Talk:Strayer University/Archive 1

accreditation information
The link "accreditation information" goes to the AACSB site, which isn't mentioned in the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.17 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's because someone decided to point out that Strayer is not AACSB accredited "stealthily." They are working on ACBSP accreditation though. I will correctly route it to the MSCHE site.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A new draft
Whoever manages this should spell Herndon correctly the two times in this article that it is misspelled. Including in the opening line. As an educational organization, you might want to spell check.. 98.172.20.93 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)DT

I work for Strayer as an Online Community Manager, and I would like to see the current article become much better than it is. I have had some Wikipedia experience in the past, and I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view, verifiability, conflict of interest and reliable sources. So I'd prefer not to edit the article myself. I've posted a message on the WikiProject Cooperation Paid Editor Help desk, but also want to ask here for assistance from other editors.

Considering that the current Strayer University article is somewhat limited, I’ve written a new draft that expands on the current article to include more details about the university’s long history, its programs and its organization.

With this draft, I’ve aimed to correct any details in the article and include only relevant, encyclopedic information to help tell the University’s story. My post on the Paid Editor Help gives a longer explanation of the changes proposed in the draft.

I eagerly anticipate feedback from other editors, and I'm watching this page and will respond to any questions as quickly as I can. --Hamilton83 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The editors at the WikiProject above asked me to history merge in the new draft. I believe that it is mostly good, though there is one question about some info removed from the current version. If there are any other editors watching here, we would appreciate input at that page. If we don't get any input soon, we'll go ahead and merge over the new version. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make some additional changes to that draft. As one point, we do always try to include information about all prior presidents if we have it: in fact being president of a university makes the person notable and justifies a separate article on them.  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, but there are some small inaccuracies. According to Strayer's financial statements, enrollment at Strayer has been going down due to the federal government tightening up federal student loan requirements. According to the Dept of Education, about 75% of federal student loans given to Strayer's students are never paid back. At last count in Dec 2011, enrollment has gone down from 60,000 students last year, to about 50,000, not 55,000. With the current political climate being unfriendly to government spending, this number is likely to get smaller. So it is more accurate to use the more recent number of 50,000. The web page you referenced claims 60,000, not 55,000, so it is unclear where the 55,000 number came from. Another problem is that most other university articles on Wikipedia have notable alumni in a separate section, not merged with student statistics. Also, it might be a conflict of interest that most of the statistics that do not portray Strayer in a positive light have been removed, like the 52% profit statistic. One other problem is some of your references are not correct. The Corp HQ of Strayer is in Herndon, VA, but the reference you used makes no mention of Herndon.

I like how you broke down the statistics on the student population. It is interesting Strayer has a high percentage of women and minorities. I understand that most universities have more women than men, so this may not be data that is specific to Strayer. What I would do is find national averages and then compare this data against Strayer's enrollment, to show contrast. The next logical question is why do they attract more women and minorities, is it because they locate their campuses in areas that have more minorities, or do they more aggressively market to them?

The section about Jack Welch's MBA program is somewhat misleading. The article states that the program was established at Strayer when Welch retired from GE. It makes no mention of the purchase of the program from Chancellor University. Also, the section about the faculty does not mention Strayer's use of student instructors. This should not be seen as a negative as many other schools use student instructors as well. The part that says, "More than half the courses at Strayer University are taught by full-time professors who are required to have the highest possible degree in their academic area" seems more like an advertisement, than an encyclopedic entry. No other university article on Wikipedia uses language like this. It almost seems like you are trying to address a criticism that Strayer faculty is somehow "unqualified". Also the part that talks about "real world experience" is highly subjective. What exactly does that mean? Some full time professors are people who retired from a field that they are now teaching. Some adjunct professors don't work in the field that they are teaching. I don't think simply being an adjunct professor alone gives one "real world experience" It would be more meaningful if you said something like X% of instructors work in the field they teach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments and suggestions.


