Talk:Purdue University Global/Archive 1

Financial Arrangements
The most recent edit by deleting information on the financial arrangements was summarized as: "corrected a few departures from facts that were derived from a biased source unsupported by other more neutral analyses & primary documents." I don't see citations (or talk-page references to) any other analyses or any primary documents. However there are are multiple independent sources describing the complicated arrangement that was deleted. It is not clear what is biased about their reporting, but the sources claim to be based on documentary evidence and not people's opinions.

The one primary document I have found is the Graham Holdings 8-K Filing, 139 pages with a mixture of lawyer and contract language and a university policy manual. This is the same primary source referred to in some of the articles. In the filing: It is hard to for me to read the contract definitively, I think it requires experience with complicated contracts and quite a bit of time. But from what I can tell the two sources that have read and reported on the contract probably are describing it correctly. Near the front, the document says that the trustees of the new university have complete control. (This is the part that JA1766 put in the article.) Much of the rest of the document hands the trustees a complete university policy manual (largely inherited from the existing school), a set of financial guarantees to each other, and a set of penalties for changing the manual in ways that impact Kaplan.
 * The "efficiency payments" are described near the beginning, that's the guarantee of $10 million per year in one direction, and other payments in the other direction.
 * Exhibit D is the part that limits Purdue's ability to change academic policies or tuition. Purdue is on the hook to pay Kaplan/Graham if it changes any university policies in any way that impacts Kaplan's revenue too much.

We haven't written up the reportage on Purdue Global's personnel policies, the restrictions and conditions on students and faculty that are quite different from the rest of Purdue and public universities in general. They have received quite a bit of coverage. M.boli (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * writes that in Graham Holdings 8-K Filing "Exhibit D is the part that limits Purdue's ability to change academic policies or tuition." It is also claimed that only in one part of the document is Purdue given complete control. Although that in and of itself should be enough to prove the point that Purdue in fact is not limited in its capacity to govern PG, the truth is that ultimate authority is given to Purdue throughout the document. For example, try doing a ctrl+f search for the word "ultimate" in the 8k to see many examples. Or go straight to section 2.1 which states "The operation and control of New University shall at all times be subject to the oversight and exclusive control of the New University Board of Trustees, the members of which shall be appointed by Purdue. The New University Board of Trustees shall have ultimate approval (including veto power) and decision-making authority with respect to all functions of New University, all pursuant to New University’s organizational authority."
 * The question of control was a primary concern for all the regulatory bodies considering this matter and all of them, state, federal and the accreditor agreed that under the terms of the agreement, control would completely change from Kaplan to Purdue and the financial arrangements would not limit that control.


 * As shown in the primary source, is correct that Purdue inherited a policy manual from Kaplan but according to recent reporting, Purdue already has changed that manual in several ways it saw fit and continues to review the document and make changes without having to pay Kaplan. For example, all Purdue employees have already been given free tuition and Indiana students a discount with no issues. It also is true that if Purdue were to make dramatic changes that significantly and adversely impacted the revenue of the university, Kaplan could seek some compensation.  Again, that in and of itself refutes the argument that Purdue cannot make changes.


 * The user might claim that the threat of financial penalty prevents Purdue from making changes in effect. I would respond first by pointing out that the independent regulatory bodies did not find this to be the case.  Second, as you get into the document it becomes clear that the impact on revenue must be significant. Third, it shows that all payments (operating costs and other financial guarantees) to PG must be executed before Kaplan can seek any compensation.  This limits the teeth of the clause and eliminates it as a deterrent to action.  It means that even if Purdue acted to reduce revenues, Purdue would not suffer any serious financial pain. After all, we are only talking about 12.5% of actual lost revenue and when you paid $1 for the school, that's not something so burdensome that it should deter action.  Fourth, if Kaplan sought such compensation, it would have to follow a process that's cumbersome and expensive, making it only likely to occur in the event of a major falling out and a major change such as dropping associates degrees or giving all Indiana students free tuition.


