Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 3

Article overhaul
I've drastically updated the article per WP standards because it had serious issues and had not been touched (except for vandalism) for almost two months. I would appreciate User:Mysteryquest posting rebuttals here first instead of reverting. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have been proper and appreciated if you had made your case for your overhaul before you made it. You can make it now, however, I'm going to revert it since there is no way to even discuss what can no longer be seen.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be seen in the history. My edits are much more concise and well-documented (citations). Just talk here about what you don't like...you can post an older version on your sandbox if you want, but I'll just have to undo your reverts, and I'll have to report you if you break the three-revert rule. --Eustress (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not threaten to me, you should have discussed any revisions to the article before you made them. You cannot make unilateral changes to and article and then and simply declare them better than any other version.  Please see WP:CONSENSUS.  I will continue to revert your changes until I seem some detailed justification for them.  Report me if you wish to.  This article arrived at the state it was after a long arbitration.  If you have problems with it you can air them in the discussion page like very other editor has.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stop whining and start talking about what you have problems with. I think the article has been improved significantly; there were too many little changes to hammer them out one-by-one. You see the changes now, so let's just address the issues you have—inline with WP:Consensus. --Eustress (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You call me a whiner? You rewrite the article without seeking any consensus in talk, then scream when someone disagrees with your rewrite and reverts a section, demand they explain it in talk when you don't do that, threaten to report them while you are playing 3revert roulette yourself and then run and have the page protected like you're in 1st grade. Who is whining now?Mysteryquest (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to simmer down and stop the personal attacks. Mysteryquest, for the record, Eustress was not the editor who requested page protection.  Horologium  (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * K, sorry I accused him of that. I just don't like being threatened and called a whiner because I revert one section of a completely overhauled article.  So yeah, I got a little riled up and for that I apologize.  That said there are some improvements to the article, and also some issues, like putting Shaq's picture up and using a blog to support UofP's population, using a great deal of information from UofP's website which is hardly independent, maybe that balances the article somewhat, I'm not sure.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion. There are situations where self published material can be used in an article. I'm referring to UofP's website. A blog can rarly ever be used as a reference. Let's discuss the self published material (UofP's website). I looked at many of the uses of self published material in the article. Nothing really jumped out at me as unreasonable. I didn't look at all of the UofP links though. Can you please point out any that particularly have caused you concern? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Introduction still needs to be improved and expanded a bit per WP:Lead. --Eustress (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mysteryquest, it appears to me that the Eustress edits are improvements. Eustress is just following the wp:bold guideline. Consensus is required when the edits are controversal. If the edits are controversal in your opinion then I would be very encouraging, interested, and supportive in you making your opinions known. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with TallMagic. I read over the article, and I think it is really well-written. I owe Eustress my sincerest thanks for his hard work. GreenJoe 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there are some improvements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 May 2008

I have fully protected the page (under the wrong version) for a week to allow the editors to work this out.  Horologium  (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So instead of blocking or speaking with the one editor disrupting this article no one can edit it? Thanks.  Good job!  --ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to a RFPP, saw that there was a dispute, beyond the confines of Bold, Revert, Discuss, and protected the page to ensure that discussion *did* occur.  Horologium  (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's some ownership problems here. Tan   |   39  16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who requested page protection. I honestly didn't think blocking either Eustress or Mysteryquest would do us any good. I'd rather discussion occur, and they can't do that if they're blocked. GreenJoe 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why blocking anyone would be necessary or appropriate. There was a threat and a response to it, but after that the controversy section of the article and the image of the Shaq was reverted twice, nothing else occurred.  Now nothing will happen until the page protection is lifted.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The point to the page protection is to get the involved editors to discuss the matter and come to an agreement, not to simply postpone the edit war for a week. It's not difficult for an admin to step in and extend the page protection if there is no discussion; please use the time constructively and come to an agreement. Once there is a consensus on changes, I will have no problem unprotecting the page.  Horologium  (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Like the discussion that was occurring before you protected the article? Bad call, Horologium.  Those who edit this and similar articles know where to find admins when we need admin action.  --ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and one of them went to WP:RFPP to find an admin, and requested protection when an edit-war broke out on this page. That editor was not involved in the back-and-forth. Neither editor in the edit war appeared to be likely to back down (and one flat-out stated that he would continue reverting), so rather than block the two of them, I locked the page and encouraged them to arrive at a consensus first. You are welcome to criticize my protection, but I am unlikely to be persuaded by your argument.  Horologium  (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a mild aside - Eustress, you might want to think about using "show preview" more and not saving every few minutes... almost 50 tiny edits over the space of 3-4 hours really mucks up the page history. Just advice, take it or leave it :-) Tan   |   39  18:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well taken, Tan. Regarding the page protection, I'm very grateful that an admin was asked to step in because the fact that issues regarding the changes have still not been addressed here is evidence that "reverts" (a euphemism for vandalism, in this case) would have continued to occur. I feel we have a lot of good editors here now who can help ensure that the article progresses henceforth, but I again emphasize that no issues (other than very minor ones regarding the Shaq picture and the possible need for additional, third-party sources) have been presented. --Eustress (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm continually astounded by the depth of your apparent arrogance in calling reverts vandalism when you don't agree with them. You might consider choosing your words more carefully.  Please check the definition of vandalism and note that a content dispute is not vandalism.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In The Chronicle
Here is a relevant article that was posted in The Chronicle of Higher Education on May 5, 2008. http://chronicle.com/news/article/4436/u-of-phoenix-draws-big-names-to-advisory-panel-on-new-center-on-teaching-adults. I really think it should be considered for this article. Here is a copy/paste of the article.....

The University of Phoenix, which specializes in education for working adults, has nabbed some well-known names in higher education to advise it on a new research institute that it is establishing to study which teaching methods work best for nontraditional students.

Phoenix’s new National Research Center, as the institute is called, will be led by Jorge Klor de Alva, a past president of the university who now carries the title senior vice president for academic excellence.

The university has recruited as founding advisers for the research center David W. Breneman, a former dean of education at the University of Virginia (who has both praised and criticized the institution in books and articles); Carol B. Aslanian, a consultant on learning and a former official with the College Board; and Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

In addition to studying new adult-focused approaches to teaching and the use of educational technology, the university said in a news release, the center will focus on “issues of student achievement and retention, accountability, affordability, access, and inclusion.”

In a departure for an institution that has historically focused on hiring a practitioner faculty and providing “real-world education” to its students, the new center will also seek to enhance the university’s support of faculty and student research.

With 330,000 students, the university, owned by the Apollo Group Inc., is the largest private institution in North America. (BG_Jackson 5/7/2008)


 * I don't see this as being particularly noteworthy. OK, so they got some big names on a committee to research stuff, big deal. This is not an uncommon thing, IMO --Azmojo (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section Deletions
"The main points of criticism include:
 * The coursework is perceived by some as lacking meat and that the stripped-down schedule rushes students through the academic schedule too fast.


 * Strongly opposed. I already integrated this bullet more tactfully: "...perhaps fostering a "stripped-down" academic schedules that rushes students through their studies." "Lacking meat" is too colloquial and uncontextualized in this case. --Eustress (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. This seems like information that is supported by a reliable source and is notable. Perhaps the wording could be improved though? TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. This is information from a reliable and notable source.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. for the above reasons stated, plus I think the wording is carefully precise and accurate (perceived by some). --Azmojo (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That UoP's tuition cost is greater than most public schools and is seen by some as disproportionate to the educational value it gives to its students, as compared with community colleges and other public schools.


 * Strongly opposed. Not only is this bullet irrelevant since UoP is a private university (not a public one), UoP's tuition is close to average, as stated now under section Academics. It's source says the following: "Undergraduate tuition rates at University of Phoenix are generally equal to or less than most private postsecondary institutions. According to a report from the College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2005, total tuition and fees at four-year private colleges and universities average approximately $22,000 a year. (This figure is tuition only and does not include room and board.) University of Phoenix undergraduate tuition and fees are generally considered mid-range for private universities and average about $12,000 a year." --Eustress (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. This seems like information that is supported by a reliable source and is notable. This has been the most common knock that I've personally seen voiced against UoP. Not that personal experience means much but since it is supported by a reliable source, it seems to me that it should be included. TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. Notable and reliably sourced.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. Good sources. The reason for opposition is illogical. Yes, UOP tuition may be average compared to private schools, but the comparison to public schools is valid and worth noting and should not be ignored or excluded. --Azmojo (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That a degree from UoP is seen by employers as inferior, and that students graduate only to find that their degree doesn't get them the jobs they hoped it would. According to the Online University Consortium, a 2003 study of HR professionals indicated that "the majority of the HR professionals surveyed would select a job candidate with an online degree from a traditional school such as USC or University of Michigan over a job candidate with a degree from an organization such as the University of Phoenix."


 * Opposed. The first sentence, I believe, is an unfair extrapolation of the work cited. The only thing the article says about UoP's "inferiority" is "Some workers left or were planning to leave because their new degree didn't help them advance at Intel." The second sentence seems to be a moot point and an unfair comparison—USC and Michigan are some of the highest ranked universities in the nation. These are old, experienced, well-recognized universities with completely different education models, even though they too offer some online programs. You might compare UoP to Devry University or some of the others listed by OEDb (see section Academics), but this is an apple-to-oranges comparison. --Eustress (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. Perhaps change the first sentence from "employers" to "Intel"?TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. Again, this is a reliable, verifiable source for the information and should be included. We do not do original research here.  We cite sources for our information.  The fact that a degree from UofP, regardless of the reasons, was perceived as not helping a worker advance, is quite notable and should be included in the article when it comes from a reliable source.  Not including reliably sourced information because of personal disagreement or animus is not legitimate. If the text based on the source needs to be restructured somewhat then we can restructure it, but simply leaving it out is not NPOV.Mysteryquest (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. Good sources. There are additional sources which may or may not be able to be used due to the fact that I don't know how much longer they'll be available. I'm referring to the job postings which tell UOP grads not to apply. --Azmojo (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The UoP's perceived balance between value to students and profits to shareholders is a major element of criticism. Critics cite that the recent success UoP has seen on Wall Street has come directly at the expense of a declining quality of education to students.  They note that they believe people don't have a problem with a university making a profit as long as it is delivering a good value to its customers.


 * Opposed. I think this bullet is very weak in its case and is given ample coverage in the current statement, "The University has been criticized for various reasons. One is that a conflict of interest may exist when a for-profit company administers education." Moreover, UoPsucks.com is a blog at best and unreliable (see the site's disclaimer at the bottom of its page). --Eustress (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor.' The statement "The University has been criticized ... One is that a conflict ..." is a generic statement that can be applied to all for-profit colleges and is somewhat of a dodge here. The criticism that was removed in favor of that weak, generic statement was and is specific to UofP not all for-profits institutions. For-profit institutions have an inherent conflict of interest however some rise above it.  So by removing criticism specific to UofP's alleged failure to rise above that inherent conflict of interest in favor of a generic criticism potentially applicable to all for-profits is a needless dilution of criticism specific to UoP.  It's like removing a statement: "Jimmy pulled Julie's pigtails" in favor of "All little boys pull little girls' picktails".  This article is about "Jimmy" not "all little boys."  UoPSucks may be a blog, however, it is featured in the NYTimes article which bolsters and legitimatizes it.Mysteryquest (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor.' UOP is without a doubt the poster-child for for-profit education. As such, it receives almost all of the focus of the profit-in-education debate, and this is worth noting. UOPSucks.com is not a blog (although it has one), they are a consumer news website not unlike any other website that publishes its own materials. As a site dedicated to the subject, the material presented is reliable. The disclaimer pertains to user-provided content. The specific page cited is not a user-provided page. --Azmojo (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That UoP accepts enrollment from anyone, such as first-time college students whom UoP caters to, even if UoP is not suitable for them.  This is seen as favoring profits over education."


 * Opposed. This point is not entirely correct and full of wasel words. As now stated in the Academics section, all applicants to UoP must meet certain requirements, and specific programs further require more (e.g., GPA, previous work experience, immunizations, background checks, etc.) as supported by citations. The purported fact that UoP caters mainly to first-time college students is irrelevant, as all universities recruit the most for its undergraduate programs. I would dare to say the few universities if any have more graduate students than undergraduates. The statement "...even if UoP is not suitable for them" seems highly subjective and unmeasurable. Who's to tell you that Harvard is not for you—even if you have to go into debt to obtain your education. This point seems nonsensical. --Eustress (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor. This seems like information that is supported by a reliable source and is notable. TallMagic (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor I echo TallMagic's points and further point out that information that is reliable and notable should be included. If you disagree with a notable and reliable source, cite one that disagrees with it, do not oppose it with personal opinion and WP:OR.  The fact that an editor disagrees with a source is no reason not to include it in an article.   All universities do not recruit the "most" for their undergraduate programs, in some are are rather selective.  However, again, attacking a source based on your own disagreement with it is WP:OR.  The fact that you find the source to be subjective and unmeasurable is your personal opinion and should not preclude its inclusion.  Moreover, the citations supporting the Academics section come from UofP and are hardly independent and certainly cannot be a reason to not include information from a reliable source contradicting them. Mysteryquest (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In favor Partially. I agree with the above comments but would support the deletion of "even if UoP is not suitable for them." as this is an unsupported argument as far as I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmojo (talk


 * - original source needed

The above are some of the valid and well sourced criticisms of UofP which were removed in the "overhaul". I do not see any reason for the deletions. If the goal was to summarize the section, then they can be summarized not just ignored. Especially since much of the information in the article now is heavily supported by UofP self-published and potentially self-serving information and a blog (footnote 17). If the article is simply going to parrot University of Phoenix's information, why bother. Just send people to UofP's website. The deletion of mention of the $277 mil shareholder's lawsuit victory on the grounds that it was Apollo who was sued is not compelling to me. Apollo was sued because they conspired to hide information ABOUT University of Phoenix, thus it is relevant to the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I find myself in general agreement with Mysteryquest's concerns as expressed above. I suggest that all of the above be added back into the article. Although I'm open to arguments targeted at specific points not being added back in. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting some concerns. I have addressed each bullet and invite others to do likewise. More broadly speaking, I overhauled this entire section as the bullet points were not parallel in structure and very poorly worded. Moreover, lists of this nature are discouraged as prose can more clearly, impartially, and concisely convey the topics. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I didn't add the blog citation (footnote #17). It was there before I started editing, so it must have been inserted under your watch. --Eustress (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what footnote #17 means, I expect it refers to the UOPSucks site. The UOPSucks website is not a blog reference although I do agree that it is probably not a reliable source. On the hand, that argument seems irrelevant to me when discussing the above points because the two references to UOPSucks also reference the Yung article which is a reliable source. Also, please keep in mind that this is Wikipedia and we enjoy open editting and no one has been assigned responsibility for watching articles. I edit Wikipedia out of general respect for knowledge, the sense of community, a sense of accomplishment, and gratitude for the valuable Wikipedia resource. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You assumed incorrectly (see the main article). Footnote #17 refers to http://phoenix.about.com/b/2003/07/17/university-of-phoenix-has-largest-graduation-ever.htm.
 * It appears to me that footnote#17 in the current article has nothing to do eith this section of the talk page. It seems to be a reference for a non-controversial statement. Why did you mention it above? Did my "watch" statement answer/address/relevant to your watch statement? Who was your "watch" statement directed at? What is the point of your "watch" statement? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mysteryquest brought it up again in the paragraph in this section starting "The above are some of the valid...." My comment was directed to him because I was erroneously blamed for including that citation. --Eustress (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense now. Thanks TallMagic (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I have not had access to the internet. If I erroneously implied that Eustress put in Footnote #17 (not #7) I apologize, however, I do not recall it being there before.  I have reviewed the talk page in my absence and see no reason for the deletions of well referenced criticisms which were deleted without cause or consensus.  The fact that one editor has a "problem" with them is not enough to delete them from the article and I intend to put them back in when the "cooling off" period has subsided.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit dumbfounded at your responses, but that's how it goes. (Note: bullet #4 has not been refuted.) I really don't feel you've done anything to rebuttal any of my reasoning for exclusion of these bullets other than say that the sources are reliable—in most cases, my argument isn't that the source is unreliable but that the sourced information has been misinterpreted, already covered more concisely, or is irrelevant. Anyway, it appears from above that TallMagic has a COI-vendetta against UoP and is determined to oust the institution; I, however, just want to see this article improved—this section was especially a mess with all of the bullets and superfluous info—half the article is controversy and law suits already...not much balance, not broad in coverage. Will the two of you at least please modify the current text below to how you would like it to appear when the protection is lifted? I feel we need to do it here first or we'll just be back-and-forth again later. Also, be sure to bring up any serious issues you may have about the other sections. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no conflict of interest on my part regarding UoP. I have never attended the school, I have never worked at the school, I'm only interested in the quality of the Wikipedia article. On this very talk page I've expressed concerns in the past that this article needed better balance in that more positive information needed to be added. I searched general news sources and really didn't find anything. My next idea was searching self published material. The generally wrong way to balance the article is to delete the well sourced and notable negative information. This is commonly referred to as censorship and is incorrect. Eustress, I appreciate your improvements to the article. Please assume good faith and believe that my only interest in the article is improving the article. My firm belief is that everyone here shares that same interest. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the accusation. I was confused by your comment above "Not that personal experience means much..." and jumped to conclusions. --Eustress (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the history of the talk page the following was done by Eustress. I assume that it is a proposal for a new section to be added to the article. As such, I consider it a fine improvment to the article. TallMagic (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think we're on the same page. My proposition is that you and whomever add to what is currently on the article (what I posted below). It's not an addition to all the bullets that were discussed above. If this is unacceptable, we may need to request mediation. --Eustress (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm amused at your contention that TallMagic has a conflict of interest and am bewildered at the specific foundation for it other than he believes the deleted controversy information is relevant. Presumably I must have a conflict of interest as well since I believe that as well.  So, you are an altruist who wants to see the article improved and because we disagree with you, we are ... anarchists?  Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks.  I believe that your reasoning that the sourced information has been misinterpreted, already covered concisely or irrelevant is flawed and is and has been easily rebutted per my earlier comments.  I'm also amused at your request that we reconstruct the page in talk so you can vet them, when you did not see fit to do that.  However, when I have an opportunity I will endeavor to oblige.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this comment is needed since I already apologized. (P.S. Please keep comments in chronological order.) --Eustress (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was composed before TallMagic responded to your accusation and you apologized, however a series of edit conflicts stopped it from being entered. I placed it where it would have been had edit conflicts not preempted it and where it made sense to place it.17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal notice
I will no longer be editing University of Phoenix (or at least for a while). Below is my suggested rendering of the section. Best wishes --Eustress (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

 * The University has been criticized for various reasons. One is that a conflict of interest may exist when a for-profit company administers education—perhaps fostering a "stripped-down" academic schedules that rushes students through their studies. Moreover, the university's business program is also not accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. UoP has also been criticized for not having qualified professors or teachers, but rather facilitators that encourage students to teach each other. Additionally, UoP's overall graduation rate is 16% while the national average is 55%. The federal standard measures graduation rates as "the percentage of first-time undergraduates who obtain a degree within six years". Supporters say that the comparison is not a fair one since UoP follows a significantly different educational model than traditional universities, but critics find the statistic troubling.


 * UoP has also been the subject of several lawsuits in recent years. A federal whistle blower lawsuit accusing the university of fraudulently obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid was filed in 2003 and is currently pending— the university receiving more federal student financial aid than any other university in the United States in 2004. In September 2004, the university paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of Higher Education Act provisions that prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives.