 * Regarding the Strayer Education Inc. information, I had kept that in my draft in its own section. The only thing missing compared to the current draft was the 52% figure. I may have missed this as I've been working on my draft for some time and this was a relatively recent addition to the article. I've gone ahead and added the figure to my draft, however I do not believe that it is accurate. The Strayer Education proxy statement would clarify this but it is not available online.If this information is not necessary, I'd prefer it not to be included, but I defer to other editors.


 * DGG, could you point me to the guideline about including past presidents? The article currently doesn't include the presidents of the University prior to Sandra Stollard, and I haven't seen any source that identifies Stollard as more important than others.

In reply to the IP address:


 * The 55,000 figure was for the fall term enrollment and was provided in a November 2011 Reuters article, but I found a more recent source that agrees with the 50,000 figure you found and have updated the draft.


 * I included the alumni information in the section with information about students and faculty since (unlike some other institutions) I was not able to find sources for many noteworthy alumni. As there were only a few to include, I thought it best to keep this together with student and faculty data, rather than having a small section. If it would be better for this to have its own section, that would be fine with me.


 * I have fixed the reference for the Strayer University headquarters by adding the citation from the current article.


 * Please feel free to add any reliably sourced information you're able to find about how the university attracts more women and minority students.


 * About the Jack Welch Management Institute: in the History section, I do already mention that it was acquired in December 2011, so much more detail about that in "Programs" would be repetitive. However, I have edited the section to make it clear that it did not begin at Strayer.
 * The information about the faculty simply reflects what was mentioned in sources, in particular the "real world experience" is a direct quote from a source.

Thanks to everyone weighing in. If you're so inclined, please feel free to edit my draft before merging it, or move it over and keep working on it in the live space. I'll be happy to help with additional questions. --Hamilton83 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You really worked hard on this article. Great Work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That sentence ""More than half the courses at Strayer University are taught by full-time professors who are required to have the highest possible degree in their academic area"" was among the ones I was planning to eliminate; I'm glad you did. It's about as bad as if it had read "Almost half the courses at Strayer University are not taught by full-time professors with the highest possible degree in their academic area". To be meaningful, it needs real numbers and comparisons with national averages. We could indeed include such information for all universities, from RS other than the universities (such as the Chronicle of Higher Education), but unless we're going to do it for all of them (& if so, the infobox would be the best place), we shouldn't do it here.
 * The alumni section does always go separately. A section on notable faculty is usually added also, Have you any information for that section--thisiso ne of things that editors associated with the place can dobetter than we can.
 * Information about minority enrollment does need context, but we have often included it without context, just by giving the figures. Again, numbers, not vague statements are necessary.
 * Where the Welch program was acquired from is necessary. Why would anyone want to omit it? Omitting information of this sort gives the impression that it will someone cast a negative light on the university. IWhether it would or not is irrelevant, if it's sourceable, fair, and relevant. As for prior presidents, look at any article on a major university. It indicates the history of the place. Why would anyone want to omit it? There is no reason to omit relevant sourceable information like that. But as far as the article is concerned, it doesn't ultimately matter if you add these things  or not, because others  will. Objecting to that as you have above seems like trying to impose your preferences on the article, and is what we have in mind when we talk about the problems with COI editing and the consequent feeling of WP:OWNership. So   adding it yourself would be a good sign of the reliability and neutrality of your editing.
 * The history section should be expanded: it would be helpful to show the growth of enrollment at a few key periods. And where are the figures for the number of faculty?
 * The list of categories is excessive. adding every state for a national company or organization makes nonsense out of the use of categories.The list of states with campuses is enough to show the scope of the enterprise, and that's a better way of doing it.
 * And something I just noticed is missing: what percentage of the classes are online? What percentage of the students are entirely online?
 * I'll check back this weekend and move it back to mainspace and edit whatever might be still needed.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look tomorrow and move it back, and then do what editing I think appropriate.   DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * DGG, I appreciate your feedback and I'll try to answer as best I can. (See also my updated draft.)


