006 comment of Butnotthehippo, but also speaking to anyone interested. Best, -Anthony Krupp 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith error on your part Anthony Krupp that in your re-edit of the section you missed incorperating some relevant facts from the Sun Sentinel article, such as the option of the workers possibly becoming NSU employees. I added in this relevant information from your source.Butnotthehippo 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you added that information, as I think it improves the article. I don't think it's an error on my part, unless you want to blame me for not producing the final form of the article in one round of editing. It's a group effort, no? -Anthony Krupp 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've just ended another bout of editing, and hope that this is balanced. If something seems wrong, please someone either revise or bring it up here. Wikipedia only works if multiple editors watch what other editors are doing, and I welcome that. Cheers to all, -Anthony Krupp 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the current revision is balanced and well done. Scienter 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If hearsay from a bias source (the union) in an opinion piece of a local paper is considered "verifiable," that is a somewhat thin piece of verfiability to be basing a fact on. Can you not find a stronger source to support your so called facts? Butnotthehippo 06:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (Yes, I edited out some strongly worded language on second thought after cooling off)Butnotthehippo 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You were wise to edit out some of your comments, as they are uncivil and constitute personal attacks. Please note that bias is a noun, biased is an adjective, and "so-called facts" is a phrase requiring a hyphen. They are also not my facts. They are everyone's or no one's. Here's a question: do you dispute that the union stated that 95% of the workers are African-American, Haitian, or Latino? That's the only claim made in the current version. -Anthony Krupp 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I dispute whether the inclusion of the statement lends itself towards a NPOV. One camp overemphasizes race as an issue in the controversy, using racially charged statements as a method to enact change. Butnotthehippo 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV is about balance. Including a statement made by a party involved in this current event is fine. It is your POV that there is a camp overemphasizing race as an issue. The article does not itself state the nationality/ethnicity of 95% of the workers; rather, it states that the union states this. I find the neutrality tag inappropriate here and will now remove it. If it is reinstated, I will call for administrative mediation if you still disagree.-Anthony Krupp 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is an op-ed piece. Who in the union said this? The Op-Ed piece does not cite its source. We know what the Univeristy position because it came from an official spokesperson. The source you are citing is fundamentally biased and flawed on this issue. Butnotthehippo 13:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Two questions for Butnotthehippo: (1) You claim that the source is "fundamentally biased and flawed on this issue." Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the source is flawed, or is your claim an expression of your POV, lacking evidence? I will conclude the latter unless you provide evidence to support your claim. (2) How is the source biased in any way that any other participant in this controversy is not biased? I would submit that the union has a point of view, and that the administration has a point of view. Our job, as editors, is to fairly represent these points of view. Our job is not to decide between them which one is true. As readers, we can certainly do so. But please don't confuse your role as reader with your role as editor. That said: I'm willing to consider whether the op ed piece meets a threshold of notability. However, I'd want a third or fourth opinion at this point, since I am unsure whether your editing meets a threshold of neutrality. I've invited several editors to add their comments. (Some of these have edited on NSU's page before, and some have edited on UM's strike page before -- the latter two editors, by the way, almost always had an opposite POV to me, but they were fair editors. Thus, I think that their comments can be useful here.) Best, -Anthony Krupp 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An Op-Ed piece is fundamentally biased since it is an opinion piece. Flawed was an improper word choice. Regardless, the way facts are stated can create a bais. Do you think saying "95% of the worker's are minorities" and "5% of the worker's are not minorities" is the same fact? Yes it is. But the way it it stated can create POV. Do you disagree? I am not disputing the fact. I am disputing it's relevance to the issue and whether it's inclusion lends towards a bias. For example, it is a fact that every person has a race (or is potentially biracial or multiracial). Is that a relevant fact to be included on each and every wiki bio? Butnotthehippo 