 * The University also paid $3.5 million in back wages to 1,700 workers related to overtime pay and exemption status given to its recruitment advisers, under a settlement reached in July 2004 with the United States Department of Labor. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a sexual harassment claim filed against the university by a former employee for $225,000 in August 2007. Currently, the University is also being sued by the EEOC for alleged religious discrimination favoring Mormon enrollment counselors.

Editing after lock
As I suspected, as soon as the lock expired on this page, there was a flurry of editing to restore all of the disputed information. I am not going to weigh in on whether or not that section should exist, but it if remains, it needs a lot of work.

Right now, that section reads like a laundry list of grievances, and looks like it's a bulleted list in which someone removed the bullets. In addition, there are far too many citations for each section; one (or maybe two) cite should be sufficient to establish the facts. Some of the citations are repeated for the same statement; that needs to be fixed. Also, the site "UoPsucks" is not a reliable source; please remove it and either find a reliable citation for the statements for which it is used as a reference, or remove those statements.  Horologium  (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The citations were put in there to firm up the allegations. Didn't realize that you could have too many citations.  Yes, it was indeed a bulleted list but the editor who overhauled the article had a problem with the bullets.  I have no problem consolidating it into one paragraph.  UopSucks was "given legitimacy" by its mention in the New York Times article, however, it can be deleted.  There is nothing in it that isn't supported by several reliable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to use the undo button if necessary. GreenJoe 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't have too many references, but I agree with Horologium, their site (UoPSucks) probably isn't a reliable source... except if you're citing one of the news articles (like the New York Times), that is on their site. GreenJoe 22:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. UOPSucks.com is a reliable source, as they are dedicated to the subject at hand. While the site contains a lot of opinions, it also has collected lots of facts and reliable information and is 100% focused on this subject. I think anyone who runs a website dedictated to a subject with as much info as UOPSucks.com does has is indeed an expert on the subject and worth listening to. --72.222.243.48 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A website completely without credit. This should not be used as a source. Like GreenJoe said, perhaps you can use it to find more reliable sources. Tan   |   39  01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I took out UOPexperience.com from the reference links and it was replaced today by Azmojo and Reswobslc.     The site is a mirror to UOPsucks. Horologium had stated above that he didn't view it a reliable source (and I agree).  I believed and stated that this user is an admin. I may have been incorrect about this (Reswobslc corrected me).17reasons (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies
This section needs severe editing. I may revert it back to the pre-unlock state. GreenJoe 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the pre=lock state was that it excluded a lot of criticism which was legitimate and reliably sourced. Per the talk page there was consensus for including it, thus I do not see that as a legitimate option.  Why don't you just make the edits you feel are warranted to what is in there and we can discuss it or explain what specific problems you have, either way.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any such consensus up there. GreenJoe 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look again under controversy section deletions. After the "overhaul", I placed a list of the items which had been deleted and we weighed on whether they should be kept or not.  TallMagic and I agreed that they should.  The vote against was cast by the editor who withdrew from editing.  That is one of the reasons I put a lot of the criticisms back in.  I trimmed them way back which is why they look like a list of grievances.  If the problem is just style they can be consolidated into one paragraph.  It is not clear exactly what the problem is, whether its the criticism or the style.  There is more than enough reliable sources to support their inclusion.  So what exactly are the problems you have?Mysteryquest (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * TallMagic and you don't make a consensus, and even if it did, he only agreed to one part, not the entire thing. I think your reading glasses need to be replaced. And IT'S NOT A VOTE but a discussion, so you could have 5 - 1 in favour and still not have it carried out. GreenJoe 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eustress wrote the proposed criticism and controveries section above. He was the one editor that seemed to have a problem with the old version. No one said they had a problem with Eustress's proposed version. That seems close enough to a consensus to me to at least avoid insults and accusations needing reading glasses. TallMagic (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case there are any misconceptions, I am not an admin. GreenJoe 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to note how criticism is presented in another article : PeregrineV (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of a single incident causing criticism. West_Virginia_University TallMagic (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

uopexperience.com link
I thought I'd start a discussion about the link, as there seems to be some minor revert warring over it. While it may not be a reliable source for references, it being included in the links section is another ballpark alltogether. As for me, I'm undecided on this. GreenJoe 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a mirror of UOPSucks.com. This should most definitely NOT be included in the external links. There's no way this meets WP:EL - it's all unverifiable, bloggy, and completely POV. Tan   |   39  15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that, but it doesn't have to be verifiable to meet WP:EL. In fact, it specifically meets this one guideline... Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. GreenJoe 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect - and I do respect your opinion - I don't think it meets that guideline. While the material might be "relevant" to people choosing whether to attend the UoP or not, it's not relevant to and not appropriate for this article. It's akin to adding "Americasucks.net" or something similar to the United States article. Linking to a negative NY Times article is one thing; this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I suppose that I'm not going to fight this tooth and nail - and if this link is added, it should be in the main article with a paragraph explaining that there are different views on the quality of the university. "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially." Adding this site to the external links section gives this view undue weight, especially without a counter "UOPRules.com". Tan   |   39  15:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I have no issue with both a pro and a con site, though I generally think of the "official" site as the UOPRules.com. However, if you know of such a site, I see no reason we cannot discuss its merits and inclusion in the EL section. As for "Americansucks.net" I'd generally refer you to Other Stuff Exists, that said, maybe that link should be in that article. Not everything for every company/entity is all daises and roses. In fact, when I visited UOPSucks.com they had a link to a site that has all kind of similar sits for all kinds of companies. Should they be included in the articles here? If the links still work, I generally think they should. That said, sometimes everyone has a site like that, and there can be more than one, when you only require one in the article. Then you have to discern which one to include. GreenJoe 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is that UOPSucks.com, UOPRules.com (I like GreenJoe's argument that the UOP site is like a UOPrules.com site), and Americansucks.net should all be included as an external link in their respectful articles, assuming that the POV page is meaty enough, especially if the POV page is referenced in a reliable source somewhere. A Wikipedia external link is not intended to be an endorsement of any particular point of view. Including material from such a POV site in Wikipedia based on the POV site alone is another matter. An important service of Wikipedia is providing references to information, in this case it means just an external link instead of including material in the Wikipedia article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * External links are meant to enhance the article, give the reader something more to read if they wish. POV sites are specifically allowed because that's stuff you can't put in the article. External links are allowed to be POV. GreenJoe 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The link definitely should be included. UOPSucks.com has compiled tons of information (much of it from other reliable sources) completely dedicated to UOP. It is a valuable resource for anyone seeking information about UOP for any purpose. If UOPRules.com existed and had good substance I would approve of its inclusion as well. The fact that such a site doesn't exist does not mean that UOPSucks.com can't be mentioned. --Azmojo (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section & Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

 * Criticism section had this super-huge on-going paragraph that I broke up because it was too much to read at once.
 * Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business - Who says it's prestigious, and where's the verification? The only citation for that is the Intel dropping UoP, which is obviously invalid for that argument. GreenJoe 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi GreenJoe, CHEA is responsible for recognizing the legitimate accreditation agencies in the USA. Here's the CHEA link showing that AACSB is recognized. Regarding the prestige of AACSB, IIRC there is text in the article that I thought attested to that? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you on that. Yes, AACSB is recognized, so it their competition, the accreditation that Phoenix does have. I don't agree that the article attests to the "prestige." It simply says that Intel dropped anyone not using AACSB, but that only shows they have "better" standards, or higher standards, it doesn't say anything to support the peacock term of "prestigious". GreenJoe 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a clear distinction between "prestigious" and a higher standard. Look at Harvard University for example. Even I'll admit they're "prestigious", of course that comes with a UoP-style tuition. However, no where have I seen that Harvard has a "higher standard." Of course the Harvard article is probably very-carefully watched, and probably doesn't use many peacock terms. (God, I sound like a Bank of America commercial now, LOL.) GreenJoe 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi GreenJoe, how about?


 * Although Phoenix is regionally accredited, it lacks approval from the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.ref#24 in current article


 * TallMagic (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, someone's using a talk page!!! Let me check the temperature in Hell.... all kidding aside, I have a proposed re-word too....


 * Although Phoenix is regionally accredited, it lacks approval from the most recognized accrediting agency for business schools, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.


 * 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC) GreenJoe


 * The blockquote I made above is from the New York Times article that I linked to. If you're not familar with AACSB, it is a very safe statement to say that AACSB is in fact the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools. I would consider regional accreditation more recognized than AACSB, although I guess it could be argued that RA does not specialize business schools. TallMagic (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) TallMagic (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhhh, ok. Well I was bold and simply re-worded the statement. If it doesn't meet your satisfaction, I can give it some more thought. GreenJoe 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just learned that the UoP Associate & Baccalaureate/Graduate programs (including its MBA program) are now all accredited by the AACSB (as of earlier this year); see AACSB UoP and UoP Accreditation. I will be bold and remove this bullet, as it is no longer valid. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to be nitpicky, but AACSB accreditation, and ACBSP are different organizations. AACSB is the more prestegious of the two, thus the point does still stand. GreenJoe 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Man...those acronyms are so similar. I reverted...thanks! --Eustress (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your total bill for this issue comes to $139.95 plus tax. Please pay the cashier on your way out. GreenJoe 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Going for the silver!!
I have an idea to bring us all together... let's try to achieve GOOD ARTICLE status!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The criteria that we need to aim for:

1. It's gotta be well written. Does it have that now?

2. It's gotta be factually accurate and verifiable. Meaning no fact tags. If we can't cite it, we gotta take it out.

3. Broad in coverage

4. It's neutral

5. It's stable. We gotta stop edit-warring, and start using this talk page!!!

6. Images... We kinda need some. Can anyone go to the Uni and take pic's? GreenJoe 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it and support this goal. I probably don't have a lot of time but I'll try to help! TallMagic (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and will do my best, too. I was disappointed that my successful nomination of the site to the University Project (University Collaborations of the Fortnight) didn't bear much fruit (if any). Happy to roll up my sleeves.17reasons (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

rv/rv revertion/ rv rv reversion
someone made the following change (amongst others).


 * A business degree accredited by Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is perceived as superior by some employers due to its research orientation

Here's the original
 * A business degree not accredited by Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is perceived by some employers such as Intel, as inferior to top-tier business schools that have the organization's accreditation

The original is supported by the references. The change claims the exact opposite with no support that I know of.

Please stop making changes to Wikipedia that are not supported by verifiable references.

Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I read it over and found the "new" wording to be highly POV. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my response to the following edit comment, "Don't undo all because you don like 1 sentence; fix it instead" I generally agree with this statement. However, when I look at a long edit and the first edit is changing a sourced statement to mean the exact opposite and there's no new references being added and I'm familar enough with the existing reference to be pretty sure that it doesn't support such a change and I don't have time to go through all the changes one at a time and double checking the accuracy then I will revert the whole thing. That is my style. My thought is that protecting the integrity of the Wikipedia article is probably more important than some minor improvements. Perhaps later today I will have time to look at some of the other changes and include them if they turn out to be good improvments. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I agree that the first sentence is confusing and appears to be POV.  (Frankly, I would prefer to eliminate it.) I have been following Caernarvon's edits and that is the only one that I was uncomfortable with.  (Most of) The others, to me, make for a better article and, in fact, make it closer to being a proper Wikipedia article.  When I see a blanket revision without comment and without regard to content, I take it to be POV or vandalism.  IMHO, most of the changes are valid and improve the article.
 * Regarding the first paragraph, I would like to see all discussion changed to state that 1) That there are 2 "recognized" accrediting councils [AACSB & ACBSP], and 2) UPX is only accredited by AACSB, and 3) Some businesses, like Intel, do not reimburse for AACSB. Then, include citable text that explains why this is controversial or worth criticsm. Mike (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. There is a distinct difference between AACSB & ACBSP - however, those are probably best for the articles of the accrediting agencies. But the edits made were changing the facts of the very critiques themselves, and everything I've seen in that section is cited. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike, I don't have any problem with what you say. In partcicular, I see no problem with your three points except to say that the references currently in the article do not support those statements. Your three points appear to be original research unless you have the references to back it up. I would like to say, as I believe that I've previously mentioned on this page, that I believe the UPX article could be improved with some more positive material on UPX. I think part of the problem is that the nature of journalism is to generally report on problems and crticisms. I believe that this has made it difficult to find more positive statements to add to the article that are verifiable. I've given up trying to find positive stuff on UPX on Google. I have concluded that the best source might be self published material on UPX websites. Although one must be much more cautious with the type of material used from self published sources. Another possibility though is relooking at the existing references for positive type statements that aren't already in the article. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a fascinating topic. The more I delve into it, the more interesting it becomes. The school definitely inspires some stong feelings! I have to say though, everyone seems to have bought in to the idea that the AACSB/ACBSP issue is highly relevant and appropriate. I've checked several other schools that offer MBA's with ACBSP accreditation and the Intel article isn't mentioned in their websites. Why is one company's abberant dropping of non-AACSB schools mentioned here and nearly nowhere else if it isn't a POV? I would venture to say that Mike is right that, "1)That there are 2 "recognized" accrediting councils [AACSB & ACBSP], and 2) UPX is only accredited by AACSB, and 3) Some businesses, like Intel, do not reimburse for AACSB. Then, include citable text that explains why this is controversial or worth criticsm." Thoughts? --Caernarvon (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi all - I agree that the first sentence under Criticisms could be better supported. The problem with using a NPOV argument for this section is that many of these criticisms have been answered in the media or are answerable in fact. Criticism itself implies a point of view - the question is, are the criticisms noted referenced properly and has there been a reasonable opportunity to answer the criticism. As for AACSB & ACBSP accreditation and organizational philosophy, they are right on, per the specific organization's websites. I have reverted to the changes I made yesterday. I will go back in and change SPECIFIC information on AACSB & ACBSP until I get better supporting research.  Any changes from that point I ask be made per revision rather than wholesale. Sorry for any confusion! I promise to start here with comprehensive edits in the future! --Caernarvon (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My personal feeling as to why there are news articles written about Intel dropping UPX reimbursement etc. is simply because UPX is a huge business. As a business it dwarfs other schools. The figure for revenue being lost from Intel alone was a large number. A stock holder in Apollo should rightly be concerned it will be hard to make up those kind of numbers and to continue to grow at the rate that the stock holders have come to expect. TallMagic (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is possible, though the article states that only 5% of Intel's workforce even take advantage of any tuition reimbursement - which seems a bit low. UPX would only be getting its share of that 5%. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In 2007, Intel had 86,300 employees wordwide. source. 5% is a heck of a lot of money to UPX, just based on 5%. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well taken; it is quite a bit of money. 5% of 86,300 is 4,315. Estimating high, let's say UPX had 20% of that market, which would be 863 students. At about $4,634 (budget -20% overhead/863 students) per year per student, thats about $3,999,142, (updated monetary calculations for reasonableness --Caernarvon (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)) or about .0028% of the school's student population - a pretty hefty sum. On the other hand, using those same estimates as a baseline, with a combined student population of 300,000 source it does seem to be a bit of a drop in the UPX bucket. I'd be more inclined to believe UPX would be more worried about it if other employers followed suit. To date, that has not happened, and even the original citing article talking about Intel dropping non-AACSB schools suggested it was more an abberation and possibly as much a result of tighter economic times as it was an attempt to improve educational quality. source The article calls it, "an unusual move" and noted Intel's own spokesperson, Gail Dundas, suggested the impetus behind the decision was because of the $25m price tag for the reimbursement program. The article goes on to mention other sources that found the policy odd with plenty of speculation about the motive being cost driven, with school quality being the secondary consideration. UPX is mentioned in the article, along with Capella, Chicago State, and Xavier University, though there's no mention of the Intel article on those WP pages. What really concerns me is there is no mention of the policy on the Intel public website, either.  Out of the public domain, it is possible that a new and odd reimbusement policy like this by Intel, interesting to the press as it was when implemented, may not be so interesting if reversed. For all anyone knows or could know, the policy may have lasted two weeks, or will last two years or two centuries and no one in the public domain would have access to that information to correct the WP page. I don't know, I worked at the University of South Florida for 10 years - they got sued over personnel issues and hiring practices and beat up over accreditation problems at their regional campuses (one is presently on probation after failing to fix some problems) and none of that makes it to their WP pages. Their firing of Sami Al Arian did, and rightfully so. I'm trying to understand the UPX rancor. I believe with so many folks obviously annoyed with the school there must be something behind it. It's a regionally accredited school, with numerous specialty accreditations; can the problem really be so notably with its quality that the topic deserves such exhaustive treatement of the WP page? Or maybe I'm just supporting an underdog.  I'd hope not, considering UPX is obviously an evil megacorporation! (They're all evil, nothing personal!) In court there is some evidence that one side may try to introduce that truly does have value, like grisly photos of a murder, but draws such a strong response from a jury that anger and a desire for justice (against someone, anyone) may prejudice the jury against the defendant.  This evidence is not allowed.  I think all of what's on this page is documented and well cited, and standing each alone may not be POV, but I could do a similar workover job on any school out there. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Repairs and Corrections
I am going to repair citations 15 and 31 tomorrow, both of which have problems. I will see if 15 is repairable. 31 doesn't seem to exist anymore, though I believe the article may reside at stable internet sources, so I will see if I can just find a better home for the article to cite it. I believe there is one UoP mentioned still in the body of the article (not a citation) and there is a reference at the end of a sentence in the Criticism section that appears inside the period instead of outside, as it should be. I will make those corrections at the same time if there are no objections. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed 31. It was a reference to the New York Times article. IIRC, that is a very large article, I'm surprised it wasn't referenced any place else in the article. It used to be referenced multiple times. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of improving the article, I would like to briefly compare and contrast the learning teams used by UPX with the preceptoral system developed by Princeton University in 1905. In the next few days I will present a draft in this forum (unless someone else wants to work up and present some preliminary research before that). Meanwhile, those interested can review some of the material at -


 * http://www.princeton.edu/admission/whatsdistinctive/experience/the_preceptorial_system/


 * I propose the new material be added under Academics. I think it is relevant because the UPX learning model is based on similar teams, which are at the same time cited as a weakness and a strength, depending on the source. I believe my proposal would benefit from a lively cross-section of viewpoints - so I encourage respectful debate! --Caernarvon (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording: The University model stresses the use of out of class learning teams, bearing some resemblance the the well-established Princeton University preceptoral system in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.