 * Regarding your comment about the information on faculty, as I mentioned above, I included what I was able to find in reliable sources. If you feel that it is not necessary to include, then I will understand if you have to remove it. Following up on that, I have unfortunately not seen any figures quoted for the number of faculty nor comparisons with national averages as you request.


 * I have broken the Alumni information out into a separate section.


 * I did look into notable faculty members when writing my draft but was not able to find any notable individuals (i.e. individuals with Wikipedia articles) to mention in such a section. And I don't have a source for the number of faculty either, whether from the Strayer website or from third-party sources.


 * What sort of context do you think that the minority enrollment needs to have? I may have this in my research, or others may be able to add this later if you can explain what would help with this section.


 * I understand your point about including Chancellor as where the Jack Welch Management Institute was acquired from, and I have added this into the article.


 * Regarding the past presidents, I didn't know I should add them: when writing the draft I looked at the guidelines from WikiProject Universities, which did not mention this, and GAs such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Georgia Institute of Technology, which mention some of their more notable past presidents but not all. It's not that I oppose adding this information, just that I'm not sure how to do this so that it isn't an unhelpful list. That's why I asked about a guideline so I could see what information is needed and how it should be included in the draft. If you have any guidance on how to include the past presidents, that would be helpful.


 * The History section as it stands contains as much information as I was able to find on the university's development.


 * The categories in the draft are the ones used for the current article, if you think any should be removed that would be fine with me.


 * I have not been able to find a reliable source for the percentage of classes that are online, however I have added the number of students taking 100% of their classes online to the "Campuses and online" section.


 * I think you've asked a ton of great questions, but I'm afraid there just aren't reliable sources available to answer them all. I hope that the draft as amended is a sufficient improvement to be a good replacement for the current version. Thanks for your feedback, and let me know what you think. --Hamilton83 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, see List of Presidents of Columbia University. It gives the necessary information, but it should not have been a separate article, a section of the history article, A common way, that I dislike, is the succession box of Presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the bottom of the MIT article--but this is part of my general dislike of that primitive technique of cross-indexing.  A better way is what they do in History of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But if you have trouble formatting, just give me here on the talk page a list of names and dates, (and whatever other information is available) and I'll add them in some simple way.


 * You work for the university. If you cant find a source for the % of classes online, get them to publish one: their web page will do as a source. Similarly for all other missing statistics.   It's basic information. A missing number where one would be expected implies that one which would have some implications is being hidden,  In this case, since 30,000 of the 50,000 students take 100% of their courses online, this is primarily an online university and must be described as such, especially if  almost all the others take most of their courses online, in which case the significance of the multiple campus centers is rather limited.


 * I see to my disappointment you have not removed the absurd line of rough percent with terminal degrees. Please find and give the actual numbers . I do not believe any university doesn't know how many instructors it has, both full and part time. No business can possibly be lacking the information about the number of staff it has if it's going to pay them.   The significance of it is that many online universities, there are a very small number of actual faculty who prepare and teach courses in the usual sense, and a very large number of part time assistants or tutors -- the names vary. Of course, this implies the numbers need some interpretation, but the first step is having the numbers.


 * I've been hoping you would catch on to this. Editors who have conflict of interest have in some respects an advantage: they can get information that is harder to get from outside.


 * And one other point: please provide an online link for every reference for which such a link is available, even if behind a paywall. you have conflict of interest.

Please just now add whatever information you have to your proposed article. Someone will have to do the merge in such a way as to provide attribution. I don't think we['ve really thought out how to do this right.  DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * DGG, I'll ask about your questions regarding online classes and related questions. Although I hope you understand I'm just one employee, and I can only use what information the university chooses to make public. While I can't do much about those just now, I can include links for articles used, even though many of them are behind a pay wall. I have updated my sandbox with a version that is identical to the article that is now live, but with web links added for those sources. Go ahead and copy this version over, if you like, but look out for categories, which are disabled there. And please make any other edits that you see fit. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see another editor moved the draft into mainspace. That is fine with me, for I have decided that in general i would not like to do this for articles by paid or COI editors; Rather, I will give advice on an article as always, and edit in the normal way subsequently. I am aware I have a relatively high standard for articles of this sort, and I do not fee  comfortable giving the impression of "certifying" work that might meet /be just good enough to stay in WP, but not meet my own standards.