 * All this evidence supports the conclusion reached by the regulators that while there are extreme circumstances in which a third-party might rule that Purdue must compensate Kaplan a small amount due to some Purdue action, this fact does not limit Purdue's capacity to operate the school in any meaningful way way. Out of respect for the users's position, I have added such language to the article that acknowledges these facts, rather than the exaggerations of a particular activist group.  That group really is the only entity to disagree with this conclusion and it clearly has a political agenda against anything even closely connected to for-profit schools and may even have once had some questionable ties to the short sellers who sought to lower stock prices of the for-profit industry.  JA1776 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yowza! Thank you for tracking down all those references and doing a lot of reading. And I wasn't aware of the bad-blood history between that organization and Purdue (or at any rate, private schools) on that issue.


 * It seems to me that regarding the arrangement between Purdue and Kaplan there is a spectrum of possibilities: at one end Kaplan sold a school that Purdue now owns and operates completely as a public university, at the other end a Purdue logo is painted on a Kaplan school. What happened is somewhere in between. It is way complicated and I'm pretty sure there is no value in sussing out all the particulars for a Wikipedia page. However Purdue Global U. is decidedly different than your average public university, regardless of the name, and I think that addressing this difference would be incumbent on an encyclopedia page.


 * I think you are interpolating your own opinions amongst the (considerable) information you found. The exchange between the two entities is vastly more complicated than the 12.5%. I think that mentally playing out scenarios and looking at 12.5% and deciding what that all means is not a productive exercise and certainly not an accurate one. Similarly, Kaplan and Purdue agreed to a contract where there are penalties for Purdue affecting Kaplan's bottom line. I think there is a $5 million dollar threshold to trigger that. It seems a little odd for us to introspect and conclude, in effect, this is way complicated, it will never happen. The two parties themselves hashed out an arrangement to make it possible. They wrote a contract where Purdue is on the hook if its actions impact Kaplan. We have at least two sources that say it is a serious possibility. We don't have sources that say it isn't. (BTW: The tuition reduction for in-state students and Purdue employees isn't an example of Purdue changing the rules. It took effect a year ago, long before the sale was consummated.)


 * I don't see anything in the HLC approval letter or Indiana Higher Education thingie that says anything like what you concluded. But probably you have looked further than the summary documents and press releases that I looked at. I agree that they might not have approved the deal if Purdue were merely acting as an appendage of Kaplan.


