Talk:University Canada West/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Ucw logo.gif
Image:Ucw logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article problems
I think the article is full of POV and factual problems, such as the C- average issue. Ardenn 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the rest of the article's factuality, but the C- average "citation" is here: http://www.universitycanadawest.ca/aboutucw/ The list of their 6 majors are here http://www.universitycanadawest.ca/academics/degreesug.html where you can also see that they are distinctly vocational trainig-type programs, not academic ones. If those are the only "POV and factual problems" you have with the article, you must admit you were exaggerating when you said it was "full" of them. Just being honest. Veritasophia 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll admit it was a bit exaggirated, but C- sounds bad, and there are international differences on what that may mean. I'll try to rephrase it. Ardenn  22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A 65% is a C- in Canada. I actually went with the letter grade as opposed to the percentage, becasue a 65% in the states is a D. But to be honest, the fact that a C- GPA is all that is required to attend a university does not speak very highly of its academic standards. This is descriptive information about the university that people may be interested to know. It is the factual way of saying "it is not very competitive". Make sense? Veritasophia 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Wikipedia is a international, and the University itself uses 65%, so that's what should be in the article. If Americans inteript it to be a D, so be it. That's factual, C- is not. Ardenn  22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, they do use letter grades, so C- would be factual, but I am okay with saying 65%. The way you wrote it, "admissions average of 65%" however, makes it sound like they admit 65% of applicants, which is not true. If you want, you can think of a way to say it, but that way is misleading. "admissions requirement of 65%" might work? Something to make it clear we are talking about grades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasophia (talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 May 2006

This article is clearly written by the University Canada West. I am making changes to point out that there have been criticisms in the past, and that it is a for profit university with a grossly expensive tuition in relation to Canada's public universities. I have also noted they do not conduct research, and I have referenced that. This school is a scam, and wikipedia users should be warned against enrolling in it, after being deceived that it is a legitimate institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why you feel the school is a "scam"? I am a graduate from the University and don't understand your point of view. Yes the school is more expensive, but if you can afford it and want to finish your degree faster, why wouldn't you choose this option? I am not pointing fingers or calling names I am simply asking why you feel it is a scam? Private universities are abundant all over the world, Canada is simply behind the times. Harvard and Yale are both private universities, are these schools a scam as well because they charge more than their public counterparts? --RaPatterson (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because... I want to warn students not to attend this clown college. If you are a student with poor high school grades and need to study online why not pick Athabsca or TRU, not this for profit office building college that will make employers laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to see that you have no evidence to back up your claims, and that it is purely your opinion. My profs were the same as when I was attending another post secondary institution, so I find your clown college analogy entertaining. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but baseless name calling is uncalled for. Have a great day.--RaPatterson (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a for profit university, and the poster right below my post deleted the criticisms section it leads me to believe that you are an employee of this school, so your neutrality is not legitimate. This school has its criticisms, and also there seems to be apologies written in the article.... very sketcy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.139 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are an alumni of this school I feel very, very sorry for you. How could you spend 40 thousand on a degree not even on par to Athabasca, which would have cost you half that, and made you look more legitimate to employers. Also I checked up on the legitimacy of for profit education in Canada; and guess what if you wanted to you could never attend law school or any masters programs with a degree from there because public universities dont recognize it. Basically this school is an incognito everest college. - What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything from the article or the discussion. I have not added anything to the article itself, I have simply stated my own opinion on my experience at the school in the discussion. And as an alumni I do not see a problem with that. --RaPatterson (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way RAApatterson schools like Harvard and Yale which you mentioned in a post below are private, yes, but ARE NOT FOR PROFIT. Comparing a sister school of everest TTTT college to Harvard makes your argument insane, and anyone reading this will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 July 2009