I am now doing what I consider the necessary editing. I've done some of this, as well as the necessary copyediting to shorten sentences and remove excessive use of the university name. I will be back.
 * 1) If 30 of the 50 thousand students take all their course online, and others take a partially online program, then Stryer is predominantly an online university. I have changed the lede and the locations section to reflect that. I regret not having the figures for the total percentage of courses taken online. That's the usual and customary figure. That the university does not make them public implies that the actual percentage is very high (not that there is anything necessarily wrong with online education, but some people have a skepticism or perhaps prejudice about entirely online programs). This could be figured out with a little research, but that's beyond our usual scope. If I can find a published number, I'll add it.
 * 2) I think what we need is a photo not of the apparently very small campus building at Morrisville NC, but the main campus. Using a photo of such a small building gives an unduly negative impression.
 * 3) The problem with saying that half the courses are taught by full time faculty was explained above. The relevant & usual number is the percentage of the faculty that is full-time. Again, that might require research or a good source.
 * 4) The notable alumni section may contain only those people with a Wikipedia article or obviously qualified for one. Gen. Magnus has an article. Dogherty does not, and probably is not   qualified for one, he's COO not of ACS, but a section of it. Mirchandani is not, since not even the company has an article & might not be qualified for one.   Perkinson would only be qualified if the career is more substantial than indicated, but I haven't checked it.. If you wish to include them, try writing articles on them and get them accepted.
 * 5) That earlier enrollment figures are higher than the present is relevant: the source for that is needed.
 * 6) The % of the graduates who are in default is relevant also; a source is needed.
 * 7) Forthat matter, the %of students who actually graduate is a highly relevant number also.
 * 8) That line on the faculty withe terminal degrees needs rewording, as explained above. Is the faculty list available? Are any of them notable enough for a Wikipedia article? If so, this is highly relevant positive information and should be included. If you can point me to a published list, I will check this & if necessary write a few, since academic faculty articles are my primary field of interest here.
 * 9) " Welch is involved in preparing the curriculum " needs a citation or must be removed.
 * 10) Some of the detailed info in the lede  need not be duplicated there --it's better just in the article.

DGG,

The "flagship" campus is an office building in Washington DC. The only sign that Strayer occupies the building is a small corner office on the bottom floor, next to a pizza joint. You can find it using Google maps street view. Most of their bigger campuses are pretty similar to this, needless to say the existing picture is better. At least it kind of looks like a campus.

EDIT: The reference used in the article is incorrect. I found a link to the article cited here: http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/659056/strayer_university_opens_town_center_opportunities/ The article states that the university is based in Washington. They are referring to the corporate headquarters, not to any "flagship" It is possible that more of the offline links maybe be incorrect, but it is difficult to check them all.

The high default rate for Strayer students is already discussed in the old article and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_college This is a good source too. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-30/eisman-bets-against-strayer-education-amid-doubt-about-loan-repayment-rate.html

"Strayer University, which reports its loan repayment rate to be 55.4%, only has a repayment rate of roughly 25%,[68] according to data released by the U.S. Department of Education on August 13, 2010.[69] The low repayment rate makes Strayer ineligible for receiving further Title IV funds in accordance with new "Gainful employment" regulations brought forth by the Department of Education, which are to take effect on July 2011.[70] If passed, the minimum loan repayment requirement for any institution receiving Title IV funds, subject to suspension and expulsion if not compliant, will be 45%.[71]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

According to this source http://collegemeasures.org/4-year_colleges/reporting/institution/scorecard/gra/131803.aspx Strayer has a 17.5% graduation rate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Break