The cites would be formatted to be appropriate for the article - the discussion page doesn't display them correctly, so I don't format them to appear in references here. Let me know what you all think! --Caernarvon (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I have added a sentence contrasting the programs. --Caernarvon (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I have made the punctuation and abbreviation corrections and posted the new material. If you all would, take a close look at the synthesis of the new material. Although each statement is individually verified, the link between the two schools is really my own observation. Is that crossing the line to original research? Based on the above discussions I propose a re-write of the Criticisms section grouping and summarizing the major themes of the criticisms and answers and ensuring the remaining links are still valid if readers wish to read elswhere for the in-depth opinions. I will, of course, post any proposed revisions here inviting intelligent debate prior to making any serious changes. It is my serious conviction that this WP needs to lose the tabloid feel if it is going to move beyond starter page rating. There are some good criticisms sections for other schools, we should try to research those (especially the better developed and rated pages) when deciding format and content. Thanks for everyone's input. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Cite tags are the proper way to do a citation. Don't ruin them.
 * 2) Give other editors time to read what you post. We do have lives you know. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep things nice, but once again we're dealing with a complete undo because someone didn't like part of an edit. I posted that I was going to make a correction to the citation days ago. If you think I fixed it wrong, then fix it yourself, but look at the citation you've reverted to, it clearly has problems. You even added back the extra period at the end of a sentence. You removed the added material without discussion or comment as to the material itself. If you're trying to be disruptive, you are succeeding. Expanding and improving an article doesn't happen by itself and no wonder this is a start-class WP years after its origination. If you don't like that I gave only a day for notice for my changes, then ask me to make it longer, I can do that. We haven't gone a day since beginning this round of improvements without discussion yet. I apologize if it appeared most of the interested crew here were sufficiently engaged for that to be enough notice to at least make a comment. Last, please be civil in your responses. A glance at the top of the discussion page would probably do us all some good every now and then (Be Polite - Assume Good Faith - No Personal Attacks - Be Welcoming). I would much rather work with you and polite commentary, even criticism of my efforts, will get you anything you ask for within reason. There, I'm almost done being annoyed at the tone you took. Seriously, take a look at the reference - if you can fix it in a way that you like, I'm all for it. It starts with ^ "date=2008-25-05 and that's clearly not correct. Have it your way on the format, but its messy and needs some cleanup. Much better than a global revert.  You also undid a separate punctuation fix.  I'm going to try again tomorrow to remove the extra period at the end of the second sentence of the second bullet under the Criticism section and move cite 34 to the outside of the second sentence of the third bullet under the Criticisms section. I will try the other changes again sometime after that (three days of notice and opportunity to comment here). --Caernarvon (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the statement that Princeton's method is similar to UPX's method is original research. Although I don't really consider it controversial and I thought is was presented in a neutral tone. It improves the article, IMHO, but it technically is probably a mild violation of WP:NOR. The bottom line is that I don't really care one way or another. I wouldn't add it myself but I'm not really motivated to want to delete it either. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you're right. I need to think of a different way to present the material that doesn't draw a conclusion unless I find a researched article that does. Actually, I did find an article that does this, but it's in the subscriber section of the Chronicle of Higher Learning, so I am not comfortable quoting it. Not all cites need to be to online sources, but maybe with a little extra effort I'll be able to pull something together that is. I'm really concerned that the mention of an Ivy League school in the comparison adds too much weight to the learning team practice. We might be able to go with something more like:

Proposed wording: The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams, forms of which are used by other schools, in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.


 * I am implementing this change. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This may still have a hint of original research, but hopefully not too objectionable. The weight of using the Princeton name is removed and I've added an additional school that uses the same style. I have also found a UPX ground campus near my location. I'm thinking of going and taking a picture. It's an excellent example of the UPX method of leasing office space near major traffic arteries! --Caernarvon (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While it is preferrable to not use references that require subscriptions, I really believe that it is still acceptable if that is the only reference that can be found. My perspective is that if you perhaps copied a paragraph or so here that contained the quote or point that you wanted to make so that everyone here could look at it. Then reference in the article it would be okay. Or, your proposed wording looks wonderful to me as well. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added Mexico and The Netherlands to the Campus locations and added a citation to support the new material. Small change, pure fact, adding to a list that was already present but not complete. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Online Course Materials
I am planning another addition to the Academics section. It is an explanation of the somewhat uncommon use of an online resource page that provides the books for students.

The UPX uses its large size and commensurate resources to acquire course textbooks inexpensively. Upon registering, students pay a fee of $75 ($95 for graduate courses). This resource fee provides them full access to an electronic library, textbooks and other ancillary material required for the course. UPX uses a standardized course format that does not allow individual faculty to choose the course materials, as is common for many other traditional schools. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This too looks like a wonderful addition to me. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Addition implemented. I am considering removing the fee amounts since they can change without notice.  The only thing that makes them relevant is that they are so much cheaper than normal book fees.  What do you all think? --Caernarvon (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On what basis to you believe that the fees are cheaper than normal book fees? Do you have a reference for that? Mysteryquest (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Heya Mysteryquest - sure, here's one of several I've found. Should we insert this reference into the article, you think?

'For one price, $95 per class, students also have access to the entire library of e-books'' and other online resources offered at the university. Traditionally, students pay upward of $300-$500 each semester for 20-30 pounds of books they end up lugging around all season.'''

--Caernarvon (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

University Abbreviation
Several different abbreviations are used in this article: UPX, UoP, UOP, UofP. Seems like it should be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.208 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed some UoP and UOP to UPX. I didn't find any UofP. Note that I didn't change some of the reference titles because that is supposed to be the title of the web pages. Thanks TallMagic (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The abbreviation was orginally UOP then it was changed to UPX. Today someone changed the article in only one place to UOPX. I went to the University of Phoenix website and did a search for UOPX and got zero hits but the UOP search engine suggested that perhaps I mispelled my word and was actually searching for UOPHX. So I searched for UOPHX and got zero hits. Then for fun I searched on UPX and got zero hits. To continue my fun I searched for UOP and got a few hits. To complete my fun I'm posting this story here and stating that I personally prefer UOP but I don't know what the correct abbreviation is. (If there even is a correct abbreviation.) Outside Wikipedia I usually see it abbreviated UoP. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why abbreviate it in the first place? If this were a Wall Street publication, using a stock symbol would be acceptable.  If we're talking about Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, then "PHX" is a most acceptable abbreviation for Phoenix.  If this were a publication internal to the University of Phoenix, then it can pick its own.  For the rest of the world, all of these abbreviations look silly.  I realize the average University of Phoenix graduate enters and leaves with a crappy command of the English language that hardly improves during whatever they "study", but that doesn't mean it needs to be reflected in the university's Wikipedia article.  If a shorter form is needed, "the university" (or "the University") should suffice. Reswobslc (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no strong preference. "UPX", as it is presently filed with the SEC seems technically accurate:


 * http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%2f2007%2f10%2f29%2f0000950153-07-002225.html#FIS_BUSINESS


 * I agree mostly with Reswobslc. Extensive use of the abbreviation probably detracts from the article and would be better in an encyclopedia as, "the school", "the company", "the university", etc.  I won't even dignify the "crappy" comment. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Implemented. --Caernarvon (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better, if UPX is just the stock market abbreviation then that is even more silly to use, to my mind. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos
I found this campus for UPX in St. Petersburg. Is this good in the Campuses section as an example of a branch campus? Should I reduce the image size? --Caernarvon (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The image looks good, you can simply reduce the size in the image tag. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reduced it to 400pix and will allow for text to float. I'll make the addition this week sometime. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This change is implemented - and I removed the capitalization of the word "Internet" from the body of the Campuses section and added the word "wi-fi" to internet access per info from the related cite. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stadium Photo
I thought we agreed that the stadium photo was not an appropriate representation of the university, since it is just paid advertising. Should that photo be removed or reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhedblom (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion. I don't see the advertising value, but obviously the school does.  If whoever posted it doesn't respond here within the next few days, you have my vote to revert.  --Caernarvon (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Rewrite
I'd like to get this area down to the merely ridiculous, if we can, without watering down the seriousness of the concerns. It looks like this section just grew a bit every time someone had a gripe. I'm going to post a draft proposal of a re-write. I know it isn't going to be acceptable to everyone (anyone?!), so feel free to make additions, deletions and comments. I can already see some things I'd change, but I need to just post it to get the process started. I don't have any strong feelings on the topic other than readability and fairness/NPOV. We can probably even trim it down further and have it make more sense than what I've done. I expect this to take a fair amount of time. I'll start by posting the draft, then anything you all don't agree with, please ask my reason for the change and/or post your reason for wanting it a different way. There's no reason this shouldn't be FUN, as long as we all keep an open mind. Let's keep the proposed wording between the solid lines and make our comments below the draft. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike for the first round of edits! --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted the discussed changes. I did remove the accreditation bullet due to the concerns discussed. I also wonder if the wrap up section at the end by Brian Muller really adds anything to the piece. There is an excellent WP page on For-Profit Schools that this material would be more appropriate for. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality of education and accreditation:
 * Although only the AACSB and the ACBSP are recognized by the CHEA for accreditation of business programs through the graduate level, a business degree not accredited by AACSB is perceived by some as inferior to top-tier business schools that have the organization's accreditation. UPX is regionally accredited by the The Higher Learning Commission as a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and its business programs are additionally accredited through the ACBSP.
 * I put the criticism first in the bullet, it makes more sense that way, though I would still prefer to remove it. The NYT article cited mentions this is one company, Intel, (established as, at best .0028% of the UPX business income) that implemented this policy. The reasons for the policy were economic ($25M price tag of the reimbursement program) as much or more than it was a concern with quality. It is impossible to verify if Intel ever changes the policy back, that's just not as sensational as them yanking the non-AACSB schools. No other ACBSP school, even the other one's mentioned in the article, have this mentioned on their WP pages. Frankly, reading the article, its more about an unusual decision by Intel than it is about UPX. The perceptions concerning these accrediting bodies should be discussed either on the MBA WP or the individual pages of the accrediting bodies. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would reverse the order of the two sentences. 1) UPX is acredited by ..., but 2) this is controversial because... Mike (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2nd-class accreditation talk isn't right for UPX and is already on the MBA page. Other b-schools mostly only take accreditation heat in Wikipedia if there's no regional accreditation. NPOV mentions undue weight shouldn't, "give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." But if we keep it, Mike's format definitely reads best. There's alot of valid criticism, stuff like this just waters the section down.


 * My thoughts are along the same line, obviously. The POV and margianality issue is important, though I'm a bit more concerned about the ability to verify the Intel continuing policy.  I'll probably make the changes from this entire section this weekend. Don't forget to sign your posts! --Caernarvon (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a concern that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders, though standardized testing reveals that reading, writing, and mathematical skills for UPX students improve at a better rate on average than for students at most other schools.
 * To me, this is a different topic. Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. I was trying to compact too much and it probably deserves its own bullet. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to re-check this referenced article to see what is meant by "a better rate on average." I get nervous about a statistical reference without numbers and better than average might just be 51%-49%. It would be worth considering if that close of a margin would be a valid counter argument. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Approximately 95% of UPX faculty are part-time compared with an average of 47% across all universities. UPX only hires faculty with masters or doctoral degrees, requiring that most be actively working in the fields that they teach.
 * I say remove the first and last sentences. The 2nd sentence is the only critism or controversy. Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with nixing the first sentence - if someone wants to read that type of opinion they can go to the reference article. I think the other sentence supports the "fair" other side of the coin and maybe it would read better if the criticism comes at the beginning of the sentence. I'll try that, let me know what you think. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the United States Department of Education graduation standards the UPX rate is only 16%. Compared to the national average of 55% it is among the nation's lowest. UPX and some education experts assert that the federal standard is antiquated because it only measures first time students with no previous college credit and uses measurements that skew against economically disadvantaged and minority students. The university response notes that the federal standard only applies to 7% of the total UPX student community and publishes its own nonstandard graduation rate of 59% to account for its overwhelming population of non-traditional students.
 * I want to streamline the remarks about the SC campus and online programs. This is just a re-hash of the downside numbers that went into calculating the overall 16% cited in the first sentence without noting the part of the equation that brings it up overall to 16%.  --Caernarvon (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues:
 * The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a second sexual harassment claim against UPX $225,000 in August 2007.
 * In September 2004, UPX paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of the Higher Education Act provisions which prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives.   The United States Department of Education has recently targeted numerous universities for improprieties in the administration of student loan programs.
 * In the last sentence, are the targets only "for-profit" universities, or are "traditional" universities included? Do we know? Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article suggests the govt is coming down across the board, without mention of private, public, or profit status. numerous institutions have already settled or are coming up on a court date. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A 2003 federal whistle-blower/false claims lawsuit accuses UPX of fraud in obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid. It is set for trial in September 2009.  The school counters that the lawsuit is a legal manipulation by two former UPX employees over a matter previously resolved with the U.S. Department of Education.
 * The university has had various labor and government regulatory related issues. It paid $3.5 million to settle alleged violation of overtime compensation provision with the Department of Labor. It is presently being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for alleged religious discrimination favoring Mormon enrollment counselors. It settled allegations by the United States Department of Education for $6 million in March 2000 because government auditors noted that the teaching schedule fell short of the minimum time required to qualify for financial aid.  The United States Department of Education also ordered the university to pay $650,000 for failing to promptly refund loans and grants for students who withdrew.
 * In January of 2008, UPX’s parent company, Apollo Group, Inc. was found guilty of fraud for misleading investors. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg recently overturned the verdict, ruling that the evidence was not sufficient.
 * This is not a government lawsuit; it is a private "shareholders" lawsuit
 * True, and as such should not be lumped with the others, good point. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to criticism, Brian Mueller, of the Apollo Group wrote an essay on the "clash of cultures between traditional academia and newer, market-oriented colleges and universities." He wrote: "As with all innovation, skeptics abound to feed the culture clash between the old and the new. Those invested in the status quo objected when land grant colleges were introduced and also when community colleges came on the scene, railing against their supposed lack of quality. For-profit colleges are the latest target."

Student / Faculty
I've found some good information on the UPX student and faculty makeup. I would like to add it under the People heading. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Diversity

The 2008 UPX Academic Report shows a highly diverse student and faculty makup. According to demographic information in the report, the student/faculty population is significantly more diverse than that of most higher education institutions, on average. African-Americans make up more than 15% of UPX's 22,000 faculty members, with about 6% as Hispanic. The national average in recent years showed about 5% as African-American with about 3% as Hispanic. The UPX student population is approximately 25% African-American and almost 13% Hispanic. This is as compared to national statistics from recent years showing 12% African-American populations and 10% Hispanics nationally.


 * I like it. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even with just one day, I'm going to go ahead and post this information. It should be non-controvercial, straight documented fact. The 2008 UPX Annual Academic Report seems to have quite a bit of great information.  I've read about 25% of it, so expect some further updates with this as the source. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Another addition - I've found an article in the Chronicle for Higher Education discussing the opening of student centers nationally. I propose the following addition under Campuses section: --Caernarvon (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Online students are also now able to utilize tutoring/social centers. These centers make tutoring services available and can also be used for other social and student learning interactions. The first center opened in 2007 in Plano, Tex.

I found some additional diversity related material I would like to add to the Diversity subsection. Proposed wording: --Caernarvon (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * UPX graduates a larger number of underrepresented students with master's degrees in business, health care and education than any other U.S. School. It is also ranked as the highest in graduating African American and American Indian students with master's degrees for all other disciplines. The underlying data for these conclusions was provided by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the '05-'06 academic year.


 * I'm implementing the rest of the suggestions in this section at this time. --Caernarvon (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts that are documented by only University of Phoenix are not neutral and are naturally skewed toward the Universities views. The use of UofP sources risk making the article POv and turning it into merely a sock puppet for UofP.  The Academic Profile and Diversity sections are now perilously close to simply promoting UofPMysteryquest (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, though I reject the argument that an entity is incapable of stating unbiased facts about itself. The statement seems somewhat biased. I looked over the changes you made and generally think the article is better off with them. I was going to originally post a bit of a rant here - but looking at the actual changes you made convinced me you seem serious about improving the article. I still don't see how the Academic Profile or Diversity sections are promotional. They contain information similar to what is found at many other school WP pages. The University of California, Yale, George Washington and many others have information posted on their pages about diversity, too.  The UPX numbers are highly diverse - I think that's worth noting without being promotional.  You're probably right to be concerned about promo's - UPX is a for profit school - but if they do well at some things - especially if it stands out in a crowd and can be cited from a mixture of sources, isn't it acceptable to note it as such? I have to say, if anyone editing this page is truly "pro UPX" they're hiding it well - this page has about the biggest controversies section, even after recent editing, of any school I've seen. Good job on the editing. --Caernarvon (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits
I'll be making a few minor edits (typographical, link problems, grammar, punctuation, etc) over the weekend. I just fixed reference 21, the one we were having a problem with from before. I'll post the changes here as I make them. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This reference (^ University of Phoenix lands stadium naming rights-Cards and biggest private college in the U.S. agree to a 20-year deal, The Arizona Republic, by Dawn Gilbertson, September 26, 2006.) on the stadium leads to a page that is no longer accessible. I found another article in the Chronicle that has the same information and will replace it with the new citation. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic Profile and Diversity Issues
The Academic Profile is now filled with information which is more boosterism than information and exclusively supported by information provided only by University of Phoenix. Statements such as "UPX uses it large size to ... and etc. are not NPOV, not neutral and merely parrot UofP positions in fact much of it appears to be just a recapitalization from the University of Phoenix website. I believe that non-notable, promotional material needs to be removed. The diversity section has the same problem, as many of the "sources" are merely promotional rather than informative.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mysteryquest! Welcome back around, I haven't seen a post from you in awhile! By and large, I have to disagree on your assessment (obviously, I posted some of it!). I do agree the wording of the sentence you are quoting above might be expressed better in a different way and would be open to suggestion on how to do that. The sources in the diversity section are from the school's academic report, from an online article (not a blog), and from a couple of other school's websites. The academic report quotes the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the comparison data. Diversity information is included in many university sites in WP articles. I apologize if it seems to parrot other sites, it's hard to include new information properly cited from other sources and not do that to some extent.  I am against wholesale removal of information that was properly posted to the discussion page and reviewed before being listed. Can we work on how to improve what's posted now a piece at a time? Perhaps we can come to a compromise on wording, etc. If we do that, I would ask that you provide an alternative to what's already there or provide specific reasons for each piece you would like to see removed. I would also ask that you review other university sites and the project template - I hope and believe you'll find it's not as far off as you are suggesting. Thanks for taking a look back over the site, though! I'm sure you're input will help to improve the article! --Caernarvon (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I read some of your prior "rant" and though you "deleted" it, I thought I would address some of the issues you raised. "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." That is all I was pointing out.  I was not saying that UofP (or any entity) is incapable of dispensing independent information though it is my opinion that all commercial endeavors tend to circulate information most favorable to themselves.  That's the nature of commerce, which is to profit and profit is sometimes incompatible with forthrightness.  That is one of the reasons we should support articles with "third-party" sources per Wikipedia.  I found it troubling that so much information in the article was solely supported by UofP especially the Diversity and Academic sections.