ta-da
I reworded the whole deal a bit. I fail to see hhow *this* current version could possibly be POV. Where there any other issues? Seb az86556 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that "unaccredited" is missing again is troublesome. This is not a diploma mill listing service. Hairhorn (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'm assuming anyone who's considering enrollment at a university (or whatever you want to call it) is literate enough to get this out of the prose, without having to rely on the keyword "unaccredited"... but ok, since we're in the age of illiteracy, let's try again. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Better? Seb az86556 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright I think we've got a pretty neutral tone but all the information, I'm going to see if we can keep it that way. Ingoman (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ingroman - Its clear you work at this diploma mill. Lets face it, this school is preying on teh weak. They adverstise very heavily, and unsuspecting young people may thinik this is a legit school. It is not..... imagine spending over 100,000$ and working for 3 years and not being able to get into graduate schools after graduating from this office building career college. Its unique in that you cannot transfer credits out, it is fro profit, and the parent company has a terrible history of scamming the unemployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My nickname is Ingoman, it's not very difficult to spell. My issue is mainly twofold: 1) you are slandering acquaintances of mine and distorting the truth, and 2) you obviously have an agenda.  Wikipedia is not an arena in which to pursue your agenda, and attacking me is not going to help you.  I have tried to work with you to resolve this, something you have no interest in, and you have taken the 'my way or the highway' approach.  I am beginning to suspect you of nefarious motives. Ingoman (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL you do work there - what a joke. No agenda, I just want the weak you people prey on to be informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

copy and paste any reference that states other Canadian universities take credits from this diploma mill, and I will stop deleting your contribs on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The programs are provincially approved for credit transfer, and you made the claim that you cannot transfer credits, you are asking me to prove a negative. Show me an article that says you can't. Ingoman (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On the bc trasnfer credit guide none of the real universities list you as a school you can transfer credits from. Why would a university like UBC allow this diploma mill credit? The website for UCAN even says they give credit for life experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can complain and degrade the school all you like, but you are posting deliberately misleading information in the article. I don't know why you are, but you are. Ingoman (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please copy and paste a single source that says you can transfer credits out to other universities. AS soon as that is done the edit war will stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof
As I am tired of seeing ridiculous edit-summaries and a bizarre history of changes, at this point it is the requirement to provide PROOF from reliable sources outside of the "university" that other post-secondary institution do, in fact, transfer credits from this school. Failure to do so will ensure that the information is immediately removed. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of original research and NPOV problems
From what I've been able to make out, as I discussed above, any mention of "accreditation" in the article is original research and should be removed.

Any mention of whether or not credits can be transferred needs to be sourced, otherwise the information should be removed per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. I don't see any such sources currently in the article. Am I missing something? Did used to have such sources and they were removed?

Likewise, the entire "Lack of Research" section appears to be original research.

The "Criticism" section, based only on a single reference at this point, needs to be trimmed down per WP:UNDUE. It needs to be rewritten as well to fit this article. Basically, it should just summarize the single reference with the appropriate context so that it fits in the article.

The lede section should summarize the entire article per WP:LEDE. Until we can come to an agreement on the article as a whole, I don't think it's worth our time to change it other than remove any disputed information.

I'm unable to find a source for the school motto, but the Latin word is "tentanda" not "tenttanda".

I don't understand what the dispute is over the information in the "Purchase by the Eminata Group" section. However, if the information cannot be verified with a reliable source, then it's probably not worth mentioning. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Diploma Mill?

There needs to be something that states this university is unique in Canada in that all the other universities do not recognize it. The company runs a similar diploma mill called everest college. This school is in a office building, and the only reason why it exists in British Columbia is because that is the only province that is liberal with the word "university" - I would hate for students from Asia (who this school advertised heavily too) to pay the big bucks and study for a year and only after paying find out the school is a scam. Thats why when future students ponder this school, and look it up on wiki, wiki should mention something that the school borders on a scam, and is seemingly a diploma mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any sources? If not, then the information is probably not suitable for this article per WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everest College is not owned by the Eminata Group, nor has UCW ever been owned by Corinthian Colleges, there is no connection between these schools at all. Ingoman (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Purchase by the Eminata Group
I've removed this section because the only source is a press-release. If there are no secondary sources available, then I don't think it's worth mentioning. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oversight vs Accreditation
I've restored Ingoman's rewrite of the Accreditation section. It avoids the WP:SYN and WP:NPOV problems caused by not having any references specifically about accreditation other than that by UCW itself. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

school status
University Canada West appears to not be accredited under the uniform association of Canadian universities (AUCC) and it is for profit, which is unique. Also British Columbia is the only province that allows the term "university" to be labeled to non research, for profit institutions. The "university" is housed in an office building, and costs significantly more than other schools. It smells like a ITT tech or Everst college type school to me. This school seems like a scam. Wiki users need to know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "This school seems like a scam." We don't write articles based upon editors' opinions.  If this cannot be referenced, it will be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Next steps
The article will become unprotected shortly now. Hopefully we can work together without edit-warring. Otherwise blocks and page protection will be longer next time.