 * Has this request edit been answered and completed? This string is too long to keep track and I note that some of the requested edits were done directly anyway. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey King4057 - Yes, the request edit has been answered and completed. It can now be removed. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Janet M. Chihocky
I am not sure if Janet M. Chihocky meets wikipedia notability guidelines. There are no secondary sources on her other than an alumni newsletter. She runs a small PR firm with 20 employees and has a website. http://www.jansoncom.com/about-us/janson-team/ I don't think every person that has a business and employs 20 people is worthy of an article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. I removed her from the article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Doonesbury as a source?
Is Doonesbury considered to be a reliable source? This is some pretty damning information, and it seems like there should be a better source for it. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would add a citation, or it will be removed for sure. 72.196.199.168 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting it here until proper sources are found.

Criticism On 9 August 2012 the Doonesbury syndicated comic strip featured criticism of Strayer. In addition to reporting Silberman's 2009 compensation (which it described as fifty times more than Harvard's president), it noted that in the same year the business spent $1,300 per student on instruction, $2,500 per student on marketing, and returned $4,500 per student in profit. The strip was part of a week-long series criticising for-profit universities and educational institutions. It just seems odd to use a cartoon as a source for criticism. Maybe eventually it can be noted, perhaps in a popular media section, that Doonesbury mentioned the university. TimidGuy (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I found an authoritative source, though it references another. I'm putting it back in the article. WhyCantWeAllGetAlong (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This is an excellent example of why Doonesbury is a poor source. It cherry picked the report. Silberman's 2009 compensation was indeed $41 million according to the source, but his 2010 compensation was $1,549,800. Is it in line with WP policy to use cherry picking such as this? And to ignore this finding in the report:

"Strayer’s withdrawal rate is significantly lower than the overall withdrawal rate of 54.4 percent, and is significantly lower when compared to other large publicly traded, for-profit education companies. With just 34 percent of Bachelor’s degree students withdrawing in the period analyzed, Strayer has the lowest withdrawal rate of any 4-year program examined. However, like other companies examined by the committee, Strayer has a much higher withdrawal rate in the Associate program, fully 14 percent higher than in the Bachelor’s degree program."


 * We've inserted a very biased view. I suggest we again remove it until it can be made compliant. And frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in Gary Trudeau. I'm a big fan of his comic strip and assumed that it was at least accurate, but this cherry picking is a bit over the top. TimidGuy (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Doonesbury is not a reliable source for that kind of information. And it's not even appropriate to note that Doonesbury discussed the university unless we can also provide commentary about the comic strip demonstrating its significance.  Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that primarily summarizes secondary sources and rarely relies on primary sources.  Doonesbury is not reliable as a secondary source and it's inappropriate to use it as a primary source without related secondary sources. ElKevbo (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This was a source used in the old article http://hamptonroads.com/2011/10/forprofit-colleges-grab-big-share-gi-bill-money-0 It says that 52% of Strayer's revenue goes to profit and marketing. It was removed because there is some debate about how accurate that number is. However, the newspaper that published the story never printed a retraction.


 * That's not the original source, this is: http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/for_profit_report/PartII/Strayer.pdf
 * I think that we should preserve this, at least:

the business spent $1,300 per student on instruction, $2,500 per student on marketing, and returned $4,500 per student in profit
 * as well as Silberman's compensation. It is what it is.WhyCantWeAllGetAlong (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Strayer's high default rate among its students is a much easier story to write about. There are multiple sources on the bottom of the new draft section in talk.72.196.199.168 (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I imagine GBT's source is the Senate education committee report on the for-profit college industry. There seems to be a plethora of new news reports taking that as subject matter. I imagine a number will mention Strayer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which would be here: http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=cdd6e130-5056-9502-5dd2-e4d005721cb2 - dealt with in volume 2, it seems. But either the PDF is kaput, or my PDF reader is. Someone else might have more luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Earlier today, I used that Senate report to augment or update several passages in the article. There's a section about Strayer in volume 1, pages 713-727. If the link in the article doesn't help you find the PDF, try http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112SPRT74931/pdf/CPRT-112SPRT74931.pdf for volume 1. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Help fixing typos
In March, I proposed a new draft for this article on behalf of Strayer University, where I work. Although most of my requests were answered, I'd like to fix a sentence that has been altered in recent weeks and is now a little confusing due to typos inserted during these edits. The first two sentences of the "Online" section currently read as follows:
 * , of the 50,000 total students, approximately 30,000 (including campus-based and global students) took 100 percent of their courses online.