 * Thanks for looking into all this, you clearly have more energy than I do and I benefit from your work. And thanks for accommodating some changes to the article. I will continue being involved. Of course we will likely disagree, but we are both experienced editors and I believe we can settle disagreements amicably. M.boli (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to add the Purdue seal
I understand 's urge to put the Purdue University seal into this article. But it is a mistake. So I think that putting the Purdue University seal on this page is misguided. --- M.boli (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason the bot keeps deleting the image is the paperwork is missing. Every use of this encumbered image must be documented on the image's information page. That page has three almost identical blocks describing the logo's use on three different Purdue-related Wikipedia pages. So if the seal is to be included here, it needs a fourth block describing the image's use on this page also. Absent that paperwork, the delete-bot will remove the image.
 * It appears that PUG doesn't use the Purdue system seal. Instead all its web pages and documents that I pulled up have a logo like this Purdue University Global Logo, I spied no instance of the seal in question on any documents or web pages.
 * I didn't realize I was edit-warring with a bot until the second time it was removed (my bad). Thanks for the clarification on the non-free logo rules, cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It took me, also, a moment to figure out what was going on. It occurs to me that there may be a difference between a university seal and a logo. If it happes hat PUG is using that seal (I've still seen no evidence, but it may come up) then we can simply duplicate the missing block of information on the images's information page. — M.boli (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Financial problems and campus closures are an essential part of this story
Purdue University Global is losing money and it is being forced to close at least five campuses in 2019. This is an essential part of the Purdue Global story. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "campus closures" are still there. No facts regarding such closures were deleted.  However, since we are really talking about more of a "store-front" or rented retail space than a massive campus or shuttering of a building, it makes sense to fold them into a paragraph format rather than bullets. It appears the business model of such online universities is to be able to flexibly start and shut down the physical facilities as demand requires so it's not a central part of the article.  Regardless, even if there is disagreement on this point, the edits undone were much more than that and a complete undo is inappropriate.  If you still disagree, lets work on an appropriate manner to address that issue.--JA1776 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears that you deleted essential information before. I will accept your edits in order to avoid a feud, but am concerned that the story of the school's downturn could be whitewashed.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Kaplan University/Purdue University Global Numbers
The US Department of Education (ED) has been dragging its feet in producing numbers for the online campus in College Scorecard. I will post the numbers as soon as ED posts them. In the meantime, the best numbers I can provide are from the largest physical campus.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Difference between "Net Operating Loss" and "Net Loss" matters and proper location for Graham Holdings finance info
Recent edits by conflate the difference. On page 73 of the linked source, it shows a Net Operating Loss of $38 million and a Decrease in Net Position or "Net Loss" of $18 million. The net operating loss number has no business being in this article, at least unless the context is added making it clear it would be shocking and likely a scandal if Purdue Global wasn't showing a net operating loss. It probably would mean someone was cooking the books. The reason is that virtually all institutions of higher education run an operating loss because that excludes a good chunk of their revenue such as government grants. For example, on page 15 of the linked source, the entire Purdue University ran an operating loss of $590 million and has been in that range for the last three years. As described by CFO Sullivan, Michigan had an operating loss of a billion dollars. As I side note (and less important), I think Graham Holdings quarterly results belong in the Graham Holdings or Kaplan Higher Education article, not the section describing Purdue Global's finances. Any objections to moving that there? I am going to make the first change but will wait to here from you on the second one. JA1776 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. for the correction. I have changed the entry to state "net operating loss." Please be careful trying to hide this financial information. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, this is not adequate because it misleads the lay reader. Saying an institution of higher education has an operating loss is no more remarkable than saying the sky is blue.  There is no effort to "hide financial" information and I don't appreciate the insinuation from . Rather, my goal is to convey accurate information for the reader to judge and understand.  The only way "net operating loss" should be in there is if it's next to numbers from other schools in the hundreds and billions of dollars.  What is remarkable is the $18 million loss because that's the one that shows Purdue Global lost money. Likewise, the Graham Holding number should be in the Graham Holdings article, not the Purdue Global article.  I suggest you move it there. JA1776 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's laudable that you admit that Purdue Global lost money in FY 2018. But, Purdue Global also received $20 million in bailout money from Kaplan Higher Education. It would be helpful if Purdue University were more transparent in their budget regarding Purdue University Global and its assets, revenues, and expenditures. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As has been reported, the 20 million was not a bailout but came at the time of closing or day 1 of operations. It was to offset by the expected first year losses that would occur (see the $18 million referenced above) while during the transition and startup period. Purdue Global has $67 million in cash.  A bailout would be hardly necessary JA1776 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The numbers you refer to are from 2018 and Purdue University won't release the FY2019 numbers until the end of the year. In 2018, the Purdue University system financial report had only 2-3 pages of information about Purdue University Global. Graham Holdings reports numbers every three months. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It reports numbers about KHE every three months, not about Purdue Global. JA1776 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Graham Holdings, Kaplan Higher Education, and Purdue University Global. Financial data deleted.
There is a controversy whether important information about Graham Holdings Company (GHC) and Kaplan Higher Education (KHE) should be included in this Purdue University Global (PG) article. Information about GHC and KHE have been deleted. PG was owned by KHE/GHC until 2018, and KHE is still the online program manager (OPM) for PG, receiving an estimated $300 million dollars for "back office" work (including HR), marketing and advertising. The contract between KHE and PG runs until 2048. Key data about the financial health of Purdue University Global have also been deleted. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The only writing about PG financials that was deleted was info that was not accurately interpreted from the cited sources -- Purdue financial statements. I'll comment on those elements above in the financial talk section.

As for what to include here and what to include in the KHE or GHC entries, I propose we think of it from the reader's perspective. If I am looking for info on Purdue Global, there is some info that the reader should have in regards to both companies. There is no disagreement on that point. However, if anything about KHE or GHC belongs here simply because there is a relationship and history between the three, it will lead to an unreadable and lengthy article. What criteria do you propose as the test to whether it's info that belongs in the PG page or info that belongs in one of the other pages? I propose that if it's essential to understanding PG, it belongs here. For example, knowing that most of the Kaplan faculty became PG faculty is an essential part of the PG story, at least for the next couple of years. Knowing everything that any one has ever said about Kaplan or the complete history of Kaplan, is not essential and such references should be shifted over time to the Kaplan article. Another example, briefly stating that Kaplan's student outcomes at the time of the acquisition were quite different from Purdue's is an important part of the story. Knowing every little statistical point about Kaplan from years before the acquisition, is not essential. Let me know your thoughts. JA1776 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

