Talk:Purdue University Global/Archive 5

The lede doesn't adequately reflect the shadiness of the deal
Speaking as an Indiana resident who watched this deal go down: the lede doesn't adequately reflect the shadiness of the transaction. Most of this is in the article, some of it pretty well buried. There are plenty of contemporaneous references which say the deal looks shady. I think a sentence or two in the lede section flat out mentioning that could warranted. -- M.boli (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The legislature passed special enabling legislation that, among other provisions, protects this "public" university from the public scrutiny available for rest of the public universities and the other quasi-independent branches of state government. This was introduced into the budget bill just before passage in 2017.
 * Only after the mysterious enabling legislation was passed, without debate, was the secret deal announced -- as a done-deal.
 * The deal forced the state to adopt a host of policies from the Kaplan era which are different from Purdue's policies. For example requiring disaffected students to agree to arbitration was a business policy, not a public university practice. (Which fortunately was corrected after a big outcry.)
 * The official price for a university with 30,000 enrolled students was $1. But Indiana paid $20 million of the $50 million cash purchase price immediately, with the rest to be paid in a couple of years. (Edit: I was wrong, see responses.)
 * Contracts with Graham Holdings to run the thing for the next 30 years, including the famous 12.5% - 13.5%. Breaking that contract would be extremely expensive, something like 3/4 of one-year.


 * I think you're mistaken about who pays whom the $50 million. As I read both the article and the source, it looks like the $50 million is what Kaplan pays Purdue if certain profitability is not attained by PG. Indyguy (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oops! I think you are right. PG started with $20 million from Kaplan. Which upon reflection makes sense. Unlike normal public universities PG doesn't get any state money, so how was it supposed to hit the ground running? It seems that PG was guaranteed $10 million annual revenue for 5 years, with Kaplan/Graham making up the difference if that amount wasn't achieved. So ultimately I don't know how much money was transferred, presumably the $20 million would have been paid back after PG's revenues came in. My mistake. I had a memory from that time which was wrong. -- M.boli (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the feedback. I think the history section, as pointed out by @Indyguy, is quite bad in its current form and is in need of cleanup.  I suggest we tell the story of how it was created legislatively more clearly and prominently in that section.   JA1776 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The current language restored by @Ushistorygeek is factually inaccurate so I am restoring the recent edits to the lede, but adding a paragraph on the enabling legislation as requested by @M.boli. I still think that is the kind of history that is best included in the history section and the lede should focus on the most basics of "what" Purdue Global is today after 5 years of business, but until we get the history section cleaned up as suggested by @Indyguy, I have no objection to keeping it in the lede for now. JA1776 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The information is not "factually inaccurate", the facts are cited by primary sources and hundreds of news articles. I have painstakingly taken the time to respond to each of your comments,  while you continue to revert, and start new threads while failing to reply or address the substantive points raised.  Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment. The unique nature of the transaction and the resulting conversion of the for-profit enterprise to a public benefit corporation should be prominently noted in the lede. Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

12.5% and Kaplan's prominence in lead
This is a new thread to narrow the discussion about the lead. For several weeks my attempts to clean up the lead have been reverted by Ushistorygeek. His assertions, described above miss a key component of the TOSA as described in the sources I've offered: Kaplan is always paid last and only if there is money left over.

In other words, it is true that Kaplan can make 12.5% but it also can be more, or it could be nothing. In fact, because Purdue Global is yet to be profitable, Kaplan's payments have been 0 or close to 0% every year to date.

The more accurate language is what has been removed consistently. I still don't like it but as a compromise, I suggested, "As payment for these services, the school's former for-profit owner is entitled to receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met.https://philhillaa.com/onedtech/purdue-global-fy20-financials-show-online-school-getting-closer-to-break-even/ and I would prefer, "As payment for these services, the school's former for-profit owner may receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met."