 * The reason there is so much controversy about UofP is perhaps because many of its policies are controversial. Additionally it has apparently run afoul of several federal regulations and suffered the consequences which is its own fault.  Some of those polices appear to stem from its for-profit design but that's not to say the school should be bear undue scrutiny because of it, however, I don't think this article does that.  In the same token, I don't feel the article should be promotional either.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points are all valid. This is all a relatively new concept in higher education and leaving the formation of the policy, etc of how it is to be executed to a multi-billion dollar corporation seems perilous! The school is at the forefront of higher education distance learning and, painful as it may have been for them, they have benefited from public criticism, including from this site. When I mentioned Goldie Blumenstyk the other day I went back out to review work she's done on the school because I hadn't researched it in awhile. I found this podcast, which, considering it's a researched investigative piece from a major player in higher education reporting, seems quite reliable. It's not as clear to me that the WP article we're working on has any promotional bent. I'd be very concerned to think it does - the problem is, what's the difference between mentioning facts and being promotional.  For instance, the part about them opening study centers in some cities - is that promotional or just noteworthy since it is a feature of their unique "campus" structure. The school has taken criticism about everything from its curriculum and delivery methodology to its staff competency. Isn't it appropriate to mention that it's changing its campus structure (basically, to address concerns)? I saw one site recently that has a list of campus locations for the same type of school as UPX - it's longer than the article. Now that's promotional. The driving question is if our editing efforts actually improve the article.  You're making high quality edits and the discussion is helpful to the article. As long as no one gets offended/stubborn we are going to make some quality improvements, I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caernarvon (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well when a reference link has a popup enrollment form and is not even related to the text, I would say that is promotional. Statements taken from UofP's website and not supported by independent references which state "The UPX uses its large size and commensurate resources to acquire course textbooks inexpensively...." are promotional.  Saying a university has wi-fi access and workshops or computers is like saying a car has wheels.  I don't see a reason for information like that to be put in unless its for promotional reasons. I could list all the instances of promotion I recently deleted if that would prove helpful.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the podcast, I haven't had a chance to look at it or what form it is in, i.e. audio, so I cannot weigh in on that.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs Are Not Reliable Sources
I have at least three blog references. Blogs are not reliable references. I have taken out several of these and left the text hoping that an alternative reference can be found. I did leave in Footnote 37, which is entitled "University of Phoenix Responds". This a response to blog post! Hardly a reliable post. I know that there was a University of Phoenix response to the NY Times article. That needs to be found or the text needs to be removed.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, correct! I think one of those is mine - though I know information about The Netherlands and Mexico campuses can be found in numerous locations. I don't remember the cite going to a blog; I'll see if I can find another source in the next couple of days. It's probably good that you noted that, as much of the demographic information like number of campuses, etc, is out of date and appears to be contradictory throughout the article. I'd like to find one place and then ensure that it's consistent throughout.  I think you were right to leave in the UPX response if it is not a blog in and of itself and it's just an online source that references one. I know it's not your responsibility, but if you have a few minutes to check for alternate online sources and post same if you find them, I'm sure it would be appreciated by the original author, especially if the material is generally sound for the article type. Thanks again for your review! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have searched for a reprint of UofP Response to the New York Times that is not part of a blog which has the problem of many comments that will be included as part of the reference. There will need to be some reference for the text however, and ultimately I feel it will have to be removed if an adequate source cannot be located.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I had mentioned previous concerns with this section but hadn't gotten around to acting on it. Unless anyone else has an objection I think my post addressing these concerns a few weeks ago should be sufficient notice to warrant removal at this time. I will make the change. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, the campus resource center commentary does cite a blog, by Goldie Blumenstyk - a well known and respected writer for the Chronicle of Higher Education who has written neutral articles shedding both positive and negative light on the school in the past. It is relevant information, notable because it speaks to the controversy over the balance of education and profit for the school and because it's a tactic not used by other schools - it's unique. I will see if I can find another source, though!! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether blogs are by respected authors or not, they are still blogs and are not reliable, verifiable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why the "Ugh", at the beginning. Luckily, there are other, better sources for that info. Again, good editing. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The citations have been fixed. They now reference articles and a business fact page for an organization other than UPX.  I also undid the math someone calculated in coming up with the 35 year "average" age. 34 for undergrad and 36 for grad students does not make for a true mean (though it does if one is calculating the median). The calculation constituted original research on the original author's part (or the blogger they were quoting - I don't care enough to check which!). I see some other opportunities for strengthening citations and will work on it through the weekend. --Caernarvon (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New Material
Mysteryquest, the material on coursework is new for this article, though the article you are citing is not. The Criticism section just underwent a major re-write after discussion here on the talk page. Please remove the additional material and post it to this page for discussion. You've been around long enough to know better - let's talk about this stuff before just doing a major change like that! Thanks! --Caernarvon (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you probably haven't been back on since I posted above, but I did notice that you tagged the entry in the criticism section with the thought that you were unsure as to why mention of the general topic had been removed during previous edits. First, see above - there's a good general discussion on the reasons behind recent edits to the Criticism section. To get into it in a little more detail, It just seemed the criticism section was too long/detailed considering WP:UNDUE. It started sounding like a schizophrenic argument. We tried to consolidated and re-arrange the criticism so it flowed more logically. It seems the citations are more appropriate to provide detailed insight. Conceptually, the 20-24 hour issue was consolidated into the first controversy about the school not balancing student and investor concerns. I would like to propose removal of the new material and inclusion of the NYT article as an additional citation for the first listed criticism. I don't think it deserves it's own bullet point, especially considering the school was sued on this issue previously and is mentioned in the legal issues sub-section (sued in March 2000 for receiving financial aid when class hours fell short of the minimum). The United States Department of Education has given UPX a waiver on the issue and they're the ones that set this standard. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I don't believe that the issue of shortened class schedule is addressed by the issue of the school allegedly not being putting student's needs in front of shareholders' needs. The issue of having students allegedly teaching themselves and have significantly less course work; 20-25 hours vs. 40 hours is important and worth mentioning.  It is all of two lines so I'm not swayed by the argument that it unduly per Wikipedia standards.  The criticism section is still much shorter than it was. The fact that the Department of Education gave UofP a waiver regarding class hours does not negate the fact that their class hours are significantly less than a traditional university and there has been concerned expressed about it.  The fragment "There have been concerns that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders..." hardly addresses those concerns or even a fraction of the other concerns that are raised in the article.  So, I see no reason at all to remove the "new material".  Mysteryquest (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument is persuasive. Still, the concern is that the overall length of the criticism section is what starts to create the WP:UNDUE issue - not necessarily the individual arguments. I actually agree that the amount of instructor facetime is noteworthy, but once that's in the criticism section, then, to be fair, the other side of the story has to be mentioned - and so it grows. We could write a book on these topics. One problem I have with the way it's written is the use of quotes, as if quoting the article. Only the phrase, "learning teams", of everything in quotes, is actually a phrase contained within the article.  This is good material and should be included in some form. I'll make a deal; lets move the issue to the Academics section, putting it near the already in-place discussion on learning teams and go with this part of your wording (using the NYT article as the source):

"Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in learning teams."


 * This leaves out the quoted POV wording that's not in the article, leaves the meat of the concept intact and places it in the Academics section so there's no WP:UNDUE concern with getting another argument section going under criticism. Is this acceptable? --Caernarvon (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No its not. I'm not persuaded that if a controversy section becomes beyond a certain length then it "automatically" becomes an WP:UNDUE issue which appears to be your argument unless I'm mistaken. Valid and well documented criticism need not be omitted simply because there is an abundance of it.  The wording is okay, but I do not think its appropriate to move it out of the controversy section though I do not have a problem with the wording.  It is a controversy, not an "academic" issue.  UofP was sued over it, and then was granted a waiver. Having significantly less coursework than a traditional university and having students "teach themselves" is very noteworthy and goes to the quality of the education and, unfortunately, controversial and I believe is not Undue to mention it.  Again, I do not believe that valid, legitimate controversial items become subject toWP:UNDUE simply because there are a great deal of them.  As it stands now, the controvery section size, is small, and not an issueMysteryquest (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not my argument. Every situation should be judged on a case-by-case basis.  For instance, a user recently made the suggestion in the ITT Technical Institute article, a school accused of at least as much as UPX, stating:


 * "Not that I am a fan of ITT Tech, however, the controversy section is disproportionately large when juxtaposed against the rest of the article. Without passing judgment on the validity of the items in the controversy section, it might be good to find some way of consolidating some items thereby shortening the section. Perhaps a narrative for some of the older lawsuits but keep the references for those who want to read in depth." Mysteryquest (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please be careful about the use of quotation marks. They make it seem as if you are quoting something. The word "automatically" is not in my argument, nor in my intent, just as neither of the phrases "little meat" or "stripped down schedule" are in the NYT article you've quoted. I still believe it's an academic issue. The original reason for these rules was the promulgation of diploma mills in the burgeouning internet age and the standards were based on traditional school formats. Only the most rabid anti-for-profit viewpoint would characterize a school with numerous accreditations, including national and regional like UPX, as a diploma mill. UPX was sued because it was in technical violation, but received the waiver because USDOE is being forced to re-consider what constitutes a sound educational model. So consider - the suit was settled (no admission or finding of guilt) over eight years ago, was based on a standard that was questionably relevant to online learning and is already mentioned under the Legal Issues section concerning the 9.8 million settlement with a nod to the accusation that UPX doesn't balance student/investor interests as the first Controversy bullet.  Add to that the fact that some people apparently believe there is a point at which a controversies section becomes, "disproportionately large," (apparently a point that is discernable only to them (just teasing!!)). I'm still somewhat willing to place just my proposed new wording, found above, under the first bullet of the controversies section with a reference to the NYT article, but would still rather list it under Academics. It's a verifiable structural characteristic of the UPX academic model. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? --Caernarvon (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the text of the NY Times article which is the basis for the text: "Government auditors in 2000 ruled that this schedule fell short of the minimum time required for federal aid programs, and the university paid a $6 million settlement. But in 2002, the Department of Education relaxed its requirements, and the university’s stripped-down schedule is an attractive feature for many adults eager to obtain a university degree while working. But critics say it leaves courses with little meat." As you can see "little meat" is in the article as is "stripped down schedule." Please be careful about reading references before you accuse me of mischaracterizing them.  My use of quotes around automatically was not because you used the word, it was my characterization of your argument.


 * I never said that UofP was a diploma mill nor is it stated anywhere in the article so I'm not sure where you are going with that.


 * Its your opinion that that it was UofP's "stripped down schedule" was a good educational model or at least I have not seen any reliable independent reference for it. Nor have a seen a reliable independent reference for the proposition that the USDOE model was not suitable for an online school.   If UofP's system was such a good educational model, I personally wonder why the Department of Education didn't just adopt it instead of having to grant a waiver?


 * Okay, maybe you're confused, but this matter did not involve the 9.9 million dollar fine but the 6 million dollar fine, however, I will speak to your arguments. No defendant or potential defendant who settles a lawsuit admits liability.  That has always been one of the advantages of settling so that fact is insignificant.  It being a technical violation, is again your opinion (do you have a reliable independent reference for it?), and reading the Department of Education report hardly makes it seem technical, nor does the almost 10 million dollar fine, the shareholder lawsuit and the false claims act lawsuit.  So the fact that it was 8 years ago does not make it insignificant, especially when litigation concerning it continues today.  I do not agree with putting it in academics, it does not have anything to do with academics, its a quality of education issue, which belongs where it is.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, as for my contribution to the ITT talk page which is taken out of context since one cannot view the ITT article at the time I made it, that article was almost all controversy and nothing else. This is hardly the case here and what ITT has to do with UofP, I'm not sure.Mysteryquest (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ITT Technical Institute is a for-profit institution of higher education that has been the subject of much criticism in the media and courts, has a wikipedia page, has had a large amount of criticism mounted on that page and has been edited by you on the topic of the size of its criticism section, just like UPX. This seems in-context considering the crux of the discussion is WP:WEIGHT. The diploma mill observation was in reference to why the standards which UPX was alleged to have broken were put in place in the first place. UPX - not a diploma mill - was caught by legislation designed to stop diploma mills. Why? Because the standard was based on traditional school educational models. To be fair to USDOE - it was the only model with which they were truly familiar at an organizational level at the time. Respectable models for internet-based distance education were, and still are, just being developed. How can you support the contention that the UPX 20-24 hour/learning teams class model, "does not have anything to do with academics"? It is central to the school's accelerated learning format. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We are editing the UofP article, not the ITT article! Your opinions continue to be wholly unsupported by any reliable third party reference.  You did not produce any to support the ones I cited previously and now you propose that federal regulations that might have been designed for diploma mills are not suitable for UofP and that UofP should not be held to account for violating them and that the USDOE sanctioned UofP because "to be fair" it was the only model with which they were truly familiar at an organizational level at the time".  So, it was the USDOE's fault that UofP violated the USDOE's regulations, more or less.  Do you have any reliable source for any of this proposition?


 * The issue here is UPX's 20-24 hour coursework vs. a 40 hour traditional coursework. It's controversial and that controversy is well documented as is the use of "learning teams."  You are making it much more complicated by bringing up ITT and your many personal opinions and interpretations concerning the suitability of UofP's models and USDOE regulations.  If you have any reliable sources for this information I suggest you place it in mitigation, however, none of them justify moving a controversy to the academic section nor is it UNDUE to list it in the controversy or quality issue section, where it belongs.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Margin Reset

Woah, easy there champ. I know typing as a form of communication makes it easy to misunderstand the tone of what's being said. I mentioned the ITT article again because I thought you were asking a question with your statement that you didn't understand how ITT and UPX are the same. I simply pointed out that you have indicated one opinion in the past about ITT and another this time under very similar circumstances about UPX and I question your neutrality on the topic, just as you have mine, on occasion.

We may be getting a little too deep into discussing the topic here, as opposed to discussing the question of weight (both guilty). It is neither your nor my duty to convince the other, though I'd happily continue the discussion on either of our talk pages. I would prefer to settle this via consensus and continue the discussion, limited to where we are going to place the compromised wording, in the next section. Perhaps a nod could be given to the 20-24 hour issue in both the Academics and Criticism sections? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what basis you have to question my neutrality. Again, ITT was almost completely controversy and nothing else, whereas, UoP is nowhere near that state.  There is very little parallel between the ITT article when I made that comment and the UofP article.  You continue not to address this fact.  I have never, as I recall, perhaps you may refresh my memory, questioned your neutrality but since you question mine, I will now.  At this point I think you are using your opinion that there is WP:UNDUE  issue with this article to minimize well documented material that could be construed as negative about UofP, in favor of everything you feel is good and which is, in many cases, only supported by UofP references.  For example, most of your discussion about this particular issue, as I have pointed out, is based on your opinions, analysis and interpretations which is not supported by any reference.  Now, a simple mention about a well documented issue involving the length of the coursework must be subsumed or cloaked as an academic issue. I don't agree with your proposed compromise language for reasons I have detailed in the latter section of this page. I believe that someone else needs to weigh in on whether there is a WP:UNDUE issue with this article.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I went through the talk page here only one time, so I may have missed some, but here's a list of references I've researched and posted here - not including the six or so simple reference fixes I've been making directly to the page to remove UPX references and make them third-party:


 * http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/publications.aspx source
 * http://www.cael.org/pdf/publication_pdf/Chronicle_of_HigherEdArticle.pdf source
 * http://www.princeton.edu/admission/whatsdistinctive/experience/the_preceptorial_system/
 * http://www.phoenix.edu/media_relations/university_learning_goals.aspx learning teams
 * http://www.ou.edu/pii/teamlearning/
 * http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700253600,00.html
 * http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp Programmatic Accrediting Organizations 2008-2009
 * http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i40/40a00103.htm
 * http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11257.shtml
 * http://www.davidbruceallen.com/strategyoped/2007/03/university
 * http://kroplaw.com/uop/DOE.report.on.UOP.pdf
 * http://www2.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=834 Lawmakers Are on the Student-Loan Warpath
 * http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-apollo-group-suit,0,3707385.story
 * http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i40/40a00103.htm Diverse Populations
 * http://www.phoenix.edu/academicannualreport/doc/2008AnnualAcademicReport.pdf
 * http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=9069&cha=6
 * http://chronicle.com/media/audio/v54/i40/cyber_classroom/

On the point of you're not having previously questioned my neutrality:

"Facts that are documented by only University of Phoenix are not neutral and are naturally skewed toward the Universities views. The use of UofP sources risk making the article POv and turning it into merely a sock puppet for UofP. The Academic Profile and Diversity sections are now perilously close to simply promoting UofPMysteryquest (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)"

"Statements such as "UPX uses it large size to ... and etc. are not NPOV, not neutral and merely parrot UofP positions in fact much of it appears to be just a recapitalization from the University of Phoenix website. I believe that non-notable, promotional material needs to be removed. The diversity section has the same problem, as many of the "sources" are merely promotional rather than informative.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)"

"The "research paper" cited in the above reference is written by a UofP officer, the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, so its hardly neutral or arguably even research (which is why I put research in quotes). One cannot "research" a subject which one has a vested interest in or is intimately involved with. Research implies that there is some distance between the researcher and the subject he or she is researching. I do not see much difference between it and the UPX website and do not feel its appropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)"

I continue to try to work nice with you because, despite our difference of opinion, I am assuming good faith. Honestly, I don't just assume it, many of you're posts have been either completely neutral or have shown me where mine have not been. (I wish I received the same level of respect from you, but that apparently isn't going to happen). Wikipedia does not require that posters be neutral, it only requires that we edit neutrally to the best of our ability. I see where your critiques of my work have helped establish a more neutral tone - unfortunately, you seem to be unable to see any good in the school, so whether or not you like it, or admit it, I will perform the same function for you. Remember, just as I should, that just because we believe something, that does not make it TRUE or NEUTRAL. As a matter of point, you have suggested that I, "minimize well documented material that could be construed as negative about UofP." I don't intend to minimize it - I simply think that for most criticisms there are valid responses - so a criticism gets posted, then the response, then the response to that - and so on... that's how we ended up with the ridiculously long Criticism section we recently edited down. Mention criticisms - I agree most should be here, but let readers go back to the sourced citations if they want to do in-depth research rather than hashing it out on the WP page. I'd like to take this discussion to one of our talk pages, if that's acceptable? As important as it is to we two, I'm not sure anyone else wants to read about it! --Caernarvon (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Placing the Compromise Wording
To summarize where it seems we are at in this discussion - We have agreed to use the NYT reference and remove the extra wording on the bullet and are left with:

"Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in learning teams."

We are considering two options for where to place this entry:

1. Move it to Academics section.

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.” The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams, forms of which are used by other schools, in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.

2. Move it to the first bullet under Controversies.

--Caernarvon (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been concerns that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders, though UPX claims that standardized testing in reading, writing, and mathematical skills for UPX students show that they improve at a better rate on average than for students at most other schools. Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.”

I do not agree with the wording offered behind Door No. 1. I am not sure that either the University of Oklahoma or Princeton University uses a preceptorial system similar to UofP. I believe that the references that support this concept are tenuous at best. Moreover, I do not believe that those schools offer 20 to 24 hours of school work as opposed to 40, which is one of main issues and will be lost in the suggested academic language. I also see no reason not to include language that makes it clear that this is a concern as reflected in the NY Times article. At this point I believe that the matter should be submitted to mediation or a administrator should get involved because Caernarvon and I are apparently just talking at cross purposes.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't give up now! All I did to get the wording for the first choice was add the wording that we compromised on to what was already there. Let's take it a step further. Part of your concern is the UoO and Princeton references to learning teams. You are correct, the references are tenuous - let's remove that wording unless some better link can be made (I don't think it exists, frankly). How about something like this:


 * Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” a practice questioned by some. The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.


 * This language includes the fact of the 20-24 hour practice, includes a nod to the concerns about it, removes a tenuous reference to other schools that use learning teams and includes the contention that UPX actually believes students benefit from the practice. Everyone has a voice for their issues and I think it definitely improves the article, overall. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the wording, because if promotes UPX's view while only giving only "a nod" to the opposing view that some academics feel that it entails too little classroom time, a fact that is documented by reliable third party references as opposed to UPX references. Of course, UPX believes the students benefit from the practice!  They devised it and are not neutral.  In other words, the five words "a practice questioned by some" minimizes the concerns expressed in the NY Times article.  However, the UPX viewpoint gets a long declaratory sentence which does not betray the fact that its UPX's viewpoint and is only supported by UPX's media relations page, which is not a suitable third party reference per Wikipedia standards and it is inherently biased.  This appears to be a pattern with your edits, in my humble opinion, giving preference to positive UPX viewpoints referenced solely by UPX sources over negative viewpoints which are supported by independent references.  I do not believe we are making any progress here.  Mysteryquest (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, as detailed elsewhere in this discussion page, the parallel between UofP's educational model and that of University of Ok and Princeton should be removed as there appears to be a consensus and an admission by you that it is original research.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a thing for UPX being unable to publish factual, neutral information about itself. You also have a misunderstanding of reliable sources per wikipedia standards. Here is an excerpt from that page:

'''Self-published sources Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above. When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published.'''


 * Non-self published info is obviously better, but not all UPX self published info is inherently biased. Here's the crux of our editing disagreements - when I add or edit material that paints the school in a positive light you call it biased.  Quick wake up call - education is generally good and even a low end school (which is not necessarily UPX, by any valid measure) can have unbiased, good things said about it.  Come down off the ledge, switch to decaf and take a look at our interactions here - not only have I agreed with your view on numerous occasions, I have given credit to the value of your (often non-neutral) viewpoint several times.  For instance, you may have missed it, but I agreed with removing the university of oklahoma and princeton prior to your last to posted condemnations of it!  I'm not trying to contend with you.  Look at Mike and Tallmagic posts - they've both straightened me out or agreed with me several times.  I'm not asking you to change your viewpoint or not add to the edits (unless there's an undisclosed WP:conflict_of_interest); you add value to the discussion and I would like to get a better understanding of where you're coming from.  Just relax a little, and an occasional implemented compromise would go a long way.