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't like the term biased (and am troubled by how often you use the word 'fundamentally'), but I take your point. As an opinion piece, it expresses a POV. I still think it's a gray area, since it's a reporter for the Miami Herald, but I won't object to its being removed. I completely disagree with you that the way facts are stated can *create* a bias. If it makes you feel better: I think this is more directly a class issue than a race issue. But it is notable (to me at least) that most of the members of the lowest-paid class here in Miami tend to be people of color. The main point is that some people regard this as a social justice issue. To respond to your statement that "the way it it stated can create POV": no, I disagree. I think that an intelligent reader can either conclude "who cares what race they are?" (as you may have) as well as "hey, that really sucks" (as I may have). Your argument (the way something is stated *may* lead to POV, however defined, thus it should be removed) leads directly to arguments for censorship. Not interested in that, sorry. -Anthony Krupp 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your points are well recieved. Butnotthehippo 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Per WP:VER, even the OpEd piece by a Miami Herald reporter seems to me to merit inclusion. Again: I'd like to hear from Lawyer2b or others on this.-Anthony Krupp 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The source of dubious reliability I was referring to was not the OpEd piece. It was the newly added reference to . I concur the OpEd in the Herald is prima facie WP:VER, but not conclusively WP:VER. OpEds are a gray area, as you stated above. This new reference added today would be a source of dubious reliability. Not sure what to do since nothing was added from this source seems to violate any WP, save the fact the source itself is not WP:VER. I have seen all those facts in other sources. (By the way, in case it wasn't obvious, this is a learning experience for me and I appreciate the patience). Butnotthehippo 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh, I see. I didn't realize that the indymedia source might be a problem. Sorry about any confusion there. And: this is a learning experience for us all! Every moment is a learning experience, and I'm glad to see patience in others as well as to display it myself. Thank you for saying so; you're much more civil than some editors I've run into recently. By the way, I think that articles really improve on wikipedia when they have this kind of back-and-forth discussion and editing with editors who don't agree on everything. (Thanks for catching a typo on my talk page, by the way!) Cheers, -Anthony Krupp 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think it would make more sense for this to have its own page with a mere reference to it on the actual University page.Butnotthehippo 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this? Keep in mind that a similar controversy got its own page, linked to University of Miami, only when the section became quite long. That seemed like a good time to move it. Undesirable motivations to create a separate article are listed here: WP:NPOV. But it sounds like this will all be resolved before the end of the year, so I don't see the rush. Best, -Anthony Krupp 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The section seems disproportionately large compared to the rest of the information about the University.Butnotthehippo 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should get a third opinion. It doesn't seem long to me at all. (One way to trim back, by the way, would be to shorten the Ferrero quote. The point of having a link is that you don't have to give the entire quote in the article.-Anthony Krupp 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was notified of this disagreement by Professor Krupp, with whom I disagree, ironically, in this instance. If my memory serves, I was actually the editor who created the separate article for the UM strike and reduced it to a small mention and link in the main University of Miami article.  I think the size of the section regarding the similar event at Nova warrants its own article as well.  I think both events, while notable, are more or less transient administrative bumps in the road rather than university-changing and therefore do not merit more than a mere mention in an article about each respective university.  That notwithstanding, I'm an inclusionist and believe much detail is appropriate for each event's specific article. I hope my opinion is helpful.  :-) Lawyer2b 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and I like your phrasology of "transient administrative bumps." Thanks for your input Butnotthehippo 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No irony in the disagreement. I don't call people in because I know they'll side with me; I call for comment from people I know to have been reasonable in the past. So: I have no objection to creating a new article and leaving a smaller version behind on the main page. I agree that this is a bump in the road. -Anthony Krupp 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for writing something that could reasonably be interpreted as implying I thought you invited me because you thought I'd side with you. That was not how I meant it.  