The problem is neither source used in the first sentence (highlighted above) supports what it now says. The first source is from 1999, when the university had been offering online courses for just a few years (at that point there were few online students) and the second one simply supports the fact that courses are offered worldwide. And this point was already covered by the second sentence, which states that 30,000 of Strayer's 50,000 students in 2011 took their courses entirely online, so it also feels repetitive. I'd like to request that the first (highlighted) sentence be returned to its former wording:
 * The university also has an online branch that allows students to study for bachelor's and master's degree programs over the Internet, and is available to students worldwide.

If the consensus from other editors is that the new wording should stay, then I'd like to suggest that the information following the first source should be a new sentence, and the second sentence should begin "The university's courses". This would improve its readability. Can someone please review this for me and make the edits needed? Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done the split into two sentences as suggested. Better refs are needed, but i'm not willing to change the content without more discussion from other editors here. DES (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the first sentence is problematic. I'd go along with the suggestion to return it to its former wording. We shouldn't be using a source from 1999. TimidGuy (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The data-free language suggested by DES seems to me to be more promotional than informative. Furthermore, contrary to DES' claim, this cited source provides recent detailed information on Strayer's relative on-campus and online enrollments. From the numbers in the table, I calculate that in winter 2011 57% of students were fully online and in winter 2012 60% of students (about 30,000 of the total of 50,000) were enrolled fully online. Additionally, the recent Senate report contains the information, with a footnote citing a 2012 Strayer report (possibly this same report), that "between 50 and 60 percent of students are enrolled online." Based on these sources, the approximate percentage of online enrollment can be verifiably reported, and the article appears to accurately reflect what the sources say. I haven't seen the source cited in the sentence "The university's courses are predominantly taught online, and are available to students worldwide" (which seems like it could be deleted without diminishing the article's information value), but the rest of the paragraph (including "More than half of the students take all of their courses online, and the entire bachelor's and master's degree programs can be completed via the Internet", which is sourced not only o a 1999 publication, but also to a publication from 2012) appears to be valid -- whatever was in that 1999 source, it is consistent with more recent sources. I see no basis for change -- except possibly to remove that second sentence and add more footnotes in that paragraph. --Orlady (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing me with User:Hamilton83. I didn't suggest any language, I merely split an awkward sentence into two with no change in meaning and no significant change in wording, and declined to make more extensive changes without discussion. I also made no claims about sources beyond "Better refs are needed" which is rather non-specific, but in context was applying to the refs cited in the sentence under discussion. At least that is how I intended it. However, note that businesswire is normally a re-printer of press releases, and so is almost never the best possible source, even when it is an acceptable source. I added the 2012 source to the sentence in question, but that source does not give specific figures. Perhaps a cite to the Stayner report, whether via buisnesswire or elsewhere, should be added. DES (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who has commented here and to DES for improving the readability of the "Online" section. I agree with the suggestions from DES and Orlady to add another citation. I see that DES added the Businesswire source, but perhaps it would be better to use the Senate report, since that doesn't require any math to work out the percentage of online students? Also, at the moment, having three sentences in a row pointing out that around half of students are fully online is a little repetitive. My suggestion is to combine the first two sentences and use the Senate report as the new citation:
 * More than half of the students take all of their courses online; the entire bachelor's and master's degree programs can be completed via the Internet and are available to students worldwide.
 * If this looks good to everyone, could someone make this edit? Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My take: More than half of the students take all of their courses online. the entire bachelor's and master's degree programs can be completed via the Internet and are available to students worldwide.

