Talk:Rushmore University

notability, verification
I appreciate your efforts in writing this article; however I feel that it needs improvements regarding the citation of sources.

First, most statements in the article are not backed by reliable sources (in fact, not by any sources). That does not mean that these claims are necessarily false; but all content in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable against sources. This is particularly important if you include criticism, like in this case. Otherwise, the content of the article may be considered original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia.

Second, sources are needed for a different issue: They serve to establish the notability of the subject. In order to show that Rushmore University satisfies the criteria in WP:ORG, you need to cite third-party coverage of the subject. Such independent sources might include press coverage about Rushmore University (positive or negative!), or books in which the university is mentioned. Note that blogs, internet discussion groups, and other user-generated content are not considered reliable in this context.

Currently you only cite the University homepage (that's not independent), and general government websites which do not specifically cover Rushmore University. (One lists the university in a list of unaccredited institutions, but that's not really substantial coverage.) Please add independent sources to this article. If sources cannot be found, it might get deleted from Wikipedia.

For the time being, I am resetting the date counter of the “notability” warning tag. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added additional references and removed all the tags on this page because I believe I have provided adequate sourcing for this article. Where independent sourcing is not available, the Rushmore University website is cited but the information is identified as a "claim," not as a fact. (It is a fact that the school makes these claims.)

Accreditation Many accreditation organizations require a university have a 300,000 book library. In fact this is number one on their list. Because Rushmore was established as a distance learning school it certainly does not have such a library. However every book in the world is available for a student to order from independent sources.

The students are not required to promote Rushmore on a personal webpage.

Why Distance Learning With the advent of the internet distance learning has become accepted worldwide. No longer is a student required to sit in a classroom to learn. In fact little learning in most academic areas is done in the classroom. Instead it is done by serious study and mental labor mastering assigned material. Note with interest that major universities world wide have transitioned to online learning and students are happy to be doing it. This online growth has become a cash cow to the universities since they can charge the same price for classes but not have students on campus filling chairs, using heat, and parking places. In fact there is no limit to the number of students a university can now add with online classes. (As of 11/7/11 Harvard has over 150 online classes a student can take.) Rushmore saw this need early and has been fulfilling this need worldwide at a much lower cost than other universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.101.113 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

———————————————

I am very unconvinced of the reasonability of having a "Notable alumni" section for a non-accredited institution. In fact, it appears prone to being used for self-promotion e.g. under G11. (Anonymous concerned Wiki-citizen) 80.62.116.32 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

———————————————

Adding the information that in Denmark, the Danish state channel recently had to retract claims from the "research" done at Rushmore, since it is not acknowledged as PhD work by the state of Denmark:  Stig Sølvhøj's own LinkedIn page list Rushmore, as well as that he now - only two months after graduating - is "Associate Professor, Rushmore University" It appears thus that we see them acting as a "vanity mill" for academic titles, not just degrees. 80.62.116.129 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

———————————————

Updates
Rushmore University is not a Diploma Mill.

In addition, Rushmore University has been working hard and received CMI status and should be reflected properly on their page. Rushmore University is a fully online University offering both graduate and undergraduate degrees, complying with UK National standards, as defined through Chartered Management Institute.

Let's keep it accurate and positive. Please let me know why you keep changing this. I already went through the same stuff with Paper9oll and the modifications were agreed on. Check history.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.91.104.233 (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't want Wikipedia to be positive. We want it to be accurate and neutral. Think of the damage it could cause if students read "positive" information on Wikipedia which led them to believe that their degrees would be recognised by employers or academic institutions when in fact they won't. So what is accurate in this case? A quick search led me to, which says: "Institutions that offer degree-level courses in the UK are called either ‘recognised’ or ‘listed’ bodies. Recognised bodies are higher learning institutions that can award degrees. Listed bodies cannot award degrees themselves. If you study a degree course at a listed body, your degree will be awarded by a recognised body." The list of registered bodies is here: . Rushmore University does not appear. The list of listed bodies is here: . Rushmore University does not appear.
 * From looking at the pages of CMI here:, it does not seem like CMI claims to accredit degrees. They either "recognize" employer training or they offer "dual accreditation" to already accredited degree programs.
 * I feel you now need to show a good, unbiased source showing how Rushmore is "offering both graduate and undergraduate degrees, complying with UK National standards". Otherwise, this looks to me like a lot of positivity and not that much accuracy. Knuthove (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)




 * Dear 50.91.104.233.
 * (Whoops, cross-edit with Knuthove here, so more reply directly to 50.91.104.233.)
 * Welcome to the correct talk page! It is good that you get to learn about Wikipedia.


 * I do not see anywhere what you agreed on with "Paper9oll", which is also not relevant if others disagree.
 * You can attempt to bring sources here to the talk page, then we can *consider* including it in the actual page.
 * Until then, no more edits from you please. And no edits from you, that are not agreed upon by several editors on this main talk page for the entry.


 * Specific answers to your points:


 * I am sorry. Looking up the definition here of a "Diploma mill", it says "A diploma mill (also known as a degree mill) is a company or organization that claims to be a higher education institution but provides illegitimate academic degrees and diplomas for a fee."
 * As witnessed by numerous external references, pooled from many places, this is exactly what Rushmore does.


 * "CMI status" certainly does not mean accredited. What does it then entail, exactly? Sources for your interpretations and claims? The way your edits have been presenting it is as if it means accredited - blatantly false, as the sources show.


 * "graduate and undergraduate degrees" - no! There is no such thing as a degree without accreditation.


 * "complying with UK National standards" - no, for what? Certainly not master's or doctoral degrees!
 * This language utilized by you (or your sources) is clearly vague with the clear intent of being misleading, aka. positive trolling.


 * As to your big "Why?", let can only say: Falsified credentials can truly ruin the world, and it is our duty to keep them firmly at bay. 109.59.161.34 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The troublesome user 50.91.104.233 at the center of this tiring edit war seems very emotionally invested in the entry, and keeps frantically spewing garbage arguments on the private talk pages of people who edit here in good faith 87.49.147.11 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The troll user 50.91.104.233 now likely also operates as 75.113.162.64. Both IPs are in the same small city. 87.49.147.11 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Lack of accreditation
AN IP has been attempting to indicate this is an accredited institution by indicating a connection with CMI. Per the article, CMI is not an accrediting body. Ifnord (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)