For now, Purdue University Global is essentially Kaplan University with a new owner and a more prestigious name. The students, and teachers are essentially the same. The biggest difference is that PG is getting rid of physical learning sites. And online education tends to produce less optimal results. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that's an oversimplification. The owner and name makes a big difference. For example, it's likely that the quality of student attracted to Purdue Global will be an improvement from the highest risk students attracted to Kaplan. See for example, the students coming from corporate partnerships with Wal-Mart and Papa Johns. That will make a difference in learning outcomes even before you adjust for changes in management. You already see signs of integration with the new programs (Pharmacy and aviation) announced this summer in collaboration with Purdue. Mitch Daniels has a history of aggressive hands-on leadership. He is not the type to just leave an entity alone with less than satisfactory results. As such, to tell readers that the current and future state of PG is identical to the past state of Kaplan is not serving them well. Far better in my view to refer them to the Kaplan article for the history and then zealously document the current state of PG on this article.JA1776 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You could be right about a few programs, but at this point Kaplan Higher Education continues to downsize. How do think employees from Walmart and Pappa Johns will be better students than the "nontraditional" students who attended Kaplan University? And how about the instructors, who are mostly adjuncts? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This article needs a few images
Are there any images at all that can be added to this article about Purdue University Global? Not as a promotion, but as a way of describing the online school and its history? Maybe an image of the American Institute of Commerce, and/or its current headquarters and/or one of the remaining campuses or learning centers? If so, can someone upload images to Wikimedia Commons then add them to the article? Thanks.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's an example, an image of the American Institute of Commerce. https://www.flickr.com/photos/photolibrarian/33016326422  CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's another image, on slide two of this presentation. https://slideplayer.com/slide/3258758/CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Financial Arrangements
The most recent edit by deleting information on the financial arrangements was summarized as: "corrected a few departures from facts that were derived from a biased source unsupported by other more neutral analyses & primary documents." I don't see citations (or talk-page references to) any other analyses or any primary documents. However there are are multiple independent sources describing the complicated arrangement that was deleted. It is not clear what is biased about their reporting, but the sources claim to be based on documentary evidence and not people's opinions.

The one primary document I have found is the Graham Holdings 8-K Filing, 139 pages with a mixture of lawyer and contract language and a university policy manual. This is the same primary source referred to in some of the articles. In the filing: It is hard to for me to read the contract definitively, I think it requires experience with complicated contracts and quite a bit of time. But from what I can tell the two sources that have read and reported on the contract probably are describing it correctly. Near the front, the document says that the trustees of the new university have complete control. (This is the part that JA1766 put in the article.) Much of the rest of the document hands the trustees a complete university policy manual (largely inherited from the existing school), a set of financial guarantees to each other, and a set of penalties for changing the manual in ways that impact Kaplan.
 * The "efficiency payments" are described near the beginning, that's the guarantee of $10 million per year in one direction, and other payments in the other direction.
 * Exhibit D is the part that limits Purdue's ability to change academic policies or tuition. Purdue is on the hook to pay Kaplan/Graham if it changes any university policies in any way that impacts Kaplan's revenue too much.

We haven't written up the reportage on Purdue Global's personnel policies, the restrictions and conditions on students and faculty that are quite different from the rest of Purdue and public universities in general. They have received quite a bit of coverage. M.boli (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * writes that in Graham Holdings 8-K Filing "Exhibit D is the part that limits Purdue's ability to change academic policies or tuition." It is also claimed that only in one part of the document is Purdue given complete control. Although that in and of itself should be enough to prove the point that Purdue in fact is not limited in its capacity to govern PG, the truth is that ultimate authority is given to Purdue throughout the document. For example, try doing a ctrl+f search for the word "ultimate" in the 8k to see many examples. Or go straight to section 2.1 which states "The operation and control of New University shall at all times be subject to the oversight and exclusive control of the New University Board of Trustees, the members of which shall be appointed by Purdue. The New University Board of Trustees shall have ultimate approval (including veto power) and decision-making authority with respect to all functions of New University, all pursuant to New University’s organizational authority."
 * The question of control was a primary concern for all the regulatory bodies considering this matter and all of them, state, federal and the accreditor agreed that under the terms of the agreement, control would completely change from Kaplan to Purdue and the financial arrangements would not limit that control.