I do however, resent being called reasonable.  ;-) Lawyer2b 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the creation of a seperate article is a good idea per Lawyer2b. Scienter 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to its own page per the discussion. I hope that wasn't premature. I think the new article could use some expansion as well. The event has some more history to it.Butnotthehippo 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't premature at all. Two people had expressed agreement with that, and one person (me) who had concerns about it retracted them. So on wikipedia, that's consensus! And one should be bold once one has reached consensus. Good call on the move. I think your summary on the main page is excellent, by the way. I do think it will read best when this is all over with and can really be summarized, but I'm guessing that this should all be over quite soon. Good work! -Anthony Krupp 13:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a brief and, it seems to me, essential update to the the unionization "controversy." As it was, it didn't really seem controversial. --Tangentialine 17:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Undergraduate/Graduate/Professional Program Subsections
Will need their own article with links. I'm working on it but my time is limited. Scienter 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a signifigant amount of information to Shepard Broad Law Center. Also, the Huz. Business School and Fisch. College of Education have BOTH graduate and undergraduate programs.... not sure how that should be structured. Additionally, I am not sure how accurate the "departments" title is for that section.Butnotthehippo 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use spell check! (For example, 'significant' is not spelled 'signifigant'.) I've just made a number of corrections to the article, but still. Thanks, -Anthony Krupp

I will go over this article and add comments later on. But so far I can see although the structure is good, it need a lot of work. As an alumni of both University School and the University (i transfered out before finishing my BA, currently in a PhD program) i am more than willing to help edit this article.--Bud 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Weblinks in Headers
Where is a Wikipolicy against that? Is was uniform throughout the page and useful. Butnotthehippo 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced box
I have added a notice at the top of the article stating that the Nova article requires significant additional citations to demonstrate its factual accuracy. By citing every factual statement possible, I think this will help eliminate redundancy and inadvertent weasel words that have popped up into the article. We have a great start and I think this is the next step. Scienter 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning the Page
I have been trying to clean the page up and make it more organized, I am not sure what to do with the degree programs, if you have suggestions? Also, I hope to expand on the article, granted I don't attend NSU so i will not know everything, but hopefully with some help we can grow the article to around the size of FSU, UCF, USF etc.. articles. Dgreco

Image copyright problem with Image:BrowardCounty Logo.gif
The image Image:BrowardCounty Logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading puffery
There was some seriously misleading puffery in this article based on distortions of the US News rankings. Firstly, the National University category is not given to the "best" institutions of higher learning in the country. It is a name used by US News for the Carnegie Foundation's category of Research Universities. The Carnegie Foundation's category is given to all schools who qualify by having a certain number of doctoral programs. There is no implication that every national university is better than every master's university or liberal arts college. Second, the claims of ranking 203 nationally and 6th in Florida is based on the fact that, after you get to about 100, the schools are simply ranked in tiers. There's about 70 schools in the third tier, which would, by this categorization, all be tied for 135, and about 70 in the fourth tier, which are all tied for 203. NSU is in the fourth tier. There's three actual ranked, first tier national universities in Florida - Miami, Florida, and Florida State; and two third tier schools - UCF and USF. Because these are the only national universities ranking ahead of NSU, someone has seen fit to claim it as the sixth best university in the state (obviously ignoring, once again, that master's universities and liberal arts colleges are not being judged in the same ranking as the research universities) - presumably tied with FAU, FIU, Florida A&M, and Barry, which are all also fourth tier. This is obviously misleading, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to entertain such puffery. It is POV and misleading. One could just as easily say that NSU was ranked by US News and World Report as the worst university in Florida - this is just as true, and perhaps less misleading than the alternative, although obviously still misleading.