Regardless, this is in the weeds of what Purdue Global is and it's nuanced. As other editors have agreed, it makes more sense to put it in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph about Kaplan, not the 2nd sentence. There are partisans who do not like Purdue Global's creator, former gov. Mitch Daniels and there are ideologues who do not like online education and they want to present a narrative the Purdue Global is just Kaplan in sheep's clothing. I am not arguing that there isn't a place for that point of view in this article but it is a biased viewpoint that we need to be careful is properly sourced and balanced out with the evidence that Purdue Global has reformed Kaplan into a legitimate public university. I believe keeping an unsourced 12.5% claim in the 2nd sentence fails that test. JA1776 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ja1776, you did not respond to my comment, and instead created a new thread which appears to be a common occurrence, so for your ease, let me place a copy of my comments regarding 12.5% here for the benefit of other editors so they may have full context, and in hopes that it enable you to respond to my comment and concerns. Thank you.
 * April 30: Dear JA1776, Thank you for sharing your concerns about the 12.5% figure in the lead. As a fellow Wikipedia editor, I appreciate your commitment to accuracy. I understand that you have provided citations to support your argument; however, I believe I have responded to each point as to why its continued inclusion is appropriate.
 * I want to emphasize that the 12.5% figure is indeed factually correct, if not a generous representation, of the link to PG's prior for-profit owner, as supported by numerous article sources. According to the Transition and Operations Support Agreement (TOSA) and its First Amendment, the Contributor Compensation, which includes the Contributor Services Fee and the Deferred Purchase Price, is calculated as follows:
 * 12.5% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended through June 30, 2022.
 * 13% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended through the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2027.
 * 12.5% of actual Revenues for the quarter just-ended for the remainder of the Term.
 * This is in addition to the termination fee of 1.25 times its revenue for the preceding 12-month period or, if Purdue Global doesn't renew the TOSA after the 30-year term, a final payment of 75% of its total revenue for the preceding 12-month period, as spelled out in these SEC filings:
 * (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000010488921000018/R10.htm
 * https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000095015717000511/form8-k.htm)
 * It is important to note that this claim to revenue is a critical component of the TOSA agreement that resulted in a purchase price of $1. The Contributor Compensation, which is paid to Kaplan by PG, has the characteristics of both a service fee and a deferred purchase price for the Institutional Assets, as defined by the TOSA.
 * Additionally, the agreement includes a balloon payment and spans a 30-year period, further supporting the idea of a quasi-ownership stake by Kaplan. While it's true that each party recovers costs before the Contributor Compensation is calculated, this point does not detract from the fact that Kaplan is reimbursed for all costs first and is then also owed an additional 12.5%-13% of actual revenue, as specified in the agreement.
 * The agreement's structure ensures that Kaplan maintains a significant financial interest in the revenues generated by Purdue University Global, highlighting their ongoing involvement in the partnership. Given the relevance of this information, I suggest we keep the 12.5% figure in its current position considering context in the article that explains the nuances of the agreement in more detail. This will ensure that readers have an accurate and complete understanding of Kaplan's role in the partnership.
 * April 11
 * Furthermore, the information about PG's former for-profit owner Graham Holdings Company (GHC) and the fact that it returns 12.5% of operating revenue to GHC is critical to understanding PG's financial structure and relationships. This information highlights the unique nature of PG's public-benefit corporation status and distinguishes it from other universities.
 * Finally, the information about Kaplan Higher Education continuing to offer non-academic support services to PG under the supervision of Purdue University, and most academic staff being former Kaplan employees, adds to the article's comprehensiveness. This information provides readers with an insight into how PG operates, and how it is still connected to its former owner. In conclusion, the information about PG's creation, its financial structure, and its relationship with its former owner, as well as its organizational structure and operations, are critical to understanding the university. The inclusion of this information in the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global is essential for readers to get a comprehensive understanding of the university.
 * April 11
 * I want to reiterate the importance of including the information about PG's contractual relationship with Kaplan Higher Education, Inc. in the Wikipedia article and lead. This information provides valuable context for readers seeking to understand the university's operations and its relationships with external entities. The contractual arrangement between Purdue Global and Kaplan may be of interest to readers as it raises questions about the independence of Purdue Global and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise from this relationship. These are important issues that garnered unusually outsized media coverage during and after the acquisition, and it is our responsibility as editors to ensure that this information is accurately and objectively presented.