Reasoning: Some of the wording like "available to students worldwide." It's not terrible or non-factual, but it sounds a little like a product catalog. If half of the students take their courses online, we already know the course can be completed online. On the other hand, I think this is another case where we have gotten overly analytical, where a single, bold individual could have been bold and made a decision (for better or worse). User:King4057 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is on the net, it is pretty much known to be available worldwide, but the fact that 'all courses in the graduate as well as undergrad programs are on the net is worth a separate mention, IMO. Hmm how about:
 * "The university's courses are predominantly taught online; the entire bachelor's and master's degree programs can be completed via the Internet., of the 50,000 total students, approximately 30,000 (including campus-based and global students) took 100 percent of their courses online. Some students take a fully campus-based program, others take a combination of online and campus-based courses."
 * Does that do the job? It brings in the specific figures, which I think is valuable, and puts the topic idea at the start, followed by supporting facts.DES (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * DES, I mostly agree with the wording you propose, although I do not think that the section should begin with: "The university's courses are predominantly taught online". As mentioned earlier, this statement isn't supported by the citation used there: the Atlanta Inquirer article (the
 * The rest of the wording you propose looks good to me and I would be happy to see this edit made, if the first clause could be amended as suggested. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should replace the word "global" with "online" or "Internet". Most schools use the term "global" when referring to exchange students, or study abroad programs, not online students. In fact, I don't think it is necessary to include "(including campus-based and global students)" phrase at all, it just restates what is already stated in the first part of the sentence. 72.196.199.168 (talk)
 * Thanks to King4057 for his edit to the "Online" section wording, this now looks fine to me and my edit request is now completed. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the edit done by King4057. The original sentence read,"More than half of students take all their courses online." The edit was done to read,"More than half of students take their courses online." The removal of the word "all" changes the meaning of the sentence. The following line talks about how 30,000 of the 50,000 thousand students take all their courses online. This line supports the inclusion of the word all in the first sentence.

I agree that the ref used in the part that talks about most courses taught online being questionable. The only way to really confirm this would be to get a university catalog and count that amount of courses that are taught online against the amount of classroom courses. 72.196.199.168 (talk)

online school?
On the title bar/header of the Strayer homepage http://www.strayer.edu/ they refer to themselves as an "accredited online school - online college degree" However the introduction suggests that they are a primarily campus based school. Elsewhere in the the wikipedia article it states that 3 in 5 students take their courses exclusively online. Here is the introduction as it is currently written.

Strayer University is a United States-based private, for-profit higher education institution. The university enrolls about 46,000 students at 100 campuses located in 24 U.S. states, and through its online learning programs.

I propose that the introduction be changed to this:

Strayer University is a United States-based private, for-profit higher education institution. The university enrolls about 46,000 students through its online learning programs, and at 100 campuses located in 24 U.S. states.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.25.68 (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious edit
The edits done on 12 August 2014 look to be the work of a paid editor. He seems to be attempting to discredit or remove sections that were critical of the university. Is this a conflict of interest?

The section that talks about taking 3 classes and get 1 free seems to be advertising.

The part that refers to slow enrollment growth is factually incorrect. Enrollment isn't growing slowly, its falling.

Why did he remove all the pictures? Why is everything hyperlinked?

At least one of the references used was written by university executives.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.21.7 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Strayer University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822211307/http://www.strayer.edu/buzz/success-project/strayer-university-welcomes-steve-harvey-and-the-success-project/ to http://www.strayer.edu/buzz/success-project/strayer-university-welcomes-steve-harvey-and-the-success-project/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Marketing
The is a lot of content talking about how the University has partnerships and discounted tuition with several different companies. Looking at the university of phoenix page, they have a marketing section of the article. Would it be appropriate to create a similar section here?


 * It seems to me that adding a marketing section would only make this page more promotional. Honestly, I don't know why the University of Phoenix has one.IdlePlayground (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Seems this section was added despite advisement that it is promotional. This section does not help to make the page any clearer. IdlePlayground (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Following up for other editors, it was agreed on user talk pages that a Partnership section would help the flow of the page. IdlePlayground (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)