At any rate, the basic point is that we should be presenting rankings and statistics so as to inform, not so as to make the university look good. john k (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All schools engage in this hyperbole, and I'm with you that it would be more informative if they stopped. But there are only a dozen Florida schools in the National University category, and Florida has many more than a dozen schools. So you can not "just as easily say that NSU was ranked...as the worst university in Florida." Also, there are three third-tier schools; you missed Florida Institute of Technology.74.229.8.169 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the comments on its Carnegie "ranking" is incorrect or out of date. The article states that it is a doctoral/research university with high research activity based on an evaluation by the Carnegion Commission. Carnegie notes three levels of doctoral universities, the second of which notes high researh activity and the first notes "very" high research activity. NSU is actually in the third category, just being doctoral/professional. See here: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/sub.asp?key=748&subkey=13870&start=782 for the Carnegie info on NSU and here: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=791 for the classification information (scroll down).218.186.12.225 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there is a statement that NSU-Huizenga is a member of AACSB International. While this is correct because any institution can join AACSB, NSU-Huizenga is not accredited by that body. The statement is misleading because it is embedded with other statements of accreditation. Please see http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/accreditedmembers.asp for a list of AACSB-accredited institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.1.67 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes
I've rewritten the lead to make it better reflect on the rest of the article and removing the undue weight on admissions and rankings trivia/boosterism. Much of the article seems to suffer from peacockery and boosterism as well as a host of other issues relating to broken links, self-published sources, use of Wikipedia articles or webpages citing Wikipedia as citations, and misattribution of claims in sources (see "Misleading puffery" above). I also removed the list of degree programs since Wikipedia is not a directory - keep this information in the course catalog, not the encyclopedia. I also noted that the academics section needs to be heavily summarized to get rid of the advertising-like tone describing the various programs. In light of all of this, I am demoting the article quality to C for the University WikiProject. I recently passed University of Central Florida as a Good Article, so look to it and other university FAs and GAs as well as the University style guidelines for direction. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Endowment
Can anyone verify NSU's endowment is $383 million based on the cited tax document? I don't see $383 million anywhere in the file unless it's a sum of multiple values. NSU does not report to NACUBO like many other universities and according to US News, their endowment in 2010 was $54 million. Quite a difference. --Mudent (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Independent university"
Is an "independent" university a real thing? Searches on Google and WP both seem to indicate it isn't. 130.63.40.214 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs work
This is written like a college catalog/advertisement. It needs a lot of work to become an encyclopedic article. Student7 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Student 7. Nova is a well known scam and is not well thought of in academic circles. It is a diploma mill. This really ought to be edited to reflect that. Khan2425 (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The following article posts links to dispute Nova's version and this Wikipedia entry. Not a second tier school, ranked fourth tier.  Khan2425 (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The arguments in that blog may or may not be true, but blogs are not reliable references. This is an encyclopedia.  Use better sources when attempting to make a point.  Some blog that anybody can write is worthless. Rytyho usa (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * However, I completely agree that this article needs a lot of work. It is currently in rough shape.Rytyho usa (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Nova Southeastern 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/20080213083130/http://www.nyit.edu:80/about/general/index.html to http://www.nyit.edu/about/general/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090113224045/http://www.nova.edu:80/facilities/construction/UniversityCenter/Photos/0001.html to http://www.nova.edu/facilities/construction/UniversityCenter/Photos/0001.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060916204314/http://www.nova.edu/facilities/construction/ResHall/Photos/0001.html to http://www.nova.edu/facilities/construction/ResHall/Photos/0001.html

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 14:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

New academic structure
NSU has gone through a major reorganisation of its colllege/faculty/school structure. The current template doesn't reflect this and neither do most school/college wiki pages. Source: http://www.nova.edu/massmail/presdesk/NSURealignmentofAcademicPrograms.pdf WayneBu (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Name
I changed "commonly referred to as Nova" to "formerly referred to as Nova, now commonly called NSU." The change in name with the merger of Southeastern College of Osteopathic Medicine into Nova University. These days the administration is quite insistent that the school is "NSU." Source: I was a student during both regimes. Also, see the school's main page: http://www.nova.edu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrownspsu (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Intro is misleading? ""offering over 175 programs of study with more than 250 majors." Makes it sound like that have at least 43.000 students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venqax (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Good article nomination
Hi everybody, after some extensive clean up, I think this page is now a reasonable candidate for good article status, so I've entered the nomination. If anyone has any feedback on the article, or recognizes areas that need further attention, please let me know! Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Rytyho usa (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Dr. Pallavi Patel College of Health Care Sciences notable?
This is listed as a "good article". I ran across Dr. Pallavi Patel College of Health Care Sciences, sourced with a single primary source that returns a 404 error. The "Academics" section mentions that there are 15 colleges but with no individual listing that would seem to be encyclopedic. That article is sourced with a single primary source and there is not enough notability for a stand-alone article, as not every subject warrants an article, so should be merged to Nova Southeastern University of which there is no mention. An option would be a redirect and could be a result of a AFD. I would appreciate it if someone would give this some consideration as it would likely be uncontroversial. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like articles were created for several of the colleges of this university in 2006. A quick glance at those articles shows that many of them are in the same state as the one you describe.
 * We do have a small problem with editors creating articles about colleges at universities that are not independently notable. Feel free to AfD them, prod them, or merge and redirect them as appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)