 * It is important to note that the 30-year revenue share agreement between Purdue Global and Kaplan accurately described in the article was a critical part of the purchase of Kaplan University from Graham Holdings for $1. As such, it is a significant aspect of Purdue Global's financial structure and relationship with its former owner. Given this context, it is important that we provide accurate and comprehensive information about this arrangement to readers who may be interested in understanding the university's operations and financial structure.
 * April 12
 * 5. The relationship between Purdue Global and Kaplan is a critical aspect of the university's history and structure. As such, it is appropriate for this information to be included in both the first and second paragraphs. The inclusion of this information in the lead section provides readers with a contextual understanding of the university's creation and organizational structure. And as I wrote before, I would point you to the University of Arizona Global Campus as an example of how other editors have presented similar information in a clear and comprehensive manner.
 * 6. The financial relationship between Purdue Global and Kaplan is complex, and I agree that it warrants a more detailed explanation in the body of the article. However, the current language regarding Purdue Global's financial relationship with Kaplan accurately reflects the terms of the revenue-sharing agreement contracted and ratified by the two entities, and approved by the Department of Education and their accrediting body, the HLC. The language accurately reflects the terms of the agreement, which stipulate that Graham/Kaplan is entitled to receive 12.5% of gross revenue. The proposed language is inaccurate and does not reflect the terms of the agreement. Moreover, the proposed change would downplay the significance of this relationship. It is still important to mention the 12.5% revenue share in the lead, as it is a notable aspect of the institution, and unique in it one of the few (perhaps only) institutions in the US high education where a percentage of gross revenue is owned to its former for-profit owner. Further, we can assume that for-profit company is not entering into these types of agreements to lose money for the public good, but instead to drive profit, as their for-profit classification would lead reasonable readers to conclude.
 * You wrote regarding the 12.5% revenue flows:“I don't know if that's ever happened”. Respectfully, that is irrelevant, and not an acceptable justification for this, or any, edit on Wikipedia. Multiple authoritative sources confirm the terms of the arrangement, and the fact that you cannot you, yourself, cannot specifically identify revenue flows doesn’t change or negate those facts. Your judgment is not a substitution for reliable and valid sourcing. Again, I would urge you to restrain yourself from interjecting personal beliefs as rational for removing well-sourced and reliable facts from Wikipedia articles in the future.
 * April 15
 * 3. Concerning the fee structure between Purdue University Global and Kaplan, the purchase agreement specifies the following:
 * Kaplan may receive a fee equal to 12.5% of Purdue University Global's revenue, which will increase to 13% beginning with Purdue University Global's fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, and continuing through Purdue University Global's fiscal year ending June 30, 2027. After that, the fee will return to 12.5%.
 * If Kaplan achieves cost efficiencies in its operations, it may be entitled to an additional payment equal to 20% of such cost efficiencies (Kaplan Efficiency Payment).
 * The TOSA, which has an initial 30-year term, automatically renews for five-year periods unless terminated. * After the sixth year, Purdue University Global can terminate the agreement by paying a termination fee equal to 1.25 times its revenue from the preceding 12 months, via a 10-year note.
 * If Purdue University Global doesn't renew the TOSA at the end of the 30-year term, it is obligated to make a final payment of 75% of its total revenue from the preceding 12 months, paid through a 10-year note.
 * Subject to certain limitations, a portion of the fee that is earned by Kaplan in one year may be carried over and instead paid to Kaplan in subsequent years.
 * Given these terms the payment may be larger than 12.5%, and beginning in July, will increase to 13%.
 * April 19
 * 3. I appreciate your perspective on this matter. However, I believe it is important to maintain accuracy and clarity in the article. By using the phrase "entitled to receive," that is indicating that there is variability in the payments and that the full amount may not always be paid out. Including "if certain conditions are met" could potentially lead to confusion or misinterpretation, as readers may not have access to the detailed conditions outlined in the TOSA.
 * I suggest that we maintain the phrase "entitled to receive" without the addition of "if certain conditions are met" in the article. This ensures that the fee structure is accurately represented, without introducing unnecessary complexity in the lead.