 * As shown in the primary source, is correct that Purdue inherited a policy manual from Kaplan but according to recent reporting, Purdue already has changed that manual in several ways it saw fit and continues to review the document and make changes without having to pay Kaplan. For example, all Purdue employees have already been given free tuition and Indiana students a discount with no issues. It also is true that if Purdue were to make dramatic changes that significantly and adversely impacted the revenue of the university, Kaplan could seek some compensation.  Again, that in and of itself refutes the argument that Purdue cannot make changes.


 * The user might claim that the threat of financial penalty prevents Purdue from making changes in effect. I would respond first by pointing out that the independent regulatory bodies did not find this to be the case.  Second, as you get into the document it becomes clear that the impact on revenue must be significant. Third, it shows that all payments (operating costs and other financial guarantees) to PG must be executed before Kaplan can seek any compensation.  This limits the teeth of the clause and eliminates it as a deterrent to action.  It means that even if Purdue acted to reduce revenues, Purdue would not suffer any serious financial pain. After all, we are only talking about 12.5% of actual lost revenue and when you paid $1 for the school, that's not something so burdensome that it should deter action.  Fourth, if Kaplan sought such compensation, it would have to follow a process that's cumbersome and expensive, making it only likely to occur in the event of a major falling out and a major change such as dropping associates degrees or giving all Indiana students free tuition.


 * All this evidence supports the conclusion reached by the regulators that while there are extreme circumstances in which a third-party might rule that Purdue must compensate Kaplan a small amount due to some Purdue action, this fact does not limit Purdue's capacity to operate the school in any meaningful way way. Out of respect for the users's position, I have added such language to the article that acknowledges these facts, rather than the exaggerations of a particular activist group.  That group really is the only entity to disagree with this conclusion and it clearly has a political agenda against anything even closely connected to for-profit schools and may even have once had some questionable ties to the short sellers who sought to lower stock prices of the for-profit industry.  JA1776 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yowza! Thank you for tracking down all those references and doing a lot of reading. And I wasn't aware of the bad-blood history between that organization and Purdue (or at any rate, private schools) on that issue.


 * It seems to me that regarding the arrangement between Purdue and Kaplan there is a spectrum of possibilities: at one end Kaplan sold a school that Purdue now owns and operates completely as a public university, at the other end a Purdue logo is painted on a Kaplan school. What happened is somewhere in between. It is way complicated and I'm pretty sure there is no value in sussing out all the particulars for a Wikipedia page. However Purdue Global U. is decidedly different than your average public university, regardless of the name, and I think that addressing this difference would be incumbent on an encyclopedia page.


 * I think you are interpolating your own opinions amongst the (considerable) information you found. The exchange between the two entities is vastly more complicated than the 12.5%. I think that mentally playing out scenarios and looking at 12.5% and deciding what that all means is not a productive exercise and certainly not an accurate one. Similarly, Kaplan and Purdue agreed to a contract where there are penalties for Purdue affecting Kaplan's bottom line. I think there is a $5 million dollar threshold to trigger that. It seems a little odd for us to introspect and conclude, in effect, this is way complicated, it will never happen. The two parties themselves hashed out an arrangement to make it possible. They wrote a contract where Purdue is on the hook if its actions impact Kaplan. We have at least two sources that say it is a serious possibility. We don't have sources that say it isn't. (BTW: The tuition reduction for in-state students and Purdue employees isn't an example of Purdue changing the rules. It took effect a year ago, long before the sale was consummated.)


 * I don't see anything in the HLC approval letter or Indiana Higher Education thingie that says anything like what you concluded. But probably you have looked further than the summary documents and press releases that I looked at. I agree that they might not have approved the deal if Purdue were merely acting as an appendage of Kaplan.