 * Back to your editing concerns. Let's strengthen the, "a practice questioned by some" phrase and use more neutral wording in the UPX sentence. How's this?


 * Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” a practice questioned by some academicians and former students. UPX suggests that its educational model benefits from the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions. 

--Caernarvon (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you got your cite as I cannot locate it. However, I did locate the following guideline.

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves

Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:
 * 1) the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
 * 2) it is not contentious;
 * 3) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 4) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 5) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 6) there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
 * 7) the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * In this case, the learning team concept is contentious. No, I do not believe that material from UofP's website is neutral. You do?  Their website is for promotional purposes not neutral critical self-analysis. I suspect you would have a difficult time finding anything critical about UofP on their website or even neutral for that matter.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't condemn your your connection of UofP with Ok and Princeton, I simply stated it should be removed and it was not removed when I added the comment or I wouldn't have bothered. I'm not a coffee drinker and don't have access to a ledge, so this would work better if you didn't express any concerns for my well being, as heartfelt as I'm sure they are. It strikes me as patronizing and condescending, but that's just my opinion. Additionally, until you have some bonafide evidence of my purported non-neutrality, I wish you would stop alluding to such.


 * The following language would be more suitable to me, however, I still believe it belongs in the quality of education section.


 * '''Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.” The shortened coursework and the practice of having students teach themselves has caused concerns among some academicians and former students. UPX suggests that its educational model benefits from the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions. '

Just to throw in a personal POV here: I think you are both (Mysteryquest & Caernarvon) doing excellent work and I commend your ability to work together through this stuff. I am sorry I am not able to contribute more. Mike (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, Thanks Mike. Apparently, Mysteryquest and I will probably never sit down for a cup of coffee (decaf or otherwise!) together, but I agree the article will benefit!


 * Now, back to our editing! "shortened" doesn't work for me as an adjective.  These are supposed to be accelerated programs and "shortened coursework" speaks to the coursework, not the face time.  I think the word "compact" is more neutral.  Also, we just went to the trouble in the previous sentence to define learning teams, then we repeat the definition rather than use the term in the next sentence.  The last (positive) sentence is still longer than the one suggesting the concerns. I think it can be reduced for a more balanced paragraph by adding the purpose of the learning teams to the sentence where the concept is first mentioned.  I removed "academic model" and replaced it with "students" - it's more to the point.  The opening sentence is pure neutral fact. The second sentence is overall neutral. The next sentence is mostly critical. The last sentence is mostly positive. The references for the paragraph are an almost exclusively damning NYT article and I found a better reference than a UPX website for the final cite. I changed the last "learning teams" to "student groups" purely because the phrase "learning teams" has already been overused in the paragraph.

--Caernarvon (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see nothing in the new reference that supports the concept that students benefit from the use of these student groups or learning teams. There is language implying that UofP is convenient for working professionals and that they can log on anytime, but not beneficial unless the benefit is the convenience.  If that is the case the text should make clear that the benefit is the convenience.  As far as compact, there is nothing to suggest that the course are compact as opposed to just short.  Compact implies that the students are getting the same amount of teaching in 20-24 hours plus 5 student team hours as they would with a 40 hour course schedule.  That is not supported by the reference.  Thus abbreviated would be more accurate.


 * Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” wherein students engage classmates in course material discussions. The abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams has caused concern among some academicians and former students. The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime.

Mysteryquest (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a deal, and a damn well worded paragraph, Mysteryquest. I'd invite you over for well earned cup of coffee, but you don't drink coffee and I'm afraid by the end of our visit I might be wearing whatever it is you DO drink!! Keep holding my feet to the fire and I promise the same - the article benefits from it. I'll implement your wording! --Caernarvon (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, as if you look closely, you will see that I did not agree that it should be removed from the controversy page to the academic page. I still believe that it is a quality of education issue.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As near as I can tell, your concern is that valid criticism receive it's just due. Mine is that excessive volume under the Criticism section by itself adds WP:UNDUE weight. The criticism section just underwent major revision and we achieved the state prior to your addition by consensus (see above). With no one else weighing in on the topic, perhaps it is best to request mediation, since I believe the consensus decision prior to your addition will stand. I would not like this to end like that - because, frankly, your position has merit. I would prefer it if we could reach a compromise, but my basic position is it should not be in Criticism. I will not compromise on that as you should not compromise on your basic position that the concern find a voice in the article.  I will make another attempt at compromise wording, though I believe you are getting more of your position than I mine at this point. Shall we add some slightly more detailed info on the criticism? Just to warn you ahead of time, there are plenty of sources out there suggesting the quality of the education is fine, and I will bring that here for consideration at some point in the future.


 * Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” wherein students engage classmates in course material discussions. The abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams has caused concern among some academicians and former students as to the quality of education. The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, there has not been consensus on this topic since Mysteryquest's addition of the material without prior discussion on the talk page. I have allowed the disputed material to remain during this debate, but if there is no further discussion, by wikipedia rules I will assume silence to be wp:consensus on Monday and implement the above change in the Academics section and remove the non-consensus version from the Criticism section. If we do have further discussion this weekend but don't make progress on consensus by Monday, also by wikipedia rules, I will revert the Criticism section back to the state it was in when last there was consensus. That would be unfortunate, since I still believe in good faith that his viewpoint deserves a spot on the page.  I would prefer that one of several alternatives occur. The first would be that Mysteryquest reviews my most recent compromise as close enough to agreeable (or we can tweak it a bit this weekend) that we can implement the compromise. The second would be that a third party (or more, even better) would weigh in on the topic in either his direction or mine.  If I revert the material (worst option) I will start a new section to attempt to achieve consensus to add the compromise wording above to the Academics section. This is out of respect for the time and effort Mysteryquest has put in to trying to work out this compromise and because, at the base of it, I don't necessarily disagree with his view, just the degree to which he chooses to express it. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept the change. Mike (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think these are good changes. I would also like to add that my personal belief is that the article has been improved significantly, good job. I believe that the overall tone of the article is still unduly slanted towards the negative. UPX is a huge school that graduates many successful individuals. I think the unduly slightly negative slant is due to the nature of news. It is much more common to write a news story about negative developments. The best solution to this, in my opinion, is not to delete negative commentary. The best solution is to be extra careful about neutral wording and to take advantage of self published material. Thank you for the great job! TallMagic (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and implement the change then. Mike and TallMagic, thanks for adding to the discussion. Mysteryquest, thank you for your edits - the article benefitted from your efforts. This is a good example of how Wikipedia does work. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, now that this is implemented... Today I was speaking with a former UPX student and I mentioned this edit. She said she hated teams because the entire team gets the same grade, regardless of how much work they each do. She felt that she did all the work in her team, while the others were just not capable of doing it. The only way that she could get a good grade was to do all the work, and then everyone on the team got "her" grade. I wish there was some way to find verified sources that document that this is UPX policy, or to determine if this is an isolated case done by one instructor. If the former, this would fit under criticism. Mike (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Teams, in general, suck as an educational tool, IMHO. I have extreme sympathy for poor folks that have to deal with them.  I worked in teams at the University of Maryland and for graduate coursework at the University of Florida and University of South Florida.  It wasn't that it isn't possible to do significant learning in a team environment - my gripe with them is exactly what your friend was saying - there's was always someone pulling the group down and getting a grade they didn't deserve.  Tell a professor that, and they argue invariably that life is full of teams and the purpose of team learning is to stimulate learning of a different sort - how to get along.  I recently saw a syllabus from a UPX class on the web, I'll try again to find it, that talked about learning teams - though I distinctly recall the wording that the facilitator reserved the right to grade individually if there was a clear and substantial difference between the effort of the team members. I have no clue as to if this really happens in practice or if this is a common feature of all their syllabi or just something from that one teacher.  I'll check around and see if I can find a link to it. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Found it - "At the instructors discretion NOT ALL LEARNING TEAM MEMBERS WILL GET THE SAME GRADE for LEARNING TEAM ASSIGNMENTS (papers or presentations)." http://brianperryman.com/UOP/EBUS400/EBUS400ds.html --Caernarvon (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, it seems instructors are permitted to reserve the right to assign grades for team projects based on their own discretion. There are some additional online syllabi that address it either directly or obliquely:


 * http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:JRF-s0f072wJ:www.realmarcom.com/originator/modules.php%3Fop%3Dmodload%26name%3DPagEd%26file%3Dindex%26p_deliver%3Dmedia%26m_id%3D1+%22University+of+Phoenix%22+mba+510+syllabus&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
 * http://www.cebert.net/UOP/MBA520/MBA520r3%20Web%20Syllabus%20070820.htm

I still hate teams! --Caernarvon (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes
Again, please - can we bring suggested changes here rather than just making them wholesale? I have just reverted the change removing the material on USDOE getting tough on schools for financial aid program violations. It's not that I disagree with the edit, but we deserve the opportunity to discuss this before making the changes. Here is the change proposed by Mysteryquest:


 * In September 2004, UPX paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of the Higher Education Act provisions which prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives.    The United States Department of Education has recently targeted numerous universities for improprieties in the administration of student loan programs. 

The suggestion is to remove the bolded text with the following reasoning:


 * (cur) (last) 03:32, 13 September 2008 Mysteryquest (Talk | contribs) (22,937 bytes) (→Criticism and controversies: delete irrelevant text that does not relate to UofP (if other schools violate laws prohibiting financial incentives to "advisors" its okay for UofP to do it?) (undo)

--Caernarvon (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is not directly relevant to the fact that USDOE went after UPX on this issue. I favor removing it. Mike (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike! You both raise good points. Here's my problem with the removal. The article talking about USDOE going after schools for similar problems mentions MANY different schools. I checked the WP pages for those schools. Not one of them mentioned the USDOE attention in this regard. This isn't the only point under the criticism section of which this is true. Schools are sued, fined and have accreditation hassles all the time, why is it so much more noteworthy for UPX? The answer seems to be they have ticked off numerous interest groups (established academia, disgruntled employees/students, etc). Enter Wikipedia - Looking at this article 2 months ago, it was only through significant research that I was able to determine that despite some serious miscalculations on the school's part, it seems to deliver a reasonably mediocre educational product for a regionally accredited school. The criticism section started with a reference to the UOPSUCKS.COM website. Talk about quoting a blog, LOL. I visited the site and the first post I saw was the webmaster explaining he had removed some pro-uop answers to criticism found on his site because it was his website and he didn't allow anything pro-UOP on it! Sorry it's taking so long to get to the point, but here it is... Yes, the material relates to the situation but no, it doesn't relate to UPX directly, so would normally be less than acceptable. On the other hand, with USDOE having gone after so many schools, none of which have this material mentioned on their pages, is the criticism itself WP:NPOV? Moreover, the policy suggests that if there is significant controversy, it may be appropriate to include mitigating sources to achieve proper WP:WEIGHT. On this particular issue, I'm sort of near the middle because I think the point you all have raised is valid. I think the weight issue is valid also. If you all still think the relevance issue is strong enough to remove the mitigating answer to the criticism, I'd like to ask we give it til Tuesday to see if anyone else wants to weigh in and we can remove it then. Thanks! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters, the reference I removed did not even involve the behavior that UofP was accused of, it involved financial aid improprieties. UofP was accused of paying incentives to recruiters!  Even if the reference was to similar behavior that UofP engaged it would be totally inappropriate to include it.  The article is not about financial aid improprieties, its not about universities in general, its about UofP.  The fact that other universities may have performed similar bad acts (again, the text did not even reference "similar bad acts") is not a mitigating factor.


 * Now is it NPOV to mention it? I do not know how many schools the USDOE went after for paying incentives to recruiters (not a conflicts of interest arising out of financial aid counselors recommending certain loan program), however, I suggest that it was not many. Even if it there were many it is NPOV to mention the case against UofP which involved a huge 9.8 million dollar settlement, spawned a shareholder lawsuit against Apollo, its parent company, and a false claims act which continues today.  I would say that it appropriately mentioned.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am pursuaded by your argument - the relevance to UPX is shaky and the accusation against was specifically financial incentives to academic counselors (financial aid improprieties). Other schools violations were not detailed to that degree, though the few that were spelled out were of financial incentives being provided to school officials by lenders, etc (also financial aid improprieties, as a general class, the same behavior as UPX). My WP:UNDUE concern remains for the overall article, but this reference is tenuous. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Review
I think this article is getting close to deserving another review of its quality scale ranking, especially with some of the recent cleanup by Mysteryquest. Would anyone like time to make more edit suggestions before I request the review? I would like to do some more expansion, especially in History, Academics and Campuses sections - that's hard to do for any school site without going back to UPX developed web sources, but I'll give it a try. I absolutely do not want the material to be promotional, but because I have a lower standard for that than some, I definitely want it known that I invite critical oversight and comments while I'm working on it. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at this point, there is a great deal of material solely supported by UPX sources, which are not "third-party" and thus are questionable. I would suggest that more would be inappropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it depends on the information. I think simple facts that aren't controversial can be sourced from UPX without issue and without limit. (Limited only by the notability of the information.) Controversial information that is  self-published is where the danger lies. It can still potentially be used but if it is then it should be qualified, for example, "UPX states". Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see what I come up with, then give it a serious, critical review. There's no harm in hashing it out on the talk page for more in-depth discussion. I think that is helpful to the overall editing process. I promise not to add just to be adding, there's a great template for the university project and numerous other schools with higher article ratings to serve as examples. The article is getting better because of the respectful difference. As a side note, I also can't help but believe that some of this material would be GREAT for the For-profit_school section. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm uncertain as to how information specific to UofP would be "GREAT" for the for-profit school article. Could you elaborate?  Mysteryquest (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take it over to that talk page in a few days. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's some information on the UPX faculty standards and training from a third party research non-profit organization:

'''Pre-screened instructional candidates participate in a training program in the modality in which they teach, which has the effect of weeding out (40%-50%) of the less committed or capable applicants. '''

The website for the source is: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0303/cs/ecs0304.pdf --Caernarvon (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am implementing this addition. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed a reference to the # of campuses and locations under the campuses section. The reference is no longer to a UPX website and the campus material is much more up to date. The info is listed elsewhere in the article as well, and I will make it all match or remove it from other locations soon (assuming this isn't a controvercial edit). --Caernarvon (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed a reference in the history section to the UPX media page. There is a decent research paper from Université Laval, in Québec Canada that provides close enough information to serve as a replacement cite without changing the wording. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "research paper" cited in the above reference is written by a UofP officer, the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, so its hardly neutral or arguably even research (which is why I put research in quotes). One cannot "research" a subject which one has a vested interest in or is intimately involved with.  Research implies that there is some distance between the researcher and the subject he or she is researching. I do not see much difference between it and the UPX website and do not feel its appropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a research paper, whether or not it is authored by a UPX employee. Further, one can absolutely research a subject in which they have a vested interest. Oil companies performing oil exploration - I rest my case. Question: if you were to tell someone your age, would you be able to provide a neutral answer? If you could tell the truth about your height, weight or age, why again is it that UPX is incapable of truthfully listing neutral demographic information about itself? However, let me say, to avoid a conflict between the information and the reference, it's probably appropriate to keep looking for other sources, so I'll do that. Peace, out! --Caernarvon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the header references to a non-UPX site - corrected some information - UPX is the largest private university in North America - I have seen references that claim the world, but most seem to say North America - I think we'd all prefer to err on the side of the smaller claim, yes? I removed duplicate campus information and added a citation to the last sentence that was previously unreferenced. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed an outdated, secondary reference to the number of students at the school from the History section. There's been too much of the same (but different) data spread throughout the article, my efforts today should bring the info pretty much up to date and delete most duplicate information. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced a reference concerening campus resources from a UPX website reference to an online article reference. No change of wording. I'm not sure this is the best change, since the article's inference seems a touch different than what our article is saying. I don't think it's controvercial, but please let me know what you all think about the applicability of this reference. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

UPX's "Preceptoral System" & Comparison to Other Schools
I have had a chance to look at your language wherein you compare UPX's educational model to University of Oklahoma and Princeton University. By your own admission, there was original research involved in drawing the parallel between UofP and this two universities and I do not believe it is proper for the article and believe it should be removed based on the fact that it is original research. I modified the first statement so that it is clear that its UPX's position which was not clear the way it was drafted. Any statement taken from UPX's website, and there are many, should indicate that it is UPX's opinion and not stated as a fact. Moreover, the reference to the University of Oklahoma system is a promotional page for a book, a weak reference at best. Mysteryquest (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation
I would like to consider accreditation for a separate section under Academics. As it stands now, it receives about a half of a sentence. It would read something like:

Accreditation
UPX is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission as a member of the North Central Association. It also has accreditation for a variety of its specialty degree programs, including:


 * Nursing Accreditation — The B.S. in Nursing and the M.S. in Nursing degree programs are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE).


 * Business Accreditation — All business programs from the Associate to the Doctoral levels have specialty accreditation through the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP).


 * Teacher Education Accreditation — The M.A. in Education degree program is preaccredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) for a period of five years, from December 20, 2007 to December 20, 2012.


 * Counseling Accreditation — The M.S. in Counseling degree program in Community Counseling and the M.S. in Counseling degree program in Mental Health Counseling are accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).

=
===== Kaplan University, Walden University, ITT Technical Institute and Devry University each have a subsection devoted to the topic, though many traditional schools do not seem to. What do you all think?