If we can all follow WP:DR, with an eye to WP:BRD and WP:ROWN, then we should be able to make some good progress. The inline tags (fact, syn, or, fv, dubious, and rs might be helpful with this. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is once again protected from editing. Please discuss the problems and provide reliable sources to support any changes.
 * It may be helpful to reference the tagged version of 35.11.156.74's last edits that I made here. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Find sources if you want to change the article
I hope that's plain enough. See WP:V for the details. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

" approved by the Degree Quality Assessment Board."
... This is a rather empty and possibly misleading claim; this board does little more than permit an institution to use the word "University". Hairhorn (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially when sourced by UCW's website. I think we need to include the fact of their status with DQAB in the article and in the lede section.  However, we need to present the information neutrally.
 * Likewise, I think it would be helpful to include information in the article about UCW not being member of Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and why that is important. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the reference that states UCAN participates in the BC transfer system only states you can transfer in, but not out (look deeper into whole refeence). Basically another piece of evidence pointing to this school as a scam.

Im from Canada, and this school is the only for profit "university" in the country. It has no campus (other than an office building) and conducts zero research. You cant apply to, for example a law school in Canada with a degree from this school because LSAC wont recognize because it is not in teh AUCC. The degree quality assessment board is a joke. As of now, the wiki page is an advertismsent for the school. This school will prey on the weak, and only after they gave graduated will they realize they wasted a considerable amount of money. Please research more, the wiki page needs to say something about other universities not recognizing this diploma mill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * UCW is hardly unique, there are several 'for profit' Universities in Canada. All degree granting rights are issued by the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development, via recommendations from the Degree Quality Assessment Board or through similar agencies and associations such as the AUCC.  Neither has the right to determine accreditation, only the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development does, though he usually follows their recommendations.  The fellow attacking the school has implied that AUCC membership is required to transfer credits from one school to the next, this is not only not the case but incorrect even between AUCC members, who do not automatically have articulation agreements with each other for all or even any programs, and a case-by-case basis for transferral of credits is no different than from UCW.  As for the DQAB being a 'joke', everyone instituting a new degree in British Columbia makes an application to them, from UBC and SFU all the way down to lowly UCW. Ingoman (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a handful of for-profit institutions in Canada calling themselves "universities", but they are generally well outside of the usual definition of university, in that they have no grad programs and do no research. ("Lansbridge University" doesn't even have a campus, UCW only has an office building.) None of the main Canadian universities are for-profit. The public university/private university distinction is not at all like that in the United States. Hairhorn (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is precisely why institutions like UBC or Toronto do not accept credits from these mills. Their education standards are light years away. The wiki page should state this so un informed students dont accidentally enroll there. Basically the school is a career college that is alowed to use the word "university." For example, grad, medical, business, and law schools do not recognize degrees from this school. The school is thus a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I've added "unaccredited" to the lead of this article more times than I care to count... Hairhorn (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And without proper sourcing, it doesn't belong in the lede per WP:LEDE. Without better sources, it probably doesn't belong anywhere in the article per WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh well, the current lead doens't pass WP:RS... 16:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be called unacredited because there are no sources that say it accredited . Again, the AUCC does not recognize it. When foreighn schools look at transcripts from Canada they ask if it is AUCC recognized, not Degree Quality Assesment board recognized.