 * April 21
 * 3. I appreciate your effort to find a compromise on the phrasing, but I must express my continued opposition to the suggested change. The phrase "entitled to receive" does not imply a guarantee; rather, it indicates that Kaplan has the right to receive the payment, but it is not necessarily a certainty. Adding a qualifier, such as "may receive up to," could introduce ambiguity and potentially lead to misinterpretation. In the interest of maintaining clarity and accuracy, I propose that we keep the original phrasing "entitled to receive" in the article. Ushistorygeek (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, @Ushistorygeek continues to describe the money that Kaplan could receive, not what they are guaranteed (entitled) to receive. All I am requesting is that we make it clear that this money is not guaranteed and that we not overemphasize this very small point in the lead at the expense of telling readers what Purdue Global is as a university.  As such, I have tried to add the following language, to the 2nd or 3rd paragraph, which is supported by a source, "As payment for these services, the school's former for-profit owner is entitled to receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met (see also here) but I would prefer, "As payment for these services, the school's former for-profit owner may receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met" because I believe "entitled" implies that the funding is more guaranteed than it is. Note that in the justification above, @Ushistorygeek at times also uses the word "may" so I do not see why this is objectionable for the article.  I also believe paragraph 1 should describe the university and the Kaplan details should be added in a later paragraph for flow and context.  Other editors have agreed and only @Ushistorygeek is objecting to this strategy. As such, I request permission from other neutral editors to move the Kaplan details to the 2nd or 3rd paragraph and to use the phrase "if certain benchmarks are met" in accordance with the source. JA1776 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the 12.5% payment is contingent on certain conditions, then to state that it will be paid without noting those conditions is inaccurate. @Ushistorygeek, do you agree or disagree that the payment is contingent? Indyguy (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @JA1776, I appreciate your suggestion, but I would like to emphasize the significance of including the 12.5% figure in the lead, as it accurately reflects the unique nature of the contractual partnership between Purdue Global and Kaplan. While I acknowledge that the payment occurs after reimbursing Kaplan and PG for operating expenses, the fact remains that this arrangement is an important aspect of Purdue Global's history and operations. This fact is valid, well sources, and is cited in numerous notable coverage during and after the transaction and was the subject a significant debate. Further, as noted in this discussion earlier, if Kaplan is not able to collect the full 12.5% contributor fee the remanning balance due is collectible in the following year as noted in the TOSA and each of Graham’s SEC filings each year following the purchase.
 * Using the word "entitled" does not necessarily imply guaranteed payment but rather conveys that Kaplan has a contractual right to receive the revenue share if those conditions are met, which aligns with the current year-over-year carry forward of the contributor fee. In the spirit of compromise, would you accept this more accurate phrasing that provides additional clarity?
 * “Graham Holdings Company is entitled to 12.5% of operating revenue as a contributor fee after PG & Kaplan are reimbursed for operating expenses for a 30 year term defined by the purchase agreement, and 75% of total revenue for the preceding 12-month period after the 30 year term, or 1.25 times revenue if the TOSA is terminated.”
 * As for the placement of the Kaplan details, it is crucial to provide readers with an accurate and comprehensive understanding of Purdue Global's unique financial structure and partnership with Kaplan from the outset. Including this information in the first paragraph allows readers to grasp the distinct characteristics of the university, setting it apart from other institutions. As noted by the editor below who wrote "The lede doesn't adequately reflect the shadiness of the deal", the transaction was unusual.
 * In conclusion, I believe balancing readability and accurate representation of the contractual partnership is essential for providing a clear and comprehensive understanding of Purdue Global's history and operations. Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1.) I have never objected to including the 12.5% in the lede and am not attempting to remove it.
 * 2.) I am attempting to make it consistent with the citations and with the way it's described in the article and even the way you describe the 12.5% on the talk page -- that it's dependent on certain situations. This is a good summary for the lede and then we can get into the details in the depths of the article.