--Caernarvon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this formatting instead. -- Mike (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good formatting suggestion - it organizes the topic better. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any further discussion on this before implementation? --Caernarvon (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it and great work.17reasons (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks, I'm implementing. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Faculty criticism
I would like to consider removing this section:


 * Approximately 95% of UPX faculty are part-time compared with an average of 47% across all universities.[16] UPX's position is that it only hires faculty with masters or doctoral degrees, requiring that most be actively working in the fields that they teach.[39]

from the Criticism section and incorporating it into the Faculty section. The NYT article itself is highly critical of UPX (see also, Yellow Journalism), but this particular quote seems to be referencing a conversation with Dr. Pepicello. There is a later critical observation by John J. Fernandes of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (the direct competitor of the accredidation agency UPX uses, ACBSP) that it is his observation that UPX's faculty is too come and go, but does not reference the above statistic. Moreover, there is no contention that by using this model, UPX has a lower educational standard, which is inferred by placing it under Criticism. There is too much elitest innuendo and no research to back up this idea. I see no documented, verifiable reason to believe this is a widely held position. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to implement this change. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

University Abbreviation
Several different abbreviations are used in this article: UPX, UoP, UOP, UofP. Seems like it should be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.208 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed some UoP and UOP to UPX. I didn't find any UofP. Note that I didn't change some of the reference titles because that is supposed to be the title of the web pages. Thanks TallMagic (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The abbreviation was orginally UOP then it was changed to UPX. Today someone changed the article in only one place to UOPX. I went to the University of Phoenix website and did a search for UOPX and got zero hits but the UOP search engine suggested that perhaps I mispelled my word and was actually searching for UOPHX. So I searched for UOPHX and got zero hits. Then for fun I searched on UPX and got zero hits. To continue my fun I searched for UOP and got a few hits. To complete my fun I'm posting this story here and stating that I personally prefer UOP but I don't know what the correct abbreviation is. (If there even is a correct abbreviation.) Outside Wikipedia I usually see it abbreviated UoP. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why abbreviate it in the first place? If this were a Wall Street publication, using a stock symbol would be acceptable.  If we're talking about Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, then "PHX" is a most acceptable abbreviation for Phoenix.  If this were a publication internal to the University of Phoenix, then it can pick its own.  For the rest of the world, all of these abbreviations look silly.  I realize the average University of Phoenix graduate enters and leaves with a crappy command of the English language that hardly improves during whatever they "study", but that doesn't mean it needs to be reflected in the university's Wikipedia article.  If a shorter form is needed, "the university" (or "the University") should suffice. Reswobslc (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no strong preference. "UPX", as it is presently filed with the SEC seems technically accurate:


 * http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%2f2007%2f10%2f29%2f0000950153-07-002225.html#FIS_BUSINESS


 * I agree mostly with Reswobslc. Extensive use of the abbreviation probably detracts from the article and would be better in an encyclopedia as, "the school", "the company", "the university", etc.  I won't even dignify the "crappy" comment. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Implemented. --Caernarvon (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better, if UPX is just the stock market abbreviation then that is even more silly to use, to my mind. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos
I found this campus for UPX in St. Petersburg. Is this good in the Campuses section as an example of a branch campus? Should I reduce the image size? --Caernarvon (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The image looks good, you can simply reduce the size in the image tag. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reduced it to 400pix and will allow for text to float. I'll make the addition this week sometime. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This change is implemented - and I removed the capitalization of the word "Internet" from the body of the Campuses section and added the word "wi-fi" to internet access per info from the related cite. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stadium Photo
I thought we agreed that the stadium photo was not an appropriate representation of the university, since it is just paid advertising. Should that photo be removed or reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhedblom (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion. I don't see the advertising value, but obviously the school does.  If whoever posted it doesn't respond here within the next few days, you have my vote to revert.  --Caernarvon (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Rewrite
I'd like to get this area down to the merely ridiculous, if we can, without watering down the seriousness of the concerns. It looks like this section just grew a bit every time someone had a gripe. I'm going to post a draft proposal of a re-write. I know it isn't going to be acceptable to everyone (anyone?!), so feel free to make additions, deletions and comments. I can already see some things I'd change, but I need to just post it to get the process started. I don't have any strong feelings on the topic other than readability and fairness/NPOV. We can probably even trim it down further and have it make more sense than what I've done. I expect this to take a fair amount of time. I'll start by posting the draft, then anything you all don't agree with, please ask my reason for the change and/or post your reason for wanting it a different way. There's no reason this shouldn't be FUN, as long as we all keep an open mind. Let's keep the proposed wording between the solid lines and make our comments below the draft. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike for the first round of edits! --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted the discussed changes. I did remove the accreditation bullet due to the concerns discussed. I also wonder if the wrap up section at the end by Brian Muller really adds anything to the piece. There is an excellent WP page on For-Profit Schools that this material would be more appropriate for. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality of education and accreditation:
 * Although only the AACSB and the ACBSP are recognized by the CHEA for accreditation of business programs through the graduate level, a business degree not accredited by AACSB is perceived by some as inferior to top-tier business schools that have the organization's accreditation. UPX is regionally accredited by the The Higher Learning Commission as a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and its business programs are additionally accredited through the ACBSP.
 * I put the criticism first in the bullet, it makes more sense that way, though I would still prefer to remove it. The NYT article cited mentions this is one company, Intel, (established as, at best .0028% of the UPX business income) that implemented this policy. The reasons for the policy were economic ($25M price tag of the reimbursement program) as much or more than it was a concern with quality. It is impossible to verify if Intel ever changes the policy back, that's just not as sensational as them yanking the non-AACSB schools. No other ACBSP school, even the other one's mentioned in the article, have this mentioned on their WP pages. Frankly, reading the article, its more about an unusual decision by Intel than it is about UPX. The perceptions concerning these accrediting bodies should be discussed either on the MBA WP or the individual pages of the accrediting bodies. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would reverse the order of the two sentences. 1) UPX is acredited by ..., but 2) this is controversial because... Mike (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2nd-class accreditation talk isn't right for UPX and is already on the MBA page. Other b-schools mostly only take accreditation heat in Wikipedia if there's no regional accreditation. NPOV mentions undue weight shouldn't, "give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." But if we keep it, Mike's format definitely reads best. There's alot of valid criticism, stuff like this just waters the section down.


 * My thoughts are along the same line, obviously. The POV and margianality issue is important, though I'm a bit more concerned about the ability to verify the Intel continuing policy.  I'll probably make the changes from this entire section this weekend. Don't forget to sign your posts! --Caernarvon (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a concern that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders, though standardized testing reveals that reading, writing, and mathematical skills for UPX students improve at a better rate on average than for students at most other schools.
 * To me, this is a different topic. Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. I was trying to compact too much and it probably deserves its own bullet. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to re-check this referenced article to see what is meant by "a better rate on average." I get nervous about a statistical reference without numbers and better than average might just be 51%-49%. It would be worth considering if that close of a margin would be a valid counter argument. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Approximately 95% of UPX faculty are part-time compared with an average of 47% across all universities. UPX only hires faculty with masters or doctoral degrees, requiring that most be actively working in the fields that they teach.
 * I say remove the first and last sentences. The 2nd sentence is the only critism or controversy. Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with nixing the first sentence - if someone wants to read that type of opinion they can go to the reference article. I think the other sentence supports the "fair" other side of the coin and maybe it would read better if the criticism comes at the beginning of the sentence. I'll try that, let me know what you think. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the United States Department of Education graduation standards the UPX rate is only 16%. Compared to the national average of 55% it is among the nation's lowest. UPX and some education experts assert that the federal standard is antiquated because it only measures first time students with no previous college credit and uses measurements that skew against economically disadvantaged and minority students. The university response notes that the federal standard only applies to 7% of the total UPX student community and publishes its own nonstandard graduation rate of 59% to account for its overwhelming population of non-traditional students.
 * I want to streamline the remarks about the SC campus and online programs. This is just a re-hash of the downside numbers that went into calculating the overall 16% cited in the first sentence without noting the part of the equation that brings it up overall to 16%.  --Caernarvon (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues:
 * The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a second sexual harassment claim against UPX $225,000 in August 2007.
 * In September 2004, UPX paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of the Higher Education Act provisions which prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives.   The United States Department of Education has recently targeted numerous universities for improprieties in the administration of student loan programs.
 * In the last sentence, are the targets only "for-profit" universities, or are "traditional" universities included? Do we know? Mike (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article suggests the govt is coming down across the board, without mention of private, public, or profit status. numerous institutions have already settled or are coming up on a court date. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A 2003 federal whistle-blower/false claims lawsuit accuses UPX of fraud in obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid. It is set for trial in September 2009.  The school counters that the lawsuit is a legal manipulation by two former UPX employees over a matter previously resolved with the U.S. Department of Education.
 * The university has had various labor and government regulatory related issues. It paid $3.5 million to settle alleged violation of overtime compensation provision with the Department of Labor. It is presently being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for alleged religious discrimination favoring Mormon enrollment counselors. It settled allegations by the United States Department of Education for $6 million in March 2000 because government auditors noted that the teaching schedule fell short of the minimum time required to qualify for financial aid.  The United States Department of Education also ordered the university to pay $650,000 for failing to promptly refund loans and grants for students who withdrew.
 * In January of 2008, UPX’s parent company, Apollo Group, Inc. was found guilty of fraud for misleading investors. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg recently overturned the verdict, ruling that the evidence was not sufficient.
 * This is not a government lawsuit; it is a private "shareholders" lawsuit
 * True, and as such should not be lumped with the others, good point. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to criticism, Brian Mueller, of the Apollo Group wrote an essay on the "clash of cultures between traditional academia and newer, market-oriented colleges and universities." He wrote: "As with all innovation, skeptics abound to feed the culture clash between the old and the new. Those invested in the status quo objected when land grant colleges were introduced and also when community colleges came on the scene, railing against their supposed lack of quality. For-profit colleges are the latest target."

Student / Faculty
I've found some good information on the UPX student and faculty makeup. I would like to add it under the People heading. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Diversity

The 2008 UPX Academic Report shows a highly diverse student and faculty makup. According to demographic information in the report, the student/faculty population is significantly more diverse than that of most higher education institutions, on average. African-Americans make up more than 15% of UPX's 22,000 faculty members, with about 6% as Hispanic. The national average in recent years showed about 5% as African-American with about 3% as Hispanic. The UPX student population is approximately 25% African-American and almost 13% Hispanic. This is as compared to national statistics from recent years showing 12% African-American populations and 10% Hispanics nationally.


 * I like it. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Even with just one day, I'm going to go ahead and post this information. It should be non-controvercial, straight documented fact. The 2008 UPX Annual Academic Report seems to have quite a bit of great information.  I've read about 25% of it, so expect some further updates with this as the source. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Another addition - I've found an article in the Chronicle for Higher Education discussing the opening of student centers nationally. I propose the following addition under Campuses section: --Caernarvon (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Online students are also now able to utilize tutoring/social centers. These centers make tutoring services available and can also be used for other social and student learning interactions. The first center opened in 2007 in Plano, Tex.

I found some additional diversity related material I would like to add to the Diversity subsection. Proposed wording: --Caernarvon (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * UPX graduates a larger number of underrepresented students with master's degrees in business, health care and education than any other U.S. School. It is also ranked as the highest in graduating African American and American Indian students with master's degrees for all other disciplines. The underlying data for these conclusions was provided by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the '05-'06 academic year.


 * I'm implementing the rest of the suggestions in this section at this time. --Caernarvon (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts that are documented by only University of Phoenix are not neutral and are naturally skewed toward the Universities views. The use of UofP sources risk making the article POv and turning it into merely a sock puppet for UofP.  The Academic Profile and Diversity sections are now perilously close to simply promoting UofPMysteryquest (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, though I reject the argument that an entity is incapable of stating unbiased facts about itself. The statement seems somewhat biased. I looked over the changes you made and generally think the article is better off with them. I was going to originally post a bit of a rant here - but looking at the actual changes you made convinced me you seem serious about improving the article. I still don't see how the Academic Profile or Diversity sections are promotional. They contain information similar to what is found at many other school WP pages. The University of California, Yale, George Washington and many others have information posted on their pages about diversity, too.  The UPX numbers are highly diverse - I think that's worth noting without being promotional.  You're probably right to be concerned about promo's - UPX is a for profit school - but if they do well at some things - especially if it stands out in a crowd and can be cited from a mixture of sources, isn't it acceptable to note it as such? I have to say, if anyone editing this page is truly "pro UPX" they're hiding it well - this page has about the biggest controversies section, even after recent editing, of any school I've seen. Good job on the editing. --Caernarvon (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits
I'll be making a few minor edits (typographical, link problems, grammar, punctuation, etc) over the weekend. I just fixed reference 21, the one we were having a problem with from before. I'll post the changes here as I make them. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This reference (^ University of Phoenix lands stadium naming rights-Cards and biggest private college in the U.S. agree to a 20-year deal, The Arizona Republic, by Dawn Gilbertson, September 26, 2006.) on the stadium leads to a page that is no longer accessible. I found another article in the Chronicle that has the same information and will replace it with the new citation. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic Profile and Diversity Issues
The Academic Profile is now filled with information which is more boosterism than information and exclusively supported by information provided only by University of Phoenix. Statements such as "UPX uses it large size to ... and etc. are not NPOV, not neutral and merely parrot UofP positions in fact much of it appears to be just a recapitalization from the University of Phoenix website. I believe that non-notable, promotional material needs to be removed. The diversity section has the same problem, as many of the "sources" are merely promotional rather than informative.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mysteryquest! Welcome back around, I haven't seen a post from you in awhile! By and large, I have to disagree on your assessment (obviously, I posted some of it!). I do agree the wording of the sentence you are quoting above might be expressed better in a different way and would be open to suggestion on how to do that. The sources in the diversity section are from the school's academic report, from an online article (not a blog), and from a couple of other school's websites. The academic report quotes the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the comparison data. Diversity information is included in many university sites in WP articles. I apologize if it seems to parrot other sites, it's hard to include new information properly cited from other sources and not do that to some extent.  I am against wholesale removal of information that was properly posted to the discussion page and reviewed before being listed. Can we work on how to improve what's posted now a piece at a time? Perhaps we can come to a compromise on wording, etc. If we do that, I would ask that you provide an alternative to what's already there or provide specific reasons for each piece you would like to see removed. I would also ask that you review other university sites and the project template - I hope and believe you'll find it's not as far off as you are suggesting. Thanks for taking a look back over the site, though! I'm sure you're input will help to improve the article! --Caernarvon (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I read some of your prior "rant" and though you "deleted" it, I thought I would address some of the issues you raised. "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." That is all I was pointing out.  I was not saying that UofP (or any entity) is incapable of dispensing independent information though it is my opinion that all commercial endeavors tend to circulate information most favorable to themselves.  That's the nature of commerce, which is to profit and profit is sometimes incompatible with forthrightness.  That is one of the reasons we should support articles with "third-party" sources per Wikipedia.  I found it troubling that so much information in the article was solely supported by UofP especially the Diversity and Academic sections.


 * The reason there is so much controversy about UofP is perhaps because many of its policies are controversial. Additionally it has apparently run afoul of several federal regulations and suffered the consequences which is its own fault.  Some of those polices appear to stem from its for-profit design but that's not to say the school should be bear undue scrutiny because of it, however, I don't think this article does that.  In the same token, I don't feel the article should be promotional either.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points are all valid. This is all a relatively new concept in higher education and leaving the formation of the policy, etc of how it is to be executed to a multi-billion dollar corporation seems perilous! The school is at the forefront of higher education distance learning and, painful as it may have been for them, they have benefited from public criticism, including from this site. When I mentioned Goldie Blumenstyk the other day I went back out to review work she's done on the school because I hadn't researched it in awhile. I found this podcast, which, considering it's a researched investigative piece from a major player in higher education reporting, seems quite reliable. It's not as clear to me that the WP article we're working on has any promotional bent. I'd be very concerned to think it does - the problem is, what's the difference between mentioning facts and being promotional.  For instance, the part about them opening study centers in some cities - is that promotional or just noteworthy since it is a feature of their unique "campus" structure. The school has taken criticism about everything from its curriculum and delivery methodology to its staff competency. Isn't it appropriate to mention that it's changing its campus structure (basically, to address concerns)? I saw one site recently that has a list of campus locations for the same type of school as UPX - it's longer than the article. Now that's promotional. The driving question is if our editing efforts actually improve the article.  You're making high quality edits and the discussion is helpful to the article. As long as no one gets offended/stubborn we are going to make some quality improvements, I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caernarvon (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well when a reference link has a popup enrollment form and is not even related to the text, I would say that is promotional. Statements taken from UofP's website and not supported by independent references which state "The UPX uses its large size and commensurate resources to acquire course textbooks inexpensively...." are promotional.  Saying a university has wi-fi access and workshops or computers is like saying a car has wheels.  I don't see a reason for information like that to be put in unless its for promotional reasons. I could list all the instances of promotion I recently deleted if that would prove helpful.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the podcast, I haven't had a chance to look at it or what form it is in, i.e. audio, so I cannot weigh in on that.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs Are Not Reliable Sources
I have at least three blog references. Blogs are not reliable references. I have taken out several of these and left the text hoping that an alternative reference can be found. I did leave in Footnote 37, which is entitled "University of Phoenix Responds". This a response to blog post! Hardly a reliable post. I know that there was a University of Phoenix response to the NY Times article. That needs to be found or the text needs to be removed.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, correct! I think one of those is mine - though I know information about The Netherlands and Mexico campuses can be found in numerous locations. I don't remember the cite going to a blog; I'll see if I can find another source in the next couple of days. It's probably good that you noted that, as much of the demographic information like number of campuses, etc, is out of date and appears to be contradictory throughout the article. I'd like to find one place and then ensure that it's consistent throughout.  I think you were right to leave in the UPX response if it is not a blog in and of itself and it's just an online source that references one. I know it's not your responsibility, but if you have a few minutes to check for alternate online sources and post same if you find them, I'm sure it would be appreciated by the original author, especially if the material is generally sound for the article type. Thanks again for your review! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have searched for a reprint of UofP Response to the New York Times that is not part of a blog which has the problem of many comments that will be included as part of the reference. There will need to be some reference for the text however, and ultimately I feel it will have to be removed if an adequate source cannot be located.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I had mentioned previous concerns with this section but hadn't gotten around to acting on it. Unless anyone else has an objection I think my post addressing these concerns a few weeks ago should be sufficient notice to warrant removal at this time. I will make the change. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, the campus resource center commentary does cite a blog, by Goldie Blumenstyk - a well known and respected writer for the Chronicle of Higher Education who has written neutral articles shedding both positive and negative light on the school in the past. It is relevant information, notable because it speaks to the controversy over the balance of education and profit for the school and because it's a tactic not used by other schools - it's unique. I will see if I can find another source, though!! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether blogs are by respected authors or not, they are still blogs and are not reliable, verifiable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why the "Ugh", at the beginning. Luckily, there are other, better sources for that info. Again, good editing. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The citations have been fixed. They now reference articles and a business fact page for an organization other than UPX.  I also undid the math someone calculated in coming up with the 35 year "average" age. 34 for undergrad and 36 for grad students does not make for a true mean (though it does if one is calculating the median). The calculation constituted original research on the original author's part (or the blogger they were quoting - I don't care enough to check which!). I see some other opportunities for strengthening citations and will work on it through the weekend. --Caernarvon (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New Material
Mysteryquest, the material on coursework is new for this article, though the article you are citing is not. The Criticism section just underwent a major re-write after discussion here on the talk page. Please remove the additional material and post it to this page for discussion. You've been around long enough to know better - let's talk about this stuff before just doing a major change like that! Thanks! --Caernarvon (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you probably haven't been back on since I posted above, but I did notice that you tagged the entry in the criticism section with the thought that you were unsure as to why mention of the general topic had been removed during previous edits. First, see above - there's a good general discussion on the reasons behind recent edits to the Criticism section. To get into it in a little more detail, It just seemed the criticism section was too long/detailed considering WP:UNDUE. It started sounding like a schizophrenic argument. We tried to consolidated and re-arrange the criticism so it flowed more logically. It seems the citations are more appropriate to provide detailed insight. Conceptually, the 20-24 hour issue was consolidated into the first controversy about the school not balancing student and investor concerns. I would like to propose removal of the new material and inclusion of the NYT article as an additional citation for the first listed criticism. I don't think it deserves it's own bullet point, especially considering the school was sued on this issue previously and is mentioned in the legal issues sub-section (sued in March 2000 for receiving financial aid when class hours fell short of the minimum). The United States Department of Education has given UPX a waiver on the issue and they're the ones that set this standard. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I don't believe that the issue of shortened class schedule is addressed by the issue of the school allegedly not being putting student's needs in front of shareholders' needs. The issue of having students allegedly teaching themselves and have significantly less course work; 20-25 hours vs. 40 hours is important and worth mentioning.  It is all of two lines so I'm not swayed by the argument that it unduly per Wikipedia standards.  The criticism section is still much shorter than it was. The fact that the Department of Education gave UofP a waiver regarding class hours does not negate the fact that their class hours are significantly less than a traditional university and there has been concerned expressed about it.  The fragment "There have been concerns that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders..." hardly addresses those concerns or even a fraction of the other concerns that are raised in the article.  So, I see no reason at all to remove the "new material".  Mysteryquest (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument is persuasive. Still, the concern is that the overall length of the criticism section is what starts to create the WP:UNDUE issue - not necessarily the individual arguments. I actually agree that the amount of instructor facetime is noteworthy, but once that's in the criticism section, then, to be fair, the other side of the story has to be mentioned - and so it grows. We could write a book on these topics. One problem I have with the way it's written is the use of quotes, as if quoting the article. Only the phrase, "learning teams", of everything in quotes, is actually a phrase contained within the article.  This is good material and should be included in some form. I'll make a deal; lets move the issue to the Academics section, putting it near the already in-place discussion on learning teams and go with this part of your wording (using the NYT article as the source):

"Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in learning teams."