 * Also, the BC transfer guide says you cannot transfer credits out of this mill. That needs to be changed on this site. Geee I hope a student does not read this locked wiki page and think this school is legit. It is such a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "It should be called unacredited" Sorry, no. Sources must be provided for the information we add. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what's a more neutral and descriptive word we can use to replace "approved"? --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Researching further, "approved" isn't too far from the mark. "The The Degree Quality Assessment Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development on applications for use of the word “university” submitted by private and out-of-province public post-secondary institutions."   Still, I think we should avoid making it sound like its anything more than that.  Additionally, the lack of AUCC membership is a more important issue. I wish we had more refs on AUCC and UCW so it would be easier to work through the WP:SYN and WP:NPOV issues. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect on all counts, the AUCC is an association of universities, not a board of accreditation. From the AUCC's website: The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is the voice of Canada's universities. We represent 94 Canadian public and private not-for-profit universities and university-degree level colleges.  Since 1911, we have provided strong and effective representation for our members, in Canada and abroad. Our mandate is to facilitate the development of public policy on higher education and to encourage cooperation among universities and governments, industry, communities, and institutions in other countries.  We provide services to member universities in three main areas: public policy and advocacy, communications, research and information-sharing, scholarships and international programs.  Not all public universities are members of the AUCC and many private universities are.  UCW has a small graduate school program as well.  All these facts are publicly available information, so I can only determine a deliberate agenda in attacking the school. Ingoman (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Incorrect on all counts" I don't understand.  What is incorrect?
 * As I previously mentioned, I think AUCC membership, or the lack of it, is important per Educational_accreditation. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't referring specifically to you, but rather the broad claim that AUCC membership signifies anything. UCW programs have been approved by the provincial government, and their degrees have been determined to meet all quality requirements by all regulatory agencies and oversight boards and committees, the same oversight that UBC is subject to.  The AUCC is an advocacy association and has nothing to do with degree granting or credit transfer or any of the other issues discussed above.  If you don't believe me go to their website : http://www.aucc.ca/. Ingoman (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a source stating otherwise in Educational_accreditation. It's not the best source by any means, but I don't see anything at aucc.ca that is contradictory. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the article cited, and while it poses a nuanced interpretation of accreditation, IE that the AUCC's self-regulation equates to a 'de-facto' accreditation system, this ignores the fact that there are unofficial and official tiers in regards to 'diploma value', especially in British Columbia. For instance, there are the 4 Universities that in British Columbia are considered "traditional" universities, which in British Columbia are on the highest "tier", these are UBC, SFU, UVic and UNBC.  In the middle tier are schools that are not honored thus as "traditional" in law, but are AUCC members, such as Kwantlen College (after 2008), University of the Fraser Valley, etc.  UCW is in this tier as far as the provincial government is concerned, or else they would be "University College Canada West" (Kwantlen was only upgraded from University College to University last year).  The issues barring UCW from AUCC membership have to do with governance, not degree quality or 'accreditation', and the criticisms listed at the bottom of the article are the primary issue.  The biggest issue of all however is the simple fact that UCW passed the requisite requirements to be a University without assistance from AUCC, which is somewhat unheard of.  There are many University Colleges and Colleges that are private and for-profit, but UCW is the first to achieve University status.  AUCC membership is considered a requirement for some nursing programs and a few universities will only accept credits from AUCC institutions, but for a long time there was no such thing as a non-AUCC university, so we shall see how things develop as UCW grows.  Ingoman (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify further, it is impossible for UCW for instance to become a member of AUCC regardless of their academic credentials, as AUCC membership requires an institution to be run on a not-for-profit basis. No matter how good UCW is as a university it cannot be an AUCC member.  AUCC membership as a yardstick for degree accreditation has several such flaws. Ingoman (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. AUCC shouldn't be mentioned then. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue, to distill it down to the root, is that many in the academic community refuse to believe that a for-profit university that is corporately-governed could possibly have the same quality of degrees as a not-for-profit university that has more traditional governance. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but British Columbia's regulatory oversight is comprehensive, to the extent that UCW is something of an abberation as very few for-profit institutions (and none in BC until UCW) have ever achieved this level of degree granting.  Obviously, many of the aforementioned academics do not appreciate the challenge to the existing order. Ingoman (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Ingroman works for this diploma mill

Also note no universities in Canada accept credits from the school. The AUCC distinguishes this.

Looks like this will be interesting where this will go, I for one will make sure this page does not turn into an ad for this clown college. Students need to know how sketchy this "school" is.

Also note that no university in Canada will accept students into their respective graduate programs from this diploma mill. Ingroman clearly has an agenda.