 * 3.) This is in the weeds but it is not correct that the remaining balance is rolled over and due the next year. As described in Exhibit F of the TOSA, and as documented by others, the amount that can be rolled over is capped at 20% (20% allowable carryover) and it is reset each year.  So in fact, in the first five years of Purdue Global's existence, I don't know that Kaplan has ever received the full 12.5%. What's not paid, 20% rolls over to the next year.  What's not paid the next year, is forgiven.

4.) (edited) I will add that no citation has been provided to refute the idea that the 12.5% is dependent on certain scenarios playing out. On the other hand, I have provided citations showing that that is the case.
 * I don't mind being edited but I am being reverted and that's what's frustrated and disruptive. JA1776 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @JA1776 Regarding #1. The assertion that you are not attempting to remove the 12.5% from the lead is confusing, because you did exactly that. And on multiple occasions:
 * You removed it from the lead in your first edit (on this topic) on April 7.
 * You removed it again on April 8.
 * You removed it again here on April 10.
 * And here on April 11 you removed it yet again while seemingly ignoring two comments on the talk page.
 * And here on April 14 you added "as payment for these services", which was incorrect as Graham/Kaplan is reimbursed for direct costs first, and the 12.5% contributor fee is in addition to the reimbursement.
 * I could go on, however, I will save my efforts for our pending dispute resolution where I look forward to working together to achieve a resolution. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have said never. That was my mistake. What I meant was never since you made it clear you disagreed and would not compromise on that point.  All the edits you have reverted for almost the last month have left the 12.5% in, per your request as I've tried to find consenus. JA1776 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion: PG is a functioning institution, educating students, and a main purpose of the lede is to describe what it is. Also I think PG's main claim to fame, the thing that gets it into the news, is the deal that created the current structure, so that belongs in the lede section also. Back to the "12.5%" question. We have the broad outline of the financial and contractual arrangement from secondary sources. I think that trying to parse the financial arrangement from the primary documents is a mistake. We can get what we need on the controversial arrangement from the higher-ed press, the general press, and other reportage. And much of the controversial items are in a 30 year contract, we can't legitimately push it all out of the lede into a history section. -- M.boli (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) too much detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia article.
 * 2) there is a likelihood of getting it wrong in any case. There are a lot of contingencies and if-statements and jargon terms.
 * 3) The controversy and criticisms refer to the broad outline not the details. The controversy isn't  over the exact percentages of revenue owed to Graham in year 3 dependent on blah blah. The controversy is PG outsourcing more duties and more control than most OPM contracts, 30 year contract with huge penalty to cancel it, PG paying a percentage of revenues to Kaplan/Graham, PG adopting the academic regulations of the former school, etc.


 * I generally agree. In my view, the language I have tried to insert stating that "the school's former for-profit owner may receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met" is a simply way to say it's complicated but here is the general idea.  That is how writer Phil Hill and PG critic has described it.
 * I don't object to describing controversy in the lede if done right and one of my edits that was removed tried to touch upon the enabling legislation and the public records aspect that you wanted in there. However, I think we need to be careful because there is another side to every controversy and so to avoid bias, both credible sides should be given space and that can make the lede too long and cumbersome. JA1776 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping we can get this resolved on the Dispute Resolution Board, created for this purpose: Dispute resolution noticeboard. That board is ready to receive comment for any editors who disagree with my above analysis.  JA1776 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Logo Needs Updating
Purdue Global undwent a rebrand. We would like to update this page with our new logo. The new logo can be seen on our website. I will need to ask a colleague with access to the required credentials to make this update. We plan to make the update in the coming week. Ahawk37 (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This issue was discussed months ago on the talk page, see Archive 3. Although at the time I was unaware of this comment from @Ahawk37, I recently made such an edit because I thought the update made sense and there was no objection to my proposal to make the change in the discussion which is now found in Archive 3.  However, the recent change was reverted by editor @Ushistorygeek without explanation. I see no reason for this revert and request that @Ushistorygeek offer a justification for the revert on this page or to please restore the edit. JA1776 (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like most Wikipedia pages use new logos but indicate how long the logo has been in use. I am going to restore the logo but add the explanation that this logo has been used since 2023. This isn't my expertise so I welcome other options if anyone has thoughts. JA1776 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)