 * Thanks for looking into all this, you clearly have more energy than I do and I benefit from your work. And thanks for accommodating some changes to the article. I will continue being involved. Of course we will likely disagree, but we are both experienced editors and I believe we can settle disagreements amicably. M.boli (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No need to add the Purdue seal
I understand 's urge to put the Purdue University seal into this article. But it is a mistake. So I think that putting the Purdue University seal on this page is misguided. --- M.boli (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason the bot keeps deleting the image is the paperwork is missing. Every use of this encumbered image must be documented on the image's information page. That page has three almost identical blocks describing the logo's use on three different Purdue-related Wikipedia pages. So if the seal is to be included here, it needs a fourth block describing the image's use on this page also. Absent that paperwork, the delete-bot will remove the image.
 * It appears that PUG doesn't use the Purdue system seal. Instead all its web pages and documents that I pulled up have a logo like this Purdue University Global Logo, I spied no instance of the seal in question on any documents or web pages.
 * I didn't realize I was edit-warring with a bot until the second time it was removed (my bad). Thanks for the clarification on the non-free logo rules, cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It took me, also, a moment to figure out what was going on. It occurs to me that there may be a difference between a university seal and a logo. If it happes hat PUG is using that seal (I've still seen no evidence, but it may come up) then we can simply duplicate the missing block of information on the images's information page. — M.boli (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Financial problems and campus closures are an essential part of this story
Purdue University Global is losing money and it is being forced to close at least five campuses in 2019. This is an essential part of the Purdue Global story. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "campus closures" are still there. No facts regarding such closures were deleted.  However, since we are really talking about more of a "store-front" or rented retail space than a massive campus or shuttering of a building, it makes sense to fold them into a paragraph format rather than bullets. It appears the business model of such online universities is to be able to flexibly start and shut down the physical facilities as demand requires so it's not a central part of the article.  Regardless, even if there is disagreement on this point, the edits undone were much more than that and a complete undo is inappropriate.  If you still disagree, lets work on an appropriate manner to address that issue.--JA1776 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears that you deleted essential information before. I will accept your edits in order to avoid a feud, but am concerned that the story of the school's downturn could be whitewashed.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Kaplan University/Purdue University Global Numbers
The US Department of Education (ED) has been dragging its feet in producing numbers for the online campus in College Scorecard. I will post the numbers as soon as ED posts them. In the meantime, the best numbers I can provide are from the largest physical campus.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Difference between "Net Operating Loss" and "Net Loss" matters and proper location for Graham Holdings finance info
Recent edits by conflate the difference. On page 73 of the linked source, it shows a Net Operating Loss of $38 million and a Decrease in Net Position or "Net Loss" of $18 million. The net operating loss number has no business being in this article, at least unless the context is added making it clear it would be shocking and likely a scandal if Purdue Global wasn't showing a net operating loss. It probably would mean someone was cooking the books. The reason is that virtually all institutions of higher education run an operating loss because that excludes a good chunk of their revenue such as government grants. For example, on page 15 of the linked source, the entire Purdue University ran an operating loss of $590 million and has been in that range for the last three years. As described by CFO Sullivan, Michigan had an operating loss of a billion dollars. As I side note (and less important), I think Graham Holdings quarterly results belong in the Graham Holdings or Kaplan Higher Education article, not the section describing Purdue Global's finances. Any objections to moving that there? I am going to make the first change but will wait to here from you on the second one. JA1776 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. for the correction. I have changed the entry to state "net operating loss." Please be careful trying to hide this financial information. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, this is not adequate because it misleads the lay reader. Saying an institution of higher education has an operating loss is no more remarkable than saying the sky is blue.  There is no effort to "hide financial" information and I don't appreciate the insinuation from . Rather, my goal is to convey accurate information for the reader to judge and understand.  The only way "net operating loss" should be in there is if it's next to numbers from other schools in the hundreds and billions of dollars.  What is remarkable is the $18 million loss because that's the one that shows Purdue Global lost money. Likewise, the Graham Holding number should be in the Graham Holdings article, not the Purdue Global article.  I suggest you move it there. JA1776 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's laudable that you admit that Purdue Global lost money in FY 2018. But, Purdue Global also received $20 million in bailout money from Kaplan Higher Education. It would be helpful if Purdue University were more transparent in their budget regarding Purdue University Global and its assets, revenues, and expenditures. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As has been reported, the 20 million was not a bailout but came at the time of closing or day 1 of operations. It was to offset by the expected first year losses that would occur (see the $18 million referenced above) while during the transition and startup period. Purdue Global has $67 million in cash.  A bailout would be hardly necessary JA1776 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The numbers you refer to are from 2018 and Purdue University won't release the FY2019 numbers until the end of the year. In 2018, the Purdue University system financial report had only 2-3 pages of information about Purdue University Global. Graham Holdings reports numbers every three months. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It reports numbers about KHE every three months, not about Purdue Global. JA1776 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)