Also the page needs a section stating it conducts no research. The lack of AUCC accredit should also be mentioned, with an emphasis on teh fact you cant transfer credits out or apply to graduate school from this school. - Basically the page should warn students that this diploma mill carries none of the partnership all other schools in canada do. This is not on a "case by case" (as UCW employee has stated) basis. The AUCC is the body that controls this, and it does not allow diploma mills in "on a case by case basis" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.175 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 August 2009
 * Actually no, the dean of every university has the right to determine which degrees, courses and programs can transfer credits from one program to the next or to qualify for graduate school, not the AUCC. Kwantlen University is a member of the AUCC, and it was a University College only last year, and I recall many similar statements about Kwantlen and University Colleges about being BS and not worth the paper they're written on, though I suppose now that Kwantlen finally passed the DQAB certification for University status now their degrees are plated in gold.  Give me a break.  Ingoman (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Above was written by an employee of UCW. BTW post a copy of reference here that says ONE university in Canada will take credits from this clown college. Also post one refrence that a university in Canada will recognize it as a degree approved fro grad school. Post one refrence and Ill never come here and change anything again. One reference... thats it. One reference. The company you work for is a scam. This school is scam. It gives out Bachelors degrees but they are useless. They are not recognized, and they cost double. What person would go here? Athabasca for example has the same entrance requirements, yet is a member of all appropriate associations and costs much less. Your school is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.175 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well here is a list of every school that University of Waterloo considers a university in Canada, and links to other international lists, though even if you're transferring from an institution not even on the list you could probably work something out with the dean, UCW is on the list. U of Waterloo list.  U of Waterloo accepts transfer of credits from Colleges and even Bible Colleges and is a AUCC member.  Ingoman (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * U of Winnipeg also lists UCW on it's listing of graduate schools. U of Winnipeg.  Ingoman (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's from a 20 minute google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoman (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 August 2009

HA. This prooves the schools dont accept credits from this clown college. The waterloo site lists all colleges and universities in canada, and even posts asterixes beside ones who can transfer credits out of, and colleges with university credits. UCW is not on teh list. No body wants credits from your clown college. The lack of AUCC credit will thus appear on this wiki, and it will also spell out the implications for not being a member; which basically is that credits from this school are not transferable like all other AUCC school credits. Also the LSAC site does not list your dimploma mill as a school apporved fro entry into law school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.210.59 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The asterisks at the Waterloo site indicate AUCC membership, and has absolutely nothing to do with transfer credits. A lack of understanding of what it means to be a AUCC member and why UCW cannot be one will never justify anything like what is being proposed by this ip.  --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he understands quite well what being an AUCC member university entails, nor is he particularily interested in debating the facts. Ingoman (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If he continues to disrupt this talk page, or starts disrupting the article again once it's unprotected, he'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a part of BC Transfer System
http://www.bccat.bc.ca/transfer/index.cfm

Scam, scam, scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.210.59 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to that page just now, and it literally lists Canada West there. http://www.bccat.bc.ca/transfer/ucan.cfm You know, I really appreciate accurate and insightful criticism, especially on an issue that needs weighed considerations like Canada West, but your post has been a tad too passionate. Normally, people look at all the facts, then state their conclusions on the facts, but you seem to start from the conclusion and makes effort to find proof to support it. You clearly have emotional investment as opposed to drawing conclusions from the fact. Look, this is an issue that needs deliberations. It's not about whether CanWest is good or bad, but it's about getting the details accurate, so the readers will benefit from it. It's not about whether this institution is absolutely fine or absolutely a scam, but about where EXACTLY it is in the scam-fine continuum. User from 35.11.210.59, you're too interested in one extreme, and because of that, you're just as helpful as a supposed CanWest employee in this issue. Also, note that there is a big difference between a scam and crap. It's pretty reasonable to say that Canada West is crap, but a scam is a different matter. There is also a difference between a diploma mill and a crappy school. CanWest seems to be a crappy school (due to age, size, etc,) but since it has classes to attend, it's not technically a diploma mill. Just stop acting like that. Talk and post what you have to say, but don't act like that; typing "scam, scam, scam." (Worse yet, when your own source contradicts your point.) Just type and post well; we all want to hear what you have to say anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudes-seriously (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion so far
I really have to ask this to the critics. I'm really asking a question, not making an accusation. Here is a fact: In real life, CDI, Kingston College, and Reeves College are openly accused of fraud, and there are even ongoing lawsuits and indictment against them, in addition to real testimonials from students describing horror stories, and yet their Wikipedia pages have no comment regarding them being scams; it's a few paragraphs at best. UCW has no lawsuits, accusations, or horror stories from graduates, yet this page has a very extensive accusation of it being a "scam." That's very striking, actually. My question would be: why didn't you criticize CDI, Kingston, and Reeves colleges? One of you said that you were interested in protecting prospective students, so why did you leave CDI, Kingston, and Reeves alone?

Also, those of you posting from 35.11.156.74, 35.11.156.175, 35.11.210.59, 99.225.160.205, and others, I'm just wondering; it's just that, can I please ask about who you are? Please understand that I'm just wondering and sincerely wishing to hear your view point. By "who you are," I mean, for example, did you graduate from UCW? Did you work at UCW? Which schools did you go to? What are your occupations?

Anyway those two questions are my main concerns. If you could address them, I would appreciate it.

These points are not important, but I do think about them: I mean, why did you start with "scam," instead of starting with "the school doesn't work" initially and discussing "scam" issue afterward? For example, Ingoman is accused of working there, despite that a "James Dahl" in Vancouver is not working in UCW; what is very interesting is that the critic miss an obvious fact that RaPatterson can be very easily searched in the net and reveals very obviously info that he does work in UCW, but the critics did not mention this. Why would a critic miss an important fact like that? Also, why did the posting here says that Ingoman to be "clearly working there," and not emphasizing it on RaPatterson? Let's say that there is a new public school that offers professional degrees, (defined in academics as degrees requiring undergraduate credits, yet does not transfer to graduate degrees.) Would that public school then automatically be illegal and fraudulent? If so, why would that be? This would be the logic: if an institution only accepts credits, then the institution is engaging in illegal fraudulent operation. An ice cream truck is a crummy operation; if I want quality ice cream, I'd go to a Gelato parlor. Is an ice cream truck a scam? Many cafes in downtown Vancouver are crummy; if I want quality dining, I'd go to bigger restaurants in the surrounding areas. Are those cafes scams? Grouse is a really inferior ski run in comparison to Whistler. Is Grouse a scam?
 * One thing I'm interested in is the thoughts of "scam" itself. I understand very well that this fits (or can fit) the definition "crappy" school, but shouldn't a scam actually involve a scheme of taking money and running away with it? Isn't there a difference between a crappy school and a scam?
 * There are some very interesting fact checks from this debate.
 * I'm interested in what you meant by "clearly working there." My concern about this point is that there is no correlation between being a UCW employee and being biased in defending UCW, because of this: an employee can actually speaks very negatively about his workplace, while a non-employee can actually be very biased in supporting an organization. In fact, there is an actual forum posting in the internet of a former UCW employee speaking badly about it. How did the critic in this page miss that page? And, why did the critic in this page starts with "clearly working there," and did not start with "clearly biased in supporting UCW?"
 * Also, there is a mention of UCW being located in an office building in Vancouver, yet it misses to mention that there is a location in Victoria which is not an office building, but instead is a campus, even if crummy. Was the poster not aware that there is a location in Victoria that isn't an office building? Why wasn't that mentioned? Why would a critic miss an important fact like that?
 * For this point, I'm most confused with. Even if UCW cannot send transfer credits, why would that make it automatically a scam? Isn't it possible that an institution only accepts credits yet does not engage in illegal fraudulent operation? Why isn't that possible?
 * Also, why would a mediocre institution be automatically termed diploma mill? There is a real definition of a diploma mill, which is an institution that offers unauthorized degrees without class attendance. UCW obviously has classes. Why did you call it a diploma mill?
 * There are just so many interesting things in this discussion: CDI that has real lawsuits is not criticized, yet UCW who doesn't have any is given lengthy criticism in this page. The criticism starts with "scam" instead of "mediocre" or "doesn't work." I can track the real-life identity of RaPatterson and Ingoman, yet 35.11.156.74, 35.11.156.175, 35.11.210.59, 99.225.160.205 uses IP addresses and not mentioning their real identity, or even non-personal identity. Why? Why didn't those people mention who they are? (I'm also concerned that if they read this, will they post an imaginary identity.) Also, the critics seem to start with a scenario instead of synthesizing from facts.
 * Here are some possibilities I can think of:
 * 1) The critics are people with some form of personality disorders; they hold certain fantasy of playing the role of prosecutors, or they simply engage in accusations of everything being a scam. Given the anonymity of the internet, they utilize Wikipedia to feel better about their fantasy.
 * 2) The critics are very young people or frivolous people who are not serious about their criticism and possibly embarrassed with their own postings afterward.
 * 3) The critics are scammers, and that's how their first impression of everything is a scam, and they could not conceive the idea of something being honest-but-mediocre. Then, they possibly channel their guilt of scamming by readily accusing others of scamming.
 * 4) Since the critics attack UCW and not others, the critics are actually employees of other private schools in BC, (who possibly engage in scams.) Hence, they don't attack the other schools. This make even more sense that they critics do not thoroughly track UCW. This also makes sense, since they don't give out their real identities.
 * 5) A benevolent possibility is that the critics are Vancouver residents who are wary of private schools and readily accuse the schools of frauds, instead of mediocrity. However, this does not fit the fact that they left CDI, Kingston, and Reeves alone.
 * 6) The critics are just simply irrational people.
 * 7) Any combination of the above.

If UCW engages in illegal and intentional fraud, I'd like to know about that. However, the way the accusations are drawn here (so irrational, holes in the research, missing too many obvious and important info, etc,) will only weaken any possible proof, by proving that the critics can't be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudes-seriously (talk • contribs) 06:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is approved by the Degree Quality Assessment Board
See discussion above. If you think this is incorrect, please explain. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not an accreditation body, as has been pointed out. The only accreditation I see is from a non-university body, and applies only to "University Canada West Academies", which does not include any university degree programs, only diploma programs for training in health, business and IT. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See discussion above. As far as anyone has shown, to label it "unaccredited" is original research, if not simply inaccurate. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the link above, I started that thread. There is no evidence that any degree program here is accredited, and there is evidence against it. Calling this school what is it hardly counts as "original research". Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. You never responded to any of the discussion there.  Will you now?
 * There is no national university accreditation system in Canada, correct? That means any unqualified statements like "(UCW) is a private unaccredited for-profit educational institution" are inaccurate, correct?  --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * UCW is not accredited by any of the bodies accrediting universities in Canada. It's moot whether there is one body or a dozen. Hairhorn (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, neither are any other universities in Canada. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No universities are accredited? Eh? University programs are accredited, UCW has no university level programs with accreditation. Hairhorn (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There you go. That qualification has fewer problems. As I understand it, though, they don't offer any programs that could be accredited. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They quite clearly claim to offer degree programs, none are accredited. Hairhorn (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If none could be accredited, if the UCW doesn't have programs in areas that are accredited in Canada, then it's irrelevant if not misleading. It would violate WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV to add such a statement. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Its relevant because it would be misleading not to have it. This is because it is called a "university" and yet it it is not accredited (check the original reference I posted). This should be very important for people looking for info on the school. In Canada a university is a prestigious thing, this thing is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 August 2010
 * Thanks for participating in this discussion.
 * The reference does not say it is unaccredited. Do you understand the discussions above on accreditation in Canada? --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference is the body that accredits universitys In Canada, UCW is not listed; therefore. ..
 * "The reference is the body that accredits universitys In Canada" No, it is not. Again, do you understand the accreditation system in Canada? --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. Find me something that is if you think it isnt. Or just google "university accreditation in Canada" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden of evidence is on you to prove it. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be best to get some other editors involved at this point via a WP:DR option? I'm thinking and RfC given that this has been discussed for over a year now. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

NOT a member of AUCC therefore grad schools and other universities do not recognize this "university". It engages in no research and is not subsidized. UCAN chose BC to put this school here because BC allows private career colleges to be called "university". Essentially the school is in a small office in the slums of Victoria. It should not mislead poor immigrants from South Asia who this school targets to come here an spend 100k on a school that is not accredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we've made it clear that it is not a AUCC member. This is not the same as not being accredited, as discussed in detail above. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be misleading to leave out the term "unaccredited" because people may think it is because it is called a "university" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just the opposite. It's misleading and factually incorrect to say it's unaccredited given the PCTIA accreditation. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no accreditation in Canada. Instead the province of BC, by way of the Degree Quality Assessment Board has given them permission to use the word "University" and approved each degree. As well, most (if not all) of the former University Colleges, while members of the AUCC, also do not do any research. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Something needs to be said
Its only a university by name, and that name may mislead folks to think this is a legit university. It is not legit for a handful of reasons, but most importantly, when you apply for jobs, lets say with the Canadian government, you will not be hired or promoted because the school is not recognized. Another reason, law schools and medical schools in Canada do not recognize a degree from thus "University." Basically, I am just saying the fact that the school has the name university in it is very misleading. It is not like University of Phoenix or anything like that, it is unaccredited. You can go to medical school, or get promoted in the army from a degree from University of Phoenix, but not here. Something needs to be said about this. The school preys on the weak and will take them for alot of money and time with nothing to show at the end. I am not a student or a past student at this school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 August 2010
 * If you cannot find sources, then it does not belong per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Source #1 - NOT a member of the AUCC or whatever its called —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That fact is included in the article. It doesn't verify anything that you've stated above. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't really say it is unaccrediteed because there is no accreditation in Canada. We'd have to say that for every University, even places like U of T or McGill. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily true ... Athabasca University is apparently US-accredited ... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no government-approved accreditation system for all of Canada. Schools can always seek accreditation from organizations that provide it. Saying it is unaccredited is false and misleading. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Ronz - reword it to say this, but make sure to point out that other Canadian Universities and international accreditation bodies do not recognize this school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What sources can we find and what do they verify? I doubt if we're going find documentation on which universities and accreditation bodies that don't recognize UCW. More than likely we'll only find sources for those that do. We'll also have to be careful to avoid original research in any comparisons or expectations we make. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Authorization
I'm disputing the factual accuracy of this section because of "he BC Education Quality Assurance is Canada's first and only provincial brand of quality for post secondary education, it is a government's brand of quality education for public and private post secondary institutions." --Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The information is verified and the source is by definition reliable for such information. I noted that it might not be clear. As I mentioned twice in edit summaries, the information is a quote that should be rewritten.
 * So, could you clarify what exactly are you disputing and why? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear to me before the summaries that this was a quote, and if a user didn't read the summary I'd guess they would think the same thing. So put it in quotation marks. I don't recall the exact template for that after all, or re-phrase it as otherwise it's a copyright violation. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I've changed the tags to something appropriate, and placed quotation marks around the quote. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The information has been blanked. Looks like simple edit-warring to me. Anyone have any rationale for it's removal? --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to restore it and place the BC Education Quality Assurance infor first if there are no further objections, in light of the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

AACU
What justifies the removal of "UCAN is a member of Association of American Colleges and Universities. "? --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The AACU does not look into schools to verify their credibility. Its simply just a business organizion where you can sign up and pay to get some benefits. It may mislead people to think US schools recognize this school.


 * Btw, if you wonder why I edit these pages and dont attack pages like devry or everst college, its because this school is masquerading as a University in Canada; which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have any sources to verify any of this? How about a source that simply describes AACU? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I concur with its membership, claiming it to be a de facto accreditation body is false, and misleading. The constitution is clear ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's AUCC, not AACU. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to cut down on the alphabet soup so everyone can participate in the discussion. Thanks. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to AACU and AUCC, AACU is Association of American Colleges and Universities, as mentioned in the first sentence of this section. AUCC is The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the organization Bwilkins was referring to above. Maybe we need a separate discussion on AUCC, since the comment above and the edit summaries to related edits are getting complicated. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it, since no sources have been offered. We can tag it to indicate the ongoing dispute, though it's unclear why it's being disputed. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Advertising? (Recent edit-warring)
Please explain the claim of "advertising" brought up in the latest round of edit-warring. Yes, the article is poorly sourced, and relies too heavily upon UCW's own publications. Still, the article is small and no one is claiming that the information is not verifiable. I'm happy to help if someone wants to argue that there should be further editing to meet WP:NPOV or WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Throughout this entire talk section, I cannot help but see opinions and arguments with inadequate sourcing and context. I am new to being a Wikipedia member and editor, but it is easy for an educated person to identify solid research. Because there is so much controversy surrounding this small university's status and motives, I want to make it my personal goal to help get to the roots of these problems. It does not seem as though it should really be this difficult to provide accurate and neutral information regarding the existence and offerings (or lack thereof) of such a small university. I would like to begin by rigorously tackling the very apparent issues of legitimacy. I believe this would be a great beginning to my Wikipedia editing career.


 * Ronz, or anyone else able and serious, I would be happy to take advantage of the help and experience you offer because you have consistently been a voice of reason on these issues. I am able to dedicate my time mainly to research. If you could help with editing my work, I would be grateful. I will submit some of my efforts over the next few days, but it seems this page is semi-locked, so I suppose someone can inform me if I would actually have to make 10 edits on other pages first. Signed, questforneutrality Questforneutrality (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You will need to become autoconfirmed to edit this article - you certainly would not want to be considered an WP:SPA :-) You are always welcome to suggest changes on this talkpage first, in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS.  If it has not already been done, I'll drop a set of rules, policies and tips on your own talkpage - one of them might include "don't reply to 8 month old talkpage posts" :-)  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)