 * This leaves out the quoted POV wording that's not in the article, leaves the meat of the concept intact and places it in the Academics section so there's no WP:UNDUE concern with getting another argument section going under criticism. Is this acceptable? --Caernarvon (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No its not. I'm not persuaded that if a controversy section becomes beyond a certain length then it "automatically" becomes an WP:UNDUE issue which appears to be your argument unless I'm mistaken. Valid and well documented criticism need not be omitted simply because there is an abundance of it.  The wording is okay, but I do not think its appropriate to move it out of the controversy section though I do not have a problem with the wording.  It is a controversy, not an "academic" issue.  UofP was sued over it, and then was granted a waiver. Having significantly less coursework than a traditional university and having students "teach themselves" is very noteworthy and goes to the quality of the education and, unfortunately, controversial and I believe is not Undue to mention it.  Again, I do not believe that valid, legitimate controversial items become subject toWP:UNDUE simply because there are a great deal of them.  As it stands now, the controvery section size, is small, and not an issueMysteryquest (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not my argument. Every situation should be judged on a case-by-case basis.  For instance, a user recently made the suggestion in the ITT Technical Institute article, a school accused of at least as much as UPX, stating:


 * "Not that I am a fan of ITT Tech, however, the controversy section is disproportionately large when juxtaposed against the rest of the article. Without passing judgment on the validity of the items in the controversy section, it might be good to find some way of consolidating some items thereby shortening the section. Perhaps a narrative for some of the older lawsuits but keep the references for those who want to read in depth." Mysteryquest (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please be careful about the use of quotation marks. They make it seem as if you are quoting something. The word "automatically" is not in my argument, nor in my intent, just as neither of the phrases "little meat" or "stripped down schedule" are in the NYT article you've quoted. I still believe it's an academic issue. The original reason for these rules was the promulgation of diploma mills in the burgeouning internet age and the standards were based on traditional school formats. Only the most rabid anti-for-profit viewpoint would characterize a school with numerous accreditations, including national and regional like UPX, as a diploma mill. UPX was sued because it was in technical violation, but received the waiver because USDOE is being forced to re-consider what constitutes a sound educational model. So consider - the suit was settled (no admission or finding of guilt) over eight years ago, was based on a standard that was questionably relevant to online learning and is already mentioned under the Legal Issues section concerning the 9.8 million settlement with a nod to the accusation that UPX doesn't balance student/investor interests as the first Controversy bullet.  Add to that the fact that some people apparently believe there is a point at which a controversies section becomes, "disproportionately large," (apparently a point that is discernable only to them (just teasing!!)). I'm still somewhat willing to place just my proposed new wording, found above, under the first bullet of the controversies section with a reference to the NYT article, but would still rather list it under Academics. It's a verifiable structural characteristic of the UPX academic model. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? --Caernarvon (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the text of the NY Times article which is the basis for the text: "Government auditors in 2000 ruled that this schedule fell short of the minimum time required for federal aid programs, and the university paid a $6 million settlement. But in 2002, the Department of Education relaxed its requirements, and the university’s stripped-down schedule is an attractive feature for many adults eager to obtain a university degree while working. But critics say it leaves courses with little meat." As you can see "little meat" is in the article as is "stripped down schedule." Please be careful about reading references before you accuse me of mischaracterizing them.  My use of quotes around automatically was not because you used the word, it was my characterization of your argument.


 * I never said that UofP was a diploma mill nor is it stated anywhere in the article so I'm not sure where you are going with that.


 * Its your opinion that that it was UofP's "stripped down schedule" was a good educational model or at least I have not seen any reliable independent reference for it. Nor have a seen a reliable independent reference for the proposition that the USDOE model was not suitable for an online school.   If UofP's system was such a good educational model, I personally wonder why the Department of Education didn't just adopt it instead of having to grant a waiver?


 * Okay, maybe you're confused, but this matter did not involve the 9.9 million dollar fine but the 6 million dollar fine, however, I will speak to your arguments. No defendant or potential defendant who settles a lawsuit admits liability.  That has always been one of the advantages of settling so that fact is insignificant.  It being a technical violation, is again your opinion (do you have a reliable independent reference for it?), and reading the Department of Education report hardly makes it seem technical, nor does the almost 10 million dollar fine, the shareholder lawsuit and the false claims act lawsuit.  So the fact that it was 8 years ago does not make it insignificant, especially when litigation concerning it continues today.  I do not agree with putting it in academics, it does not have anything to do with academics, its a quality of education issue, which belongs where it is.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, as for my contribution to the ITT talk page which is taken out of context since one cannot view the ITT article at the time I made it, that article was almost all controversy and nothing else. This is hardly the case here and what ITT has to do with UofP, I'm not sure.Mysteryquest (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ITT Technical Institute is a for-profit institution of higher education that has been the subject of much criticism in the media and courts, has a wikipedia page, has had a large amount of criticism mounted on that page and has been edited by you on the topic of the size of its criticism section, just like UPX. This seems in-context considering the crux of the discussion is WP:WEIGHT. The diploma mill observation was in reference to why the standards which UPX was alleged to have broken were put in place in the first place. UPX - not a diploma mill - was caught by legislation designed to stop diploma mills. Why? Because the standard was based on traditional school educational models. To be fair to USDOE - it was the only model with which they were truly familiar at an organizational level at the time. Respectable models for internet-based distance education were, and still are, just being developed. How can you support the contention that the UPX 20-24 hour/learning teams class model, "does not have anything to do with academics"? It is central to the school's accelerated learning format. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We are editing the UofP article, not the ITT article! Your opinions continue to be wholly unsupported by any reliable third party reference.  You did not produce any to support the ones I cited previously and now you propose that federal regulations that might have been designed for diploma mills are not suitable for UofP and that UofP should not be held to account for violating them and that the USDOE sanctioned UofP because "to be fair" it was the only model with which they were truly familiar at an organizational level at the time".  So, it was the USDOE's fault that UofP violated the USDOE's regulations, more or less.  Do you have any reliable source for any of this proposition?


 * The issue here is UPX's 20-24 hour coursework vs. a 40 hour traditional coursework. It's controversial and that controversy is well documented as is the use of "learning teams."  You are making it much more complicated by bringing up ITT and your many personal opinions and interpretations concerning the suitability of UofP's models and USDOE regulations.  If you have any reliable sources for this information I suggest you place it in mitigation, however, none of them justify moving a controversy to the academic section nor is it UNDUE to list it in the controversy or quality issue section, where it belongs.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Margin Reset

Woah, easy there champ. I know typing as a form of communication makes it easy to misunderstand the tone of what's being said. I mentioned the ITT article again because I thought you were asking a question with your statement that you didn't understand how ITT and UPX are the same. I simply pointed out that you have indicated one opinion in the past about ITT and another this time under very similar circumstances about UPX and I question your neutrality on the topic, just as you have mine, on occasion.

We may be getting a little too deep into discussing the topic here, as opposed to discussing the question of weight (both guilty). It is neither your nor my duty to convince the other, though I'd happily continue the discussion on either of our talk pages. I would prefer to settle this via consensus and continue the discussion, limited to where we are going to place the compromised wording, in the next section. Perhaps a nod could be given to the 20-24 hour issue in both the Academics and Criticism sections? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what basis you have to question my neutrality. Again, ITT was almost completely controversy and nothing else, whereas, UoP is nowhere near that state.  There is very little parallel between the ITT article when I made that comment and the UofP article.  You continue not to address this fact.  I have never, as I recall, perhaps you may refresh my memory, questioned your neutrality but since you question mine, I will now.  At this point I think you are using your opinion that there is WP:UNDUE  issue with this article to minimize well documented material that could be construed as negative about UofP, in favor of everything you feel is good and which is, in many cases, only supported by UofP references.  For example, most of your discussion about this particular issue, as I have pointed out, is based on your opinions, analysis and interpretations which is not supported by any reference.  Now, a simple mention about a well documented issue involving the length of the coursework must be subsumed or cloaked as an academic issue. I don't agree with your proposed compromise language for reasons I have detailed in the latter section of this page. I believe that someone else needs to weigh in on whether there is a WP:UNDUE issue with this article.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I went through the talk page here only one time, so I may have missed some, but here's a list of references I've researched and posted here - not including the six or so simple reference fixes I've been making directly to the page to remove UPX references and make them third-party:


 * http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/publications.aspx source
 * http://www.cael.org/pdf/publication_pdf/Chronicle_of_HigherEdArticle.pdf source
 * http://www.princeton.edu/admission/whatsdistinctive/experience/the_preceptorial_system/
 * http://www.phoenix.edu/media_relations/university_learning_goals.aspx learning teams
 * http://www.ou.edu/pii/teamlearning/
 * http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700253600,00.html
 * http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp Programmatic Accrediting Organizations 2008-2009
 * http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i40/40a00103.htm
 * http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11257.shtml
 * http://www.davidbruceallen.com/strategyoped/2007/03/university
 * http://kroplaw.com/uop/DOE.report.on.UOP.pdf
 * http://www2.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=834 Lawmakers Are on the Student-Loan Warpath
 * http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-apollo-group-suit,0,3707385.story
 * http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i40/40a00103.htm Diverse Populations
 * http://www.phoenix.edu/academicannualreport/doc/2008AnnualAcademicReport.pdf
 * http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=9069&cha=6
 * http://chronicle.com/media/audio/v54/i40/cyber_classroom/

On the point of you're not having previously questioned my neutrality:

"Facts that are documented by only University of Phoenix are not neutral and are naturally skewed toward the Universities views. The use of UofP sources risk making the article POv and turning it into merely a sock puppet for UofP. The Academic Profile and Diversity sections are now perilously close to simply promoting UofPMysteryquest (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)"

"Statements such as "UPX uses it large size to ... and etc. are not NPOV, not neutral and merely parrot UofP positions in fact much of it appears to be just a recapitalization from the University of Phoenix website. I believe that non-notable, promotional material needs to be removed. The diversity section has the same problem, as many of the "sources" are merely promotional rather than informative.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)"

"The "research paper" cited in the above reference is written by a UofP officer, the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, so its hardly neutral or arguably even research (which is why I put research in quotes). One cannot "research" a subject which one has a vested interest in or is intimately involved with. Research implies that there is some distance between the researcher and the subject he or she is researching. I do not see much difference between it and the UPX website and do not feel its appropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)"

I continue to try to work nice with you because, despite our difference of opinion, I am assuming good faith. Honestly, I don't just assume it, many of you're posts have been either completely neutral or have shown me where mine have not been. (I wish I received the same level of respect from you, but that apparently isn't going to happen). Wikipedia does not require that posters be neutral, it only requires that we edit neutrally to the best of our ability. I see where your critiques of my work have helped establish a more neutral tone - unfortunately, you seem to be unable to see any good in the school, so whether or not you like it, or admit it, I will perform the same function for you. Remember, just as I should, that just because we believe something, that does not make it TRUE or NEUTRAL. As a matter of point, you have suggested that I, "minimize well documented material that could be construed as negative about UofP." I don't intend to minimize it - I simply think that for most criticisms there are valid responses - so a criticism gets posted, then the response, then the response to that - and so on... that's how we ended up with the ridiculously long Criticism section we recently edited down. Mention criticisms - I agree most should be here, but let readers go back to the sourced citations if they want to do in-depth research rather than hashing it out on the WP page. I'd like to take this discussion to one of our talk pages, if that's acceptable? As important as it is to we two, I'm not sure anyone else wants to read about it! --Caernarvon (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Placing the Compromise Wording
To summarize where it seems we are at in this discussion - We have agreed to use the NYT reference and remove the extra wording on the bullet and are left with:

"Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in learning teams."

We are considering two options for where to place this entry:

1. Move it to Academics section.

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.” The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams, forms of which are used by other schools, in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.

2. Move it to the first bullet under Controversies.

--Caernarvon (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been concerns that UPX does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders, though UPX claims that standardized testing in reading, writing, and mathematical skills for UPX students show that they improve at a better rate on average than for students at most other schools. Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.”

I do not agree with the wording offered behind Door No. 1. I am not sure that either the University of Oklahoma or Princeton University uses a preceptorial system similar to UofP. I believe that the references that support this concept are tenuous at best. Moreover, I do not believe that those schools offer 20 to 24 hours of school work as opposed to 40, which is one of main issues and will be lost in the suggested academic language. I also see no reason not to include language that makes it clear that this is a concern as reflected in the NY Times article. At this point I believe that the matter should be submitted to mediation or a administrator should get involved because Caernarvon and I are apparently just talking at cross purposes.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't give up now! All I did to get the wording for the first choice was add the wording that we compromised on to what was already there. Let's take it a step further. Part of your concern is the UoO and Princeton references to learning teams. You are correct, the references are tenuous - let's remove that wording unless some better link can be made (I don't think it exists, frankly). How about something like this:


 * Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” a practice questioned by some. The UPX educational model stresses the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions that are enhanced by individual experience and point of view.


 * This language includes the fact of the 20-24 hour practice, includes a nod to the concerns about it, removes a tenuous reference to other schools that use learning teams and includes the contention that UPX actually believes students benefit from the practice. Everyone has a voice for their issues and I think it definitely improves the article, overall. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the wording, because if promotes UPX's view while only giving only "a nod" to the opposing view that some academics feel that it entails too little classroom time, a fact that is documented by reliable third party references as opposed to UPX references. Of course, UPX believes the students benefit from the practice!  They devised it and are not neutral.  In other words, the five words "a practice questioned by some" minimizes the concerns expressed in the NY Times article.  However, the UPX viewpoint gets a long declaratory sentence which does not betray the fact that its UPX's viewpoint and is only supported by UPX's media relations page, which is not a suitable third party reference per Wikipedia standards and it is inherently biased.  This appears to be a pattern with your edits, in my humble opinion, giving preference to positive UPX viewpoints referenced solely by UPX sources over negative viewpoints which are supported by independent references.  I do not believe we are making any progress here.  Mysteryquest (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, as detailed elsewhere in this discussion page, the parallel between UofP's educational model and that of University of Ok and Princeton should be removed as there appears to be a consensus and an admission by you that it is original research.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a thing for UPX being unable to publish factual, neutral information about itself. You also have a misunderstanding of reliable sources per wikipedia standards. Here is an excerpt from that page:

'''Self-published sources Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above. When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published.'''


 * Non-self published info is obviously better, but not all UPX self published info is inherently biased. Here's the crux of our editing disagreements - when I add or edit material that paints the school in a positive light you call it biased.  Quick wake up call - education is generally good and even a low end school (which is not necessarily UPX, by any valid measure) can have unbiased, good things said about it.  Come down off the ledge, switch to decaf and take a look at our interactions here - not only have I agreed with your view on numerous occasions, I have given credit to the value of your (often non-neutral) viewpoint several times.  For instance, you may have missed it, but I agreed with removing the university of oklahoma and princeton prior to your last to posted condemnations of it!  I'm not trying to contend with you.  Look at Mike and Tallmagic posts - they've both straightened me out or agreed with me several times.  I'm not asking you to change your viewpoint or not add to the edits (unless there's an undisclosed WP:conflict_of_interest); you add value to the discussion and I would like to get a better understanding of where you're coming from.  Just relax a little, and an occasional implemented compromise would go a long way.


 * Back to your editing concerns. Let's strengthen the, "a practice questioned by some" phrase and use more neutral wording in the UPX sentence. How's this?


 * Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” a practice questioned by some academicians and former students. UPX suggests that its educational model benefits from the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions. 

--Caernarvon (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you got your cite as I cannot locate it. However, I did locate the following guideline.

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves

Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:
 * 1) the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
 * 2) it is not contentious;
 * 3) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 4) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 5) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 6) there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
 * 7) the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * In this case, the learning team concept is contentious. No, I do not believe that material from UofP's website is neutral. You do?  Their website is for promotional purposes not neutral critical self-analysis. I suspect you would have a difficult time finding anything critical about UofP on their website or even neutral for that matter.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't condemn your your connection of UofP with Ok and Princeton, I simply stated it should be removed and it was not removed when I added the comment or I wouldn't have bothered. I'm not a coffee drinker and don't have access to a ledge, so this would work better if you didn't express any concerns for my well being, as heartfelt as I'm sure they are. It strikes me as patronizing and condescending, but that's just my opinion. Additionally, until you have some bonafide evidence of my purported non-neutrality, I wish you would stop alluding to such.


 * The following language would be more suitable to me, however, I still believe it belongs in the quality of education section.


 * '''Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams.” The shortened coursework and the practice of having students teach themselves has caused concerns among some academicians and former students. UPX suggests that its educational model benefits from the use of out of class learning teams in which students engage classmates in course material discussions. '

Just to throw in a personal POV here: I think you are both (Mysteryquest & Caernarvon) doing excellent work and I commend your ability to work together through this stuff. I am sorry I am not able to contribute more. Mike (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, Thanks Mike. Apparently, Mysteryquest and I will probably never sit down for a cup of coffee (decaf or otherwise!) together, but I agree the article will benefit!


 * Now, back to our editing! "shortened" doesn't work for me as an adjective.  These are supposed to be accelerated programs and "shortened coursework" speaks to the coursework, not the face time.  I think the word "compact" is more neutral.  Also, we just went to the trouble in the previous sentence to define learning teams, then we repeat the definition rather than use the term in the next sentence.  The last (positive) sentence is still longer than the one suggesting the concerns. I think it can be reduced for a more balanced paragraph by adding the purpose of the learning teams to the sentence where the concept is first mentioned.  I removed "academic model" and replaced it with "students" - it's more to the point.  The opening sentence is pure neutral fact. The second sentence is overall neutral. The next sentence is mostly critical. The last sentence is mostly positive. The references for the paragraph are an almost exclusively damning NYT article and I found a better reference than a UPX website for the final cite. I changed the last "learning teams" to "student groups" purely because the phrase "learning teams" has already been overused in the paragraph.

--Caernarvon (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see nothing in the new reference that supports the concept that students benefit from the use of these student groups or learning teams. There is language implying that UofP is convenient for working professionals and that they can log on anytime, but not beneficial unless the benefit is the convenience.  If that is the case the text should make clear that the benefit is the convenience.  As far as compact, there is nothing to suggest that the course are compact as opposed to just short.  Compact implies that the students are getting the same amount of teaching in 20-24 hours plus 5 student team hours as they would with a 40 hour course schedule.  That is not supported by the reference.  Thus abbreviated would be more accurate.


 * Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” wherein students engage classmates in course material discussions. The abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams has caused concern among some academicians and former students. The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime.

Mysteryquest (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a deal, and a damn well worded paragraph, Mysteryquest. I'd invite you over for well earned cup of coffee, but you don't drink coffee and I'm afraid by the end of our visit I might be wearing whatever it is you DO drink!! Keep holding my feet to the fire and I promise the same - the article benefits from it. I'll implement your wording! --Caernarvon (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, as if you look closely, you will see that I did not agree that it should be removed from the controversy page to the academic page. I still believe that it is a quality of education issue.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As near as I can tell, your concern is that valid criticism receive it's just due. Mine is that excessive volume under the Criticism section by itself adds WP:UNDUE weight. The criticism section just underwent major revision and we achieved the state prior to your addition by consensus (see above). With no one else weighing in on the topic, perhaps it is best to request mediation, since I believe the consensus decision prior to your addition will stand. I would not like this to end like that - because, frankly, your position has merit. I would prefer it if we could reach a compromise, but my basic position is it should not be in Criticism. I will not compromise on that as you should not compromise on your basic position that the concern find a voice in the article.  I will make another attempt at compromise wording, though I believe you are getting more of your position than I mine at this point. Shall we add some slightly more detailed info on the criticism? Just to warn you ahead of time, there are plenty of sources out there suggesting the quality of the education is fine, and I will bring that here for consideration at some point in the future.


 * Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” wherein students engage classmates in course material discussions. The abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams has caused concern among some academicians and former students as to the quality of education. The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, there has not been consensus on this topic since Mysteryquest's addition of the material without prior discussion on the talk page. I have allowed the disputed material to remain during this debate, but if there is no further discussion, by wikipedia rules I will assume silence to be wp:consensus on Monday and implement the above change in the Academics section and remove the non-consensus version from the Criticism section. If we do have further discussion this weekend but don't make progress on consensus by Monday, also by wikipedia rules, I will revert the Criticism section back to the state it was in when last there was consensus. That would be unfortunate, since I still believe in good faith that his viewpoint deserves a spot on the page.  I would prefer that one of several alternatives occur. The first would be that Mysteryquest reviews my most recent compromise as close enough to agreeable (or we can tweak it a bit this weekend) that we can implement the compromise. The second would be that a third party (or more, even better) would weigh in on the topic in either his direction or mine.  If I revert the material (worst option) I will start a new section to attempt to achieve consensus to add the compromise wording above to the Academics section. This is out of respect for the time and effort Mysteryquest has put in to trying to work out this compromise and because, at the base of it, I don't necessarily disagree with his view, just the degree to which he chooses to express it. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept the change. Mike (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think these are good changes. I would also like to add that my personal belief is that the article has been improved significantly, good job. I believe that the overall tone of the article is still unduly slanted towards the negative. UPX is a huge school that graduates many successful individuals. I think the unduly slightly negative slant is due to the nature of news. It is much more common to write a news story about negative developments. The best solution to this, in my opinion, is not to delete negative commentary. The best solution is to be extra careful about neutral wording and to take advantage of self published material. Thank you for the great job! TallMagic (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and implement the change then. Mike and TallMagic, thanks for adding to the discussion. Mysteryquest, thank you for your edits - the article benefitted from your efforts. This is a good example of how Wikipedia does work. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, now that this is implemented... Today I was speaking with a former UPX student and I mentioned this edit. She said she hated teams because the entire team gets the same grade, regardless of how much work they each do. She felt that she did all the work in her team, while the others were just not capable of doing it. The only way that she could get a good grade was to do all the work, and then everyone on the team got "her" grade. I wish there was some way to find verified sources that document that this is UPX policy, or to determine if this is an isolated case done by one instructor. If the former, this would fit under criticism. Mike (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Teams, in general, suck as an educational tool, IMHO. I have extreme sympathy for poor folks that have to deal with them.  I worked in teams at the University of Maryland and for graduate coursework at the University of Florida and University of South Florida.  It wasn't that it isn't possible to do significant learning in a team environment - my gripe with them is exactly what your friend was saying - there's was always someone pulling the group down and getting a grade they didn't deserve.  Tell a professor that, and they argue invariably that life is full of teams and the purpose of team learning is to stimulate learning of a different sort - how to get along.  I recently saw a syllabus from a UPX class on the web, I'll try again to find it, that talked about learning teams - though I distinctly recall the wording that the facilitator reserved the right to grade individually if there was a clear and substantial difference between the effort of the team members. I have no clue as to if this really happens in practice or if this is a common feature of all their syllabi or just something from that one teacher.  I'll check around and see if I can find a link to it. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Found it - "At the instructors discretion NOT ALL LEARNING TEAM MEMBERS WILL GET THE SAME GRADE for LEARNING TEAM ASSIGNMENTS (papers or presentations)." http://brianperryman.com/UOP/EBUS400/EBUS400ds.html --Caernarvon (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, it seems instructors are permitted to reserve the right to assign grades for team projects based on their own discretion. There are some additional online syllabi that address it either directly or obliquely:


 * http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:JRF-s0f072wJ:www.realmarcom.com/originator/modules.php%3Fop%3Dmodload%26name%3DPagEd%26file%3Dindex%26p_deliver%3Dmedia%26m_id%3D1+%22University+of+Phoenix%22+mba+510+syllabus&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
 * http://www.cebert.net/UOP/MBA520/MBA520r3%20Web%20Syllabus%20070820.htm

I still hate teams! --Caernarvon (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes
Again, please - can we bring suggested changes here rather than just making them wholesale? I have just reverted the change removing the material on USDOE getting tough on schools for financial aid program violations. It's not that I disagree with the edit, but we deserve the opportunity to discuss this before making the changes. Here is the change proposed by Mysteryquest:


 * In September 2004, UPX paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of the Higher Education Act provisions which prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives.    The United States Department of Education has recently targeted numerous universities for improprieties in the administration of student loan programs. 

The suggestion is to remove the bolded text with the following reasoning:


 * (cur) (last) 03:32, 13 September 2008 Mysteryquest (Talk | contribs) (22,937 bytes) (→Criticism and controversies: delete irrelevant text that does not relate to UofP (if other schools violate laws prohibiting financial incentives to "advisors" its okay for UofP to do it?) (undo)

--Caernarvon (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is not directly relevant to the fact that USDOE went after UPX on this issue. I favor removing it. Mike (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike! You both raise good points. Here's my problem with the removal. The article talking about USDOE going after schools for similar problems mentions MANY different schools. I checked the WP pages for those schools. Not one of them mentioned the USDOE attention in this regard. This isn't the only point under the criticism section of which this is true. Schools are sued, fined and have accreditation hassles all the time, why is it so much more noteworthy for UPX? The answer seems to be they have ticked off numerous interest groups (established academia, disgruntled employees/students, etc). Enter Wikipedia - Looking at this article 2 months ago, it was only through significant research that I was able to determine that despite some serious miscalculations on the school's part, it seems to deliver a reasonably mediocre educational product for a regionally accredited school. The criticism section started with a reference to the UOPSUCKS.COM website. Talk about quoting a blog, LOL. I visited the site and the first post I saw was the webmaster explaining he had removed some pro-uop answers to criticism found on his site because it was his website and he didn't allow anything pro-UOP on it! Sorry it's taking so long to get to the point, but here it is... Yes, the material relates to the situation but no, it doesn't relate to UPX directly, so would normally be less than acceptable. On the other hand, with USDOE having gone after so many schools, none of which have this material mentioned on their pages, is the criticism itself WP:NPOV? Moreover, the policy suggests that if there is significant controversy, it may be appropriate to include mitigating sources to achieve proper WP:WEIGHT. On this particular issue, I'm sort of near the middle because I think the point you all have raised is valid. I think the weight issue is valid also. If you all still think the relevance issue is strong enough to remove the mitigating answer to the criticism, I'd like to ask we give it til Tuesday to see if anyone else wants to weigh in and we can remove it then. Thanks! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters, the reference I removed did not even involve the behavior that UofP was accused of, it involved financial aid improprieties. UofP was accused of paying incentives to recruiters!  Even if the reference was to similar behavior that UofP engaged it would be totally inappropriate to include it.  The article is not about financial aid improprieties, its not about universities in general, its about UofP.  The fact that other universities may have performed similar bad acts (again, the text did not even reference "similar bad acts") is not a mitigating factor.


 * Now is it NPOV to mention it? I do not know how many schools the USDOE went after for paying incentives to recruiters (not a conflicts of interest arising out of financial aid counselors recommending certain loan program), however, I suggest that it was not many. Even if it there were many it is NPOV to mention the case against UofP which involved a huge 9.8 million dollar settlement, spawned a shareholder lawsuit against Apollo, its parent company, and a false claims act which continues today.  I would say that it appropriately mentioned.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am pursuaded by your argument - the relevance to UPX is shaky and the accusation against was specifically financial incentives to academic counselors (financial aid improprieties). Other schools violations were not detailed to that degree, though the few that were spelled out were of financial incentives being provided to school officials by lenders, etc (also financial aid improprieties, as a general class, the same behavior as UPX). My WP:UNDUE concern remains for the overall article, but this reference is tenuous. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality Review
I think this article is getting close to deserving another review of its quality scale ranking, especially with some of the recent cleanup by Mysteryquest. Would anyone like time to make more edit suggestions before I request the review? I would like to do some more expansion, especially in History, Academics and Campuses sections - that's hard to do for any school site without going back to UPX developed web sources, but I'll give it a try. I absolutely do not want the material to be promotional, but because I have a lower standard for that than some, I definitely want it known that I invite critical oversight and comments while I'm working on it. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at this point, there is a great deal of material solely supported by UPX sources, which are not "third-party" and thus are questionable. I would suggest that more would be inappropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it depends on the information. I think simple facts that aren't controversial can be sourced from UPX without issue and without limit. (Limited only by the notability of the information.) Controversial information that is  self-published is where the danger lies. It can still potentially be used but if it is then it should be qualified, for example, "UPX states". Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see what I come up with, then give it a serious, critical review. There's no harm in hashing it out on the talk page for more in-depth discussion. I think that is helpful to the overall editing process. I promise not to add just to be adding, there's a great template for the university project and numerous other schools with higher article ratings to serve as examples. The article is getting better because of the respectful difference. As a side note, I also can't help but believe that some of this material would be GREAT for the For-profit_school section. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm uncertain as to how information specific to UofP would be "GREAT" for the for-profit school article. Could you elaborate?  Mysteryquest (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take it over to that talk page in a few days. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's some information on the UPX faculty standards and training from a third party research non-profit organization:

'''Pre-screened instructional candidates participate in a training program in the modality in which they teach, which has the effect of weeding out (40%-50%) of the less committed or capable applicants. '''

The website for the source is: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0303/cs/ecs0304.pdf --Caernarvon (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am implementing this addition. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed a reference to the # of campuses and locations under the campuses section. The reference is no longer to a UPX website and the campus material is much more up to date. The info is listed elsewhere in the article as well, and I will make it all match or remove it from other locations soon (assuming this isn't a controvercial edit). --Caernarvon (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed a reference in the history section to the UPX media page. There is a decent research paper from Université Laval, in Québec Canada that provides close enough information to serve as a replacement cite without changing the wording. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "research paper" cited in the above reference is written by a UofP officer, the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, so its hardly neutral or arguably even research (which is why I put research in quotes). One cannot "research" a subject which one has a vested interest in or is intimately involved with.  Research implies that there is some distance between the researcher and the subject he or she is researching. I do not see much difference between it and the UPX website and do not feel its appropriate.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a research paper, whether or not it is authored by a UPX employee. Further, one can absolutely research a subject in which they have a vested interest. Oil companies performing oil exploration - I rest my case. Question: if you were to tell someone your age, would you be able to provide a neutral answer? If you could tell the truth about your height, weight or age, why again is it that UPX is incapable of truthfully listing neutral demographic information about itself? However, let me say, to avoid a conflict between the information and the reference, it's probably appropriate to keep looking for other sources, so I'll do that. Peace, out! --Caernarvon (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the header references to a non-UPX site - corrected some information - UPX is the largest private university in North America - I have seen references that claim the world, but most seem to say North America - I think we'd all prefer to err on the side of the smaller claim, yes? I removed duplicate campus information and added a citation to the last sentence that was previously unreferenced. --Caernarvon (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed an outdated, secondary reference to the number of students at the school from the History section. There's been too much of the same (but different) data spread throughout the article, my efforts today should bring the info pretty much up to date and delete most duplicate information. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced a reference concerening campus resources from a UPX website reference to an online article reference. No change of wording. I'm not sure this is the best change, since the article's inference seems a touch different than what our article is saying. I don't think it's controvercial, but please let me know what you all think about the applicability of this reference. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

UPX's "Preceptoral System" & Comparison to Other Schools
I have had a chance to look at your language wherein you compare UPX's educational model to University of Oklahoma and Princeton University. By your own admission, there was original research involved in drawing the parallel between UofP and this two universities and I do not believe it is proper for the article and believe it should be removed based on the fact that it is original research. I modified the first statement so that it is clear that its UPX's position which was not clear the way it was drafted. Any statement taken from UPX's website, and there are many, should indicate that it is UPX's opinion and not stated as a fact. Moreover, the reference to the University of Oklahoma system is a promotional page for a book, a weak reference at best. Mysteryquest (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation
I would like to consider accreditation for a separate section under Academics. As it stands now, it receives about a half of a sentence. It would read something like:

Accreditation
UPX is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission as a member of the North Central Association. It also has accreditation for a variety of its specialty degree programs, including:


 * Nursing Accreditation — The B.S. in Nursing and the M.S. in Nursing degree programs are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE).


 * Business Accreditation — All business programs from the Associate to the Doctoral levels have specialty accreditation through the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP).


 * Teacher Education Accreditation — The M.A. in Education degree program is preaccredited by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) for a period of five years, from December 20, 2007 to December 20, 2012.


 * Counseling Accreditation — The M.S. in Counseling degree program in Community Counseling and the M.S. in Counseling degree program in Mental Health Counseling are accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).

=
===== Kaplan University, Walden University, ITT Technical Institute and Devry University each have a subsection devoted to the topic, though many traditional schools do not seem to. What do you all think?

--Caernarvon (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this formatting instead. -- Mike (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good formatting suggestion - it organizes the topic better. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any further discussion on this before implementation? --Caernarvon (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it and great work.17reasons (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks, I'm implementing. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Faculty criticism
I would like to consider removing this section:


 * Approximately 95% of UPX faculty are part-time compared with an average of 47% across all universities.[16] UPX's position is that it only hires faculty with masters or doctoral degrees, requiring that most be actively working in the fields that they teach.[39]

from the Criticism section and incorporating it into the Faculty section. The NYT article itself is highly critical of UPX (see also, Yellow Journalism), but this particular quote seems to be referencing a conversation with Dr. Pepicello. There is a later critical observation by John J. Fernandes of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (the direct competitor of the accredidation agency UPX uses, ACBSP) that it is his observation that UPX's faculty is too come and go, but does not reference the above statistic. Moreover, there is no contention that by using this model, UPX has a lower educational standard, which is inferred by placing it under Criticism. There is too much elitest innuendo and no research to back up this idea. I see no documented, verifiable reason to believe this is a widely held position. Opinions? --Caernarvon (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to implement this change. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Cased Dismissed
I would recommend removing this section from Criticism:

In January 2008, UPX’s parent company, Apollo Group, Inc. was found guilty of fraud for misleading investors.[56] U.S. District Judge James Teilborg recently overturned the verdict, ruling that the evidence was not sufficient.[57]

There is no reason to include a court case under Criticism that was dismissed and isn't showing any further appeal activity. Another fine example of the deep pockets principle. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait until the time limit to file an appeal is exceeded before removing it.
 * I am curious though about your comment, "Another fine example of the deep pockets principle." It implies that you feel someone other (lessor) than Apollo should have been charged.  Who? -- Mike (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike - not charged, per se - but accountable, yes. My frustration with our litigous society ia a frustration shared by many. My research into this case was that this is a situation of a shareholder suit, one in which investors sued because Apollo didn't completely disclose material within a freely available and discoverable Department of Education report.  In fact, that's exactly what happened; investors, doing due diligence research into their investment, tracked and learned of the review and the associated report (via a news article).  Their suit was because they felt Apollo should have revealed the complete contents rather than they having to perform the research themselves.  While it certainly would have been NICE for Apollo to inform the investors, the judge's ruling basically stated there was insufficient evidence to link the event with the cause of harm (stock drop some time later). The deep pocket, as I've used it, refers mostly to Apollo as an attractive target for civil litigation considering its size and resources, and only in a secondary manner as to my opinion that the investors have far more responsibility to wisely follow their investements than does Apollo to advertise the rhetoric of their critics.  As to waiting to remove, that doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. The time to appeal has probably passed, and though I can't find any third party source documenting an appeal, it's more likely than not that there's one on file.  I admit to a touch of discomfort with that logic for leaving the criticism intact, however.  Without documentable evidence that there's an appeal, we'd be proceeding on an assumption.  I'd prefer not to leave negative material predicated on an assumption.  What do you all think? --Caernarvon (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First let me say that I have very, very rarely seen a stock holder lawsuit that I approved of. I'm not even sure I agree with this one.  That said, I really don't know whether or not Apollo was "guilty" or not in this case.  Apparently a jury thought they were.  The USDOE report itself is pretty damning.  Apollo knew about this report and chose not to disclose it in a share holder meeting.  Apparently because they thought that they could either make it go away, or get it changed before it became "more public".  Once the analyst reported it however, it was apparent that Apollo knew something that could affect the stock value, and they chose to not reveal it.  I hardly see this as a deep pockets matter.  In fact, it appears to me that Apollo got off on a technicality that might be overturned on appeal.  I'll try and find out how much time the claimants have to file the appeal.  Either way, it seems a notable event in UPX history.  Especially in light of the pending Qui Tam lawsuit. -- Mike (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing, you say, "The time to appeal has probably passed, ..." I'm not so sure.  It only happend in August, less than 60 days ago.  I would think that 90 days would be a minimum, but I don't know why.  If it is only 30 days, then you are right.  I don't know how to find this out. -- Mike (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Personal opinion - I generally agree with what you're saying. I don't think it was a technicality, though.  I say that because the judge found fault with the plaintiff's ability to link the action (failure to disclose) with the harmful result.  That's just plain death to any lawsuit - there must be a causal relationship.  It may be overturned on appeal, but it will be a difficult case to make - the judge doesn't disagree that UPX likely should have disclosed, he ruled that the failure to disclose was not proximate to the damage (lower stock) a week after.  That being said, I think you make a good case to leave it where it is for the time being.  Appeal times can vary widely - don't worry about digging in too far for my sake for the timeframes.  You've made a good enough argument for leaving it be for at least another two months or so?  If you don't mind, we can take another look then? --Caernarvon (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked an attorney and she said that federal is appeals limit is usually 60 days. The problem as I understand it is that the judge overturned the jury on a factual item, and those don't usually hold up on appeal.  Because it is the jury's job to weigh the facts and determine the truth.  Either way, we should know soon if it is a 60 day limit. -- Mike (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, your suggestion is very acceptable. As a side note, true, the jury should be the trier of fact and the judge of law.  Purely as a point of discussion, this seems to have been overturned on a matter of law, i.e., no causal relationship between harmful event and damage suffered (law) rather than whether or not there was an intent to withhold info, or whether or not there was harmful action, etc (fact) - though I'm not an attorney.  I have several judges I am socially acquainted with - I'll try to corner one or two in the near future to ask their view (irrelevant to the final determination as to if we keep this line and probably not deserving of much attention on the talk page, but interesting to us both, it seems). Thanks, Mike. --Caernarvon (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: It appears the lower court judgement to dismiss this case was affirmed.

http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CC09%5C2008%5C20081015_0004343.C09.htm/qx


 * Do you read this the same way? --Caernarvon (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The case you cited is "Hendow v. University of Phoenix": The Qui Tam case, not the "shareholders" case, which is what this topics is about. (This opinion looks like someone (Leland White?) was trying to get himself included in the lawsuit, and the appeals court is denying his motion.) Mike (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why a case as large as the one against Apollo, regardless of the fact that the judge dismissed it after the jury verdict, should be deleted from the criticism section. It is quite notable, well supported with DoE documents.  Just because a case was dismissed does not mean it is not noteworthy and this one certainly was.  It should stay even after the time to appeal expires.  Personal opinions of the editors, or consultations with their personal acquaintances or other original research should not be used to determine what is relevant or not.  The reader is supposed to ultimately decide that.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have a point. It is a Fact that there was a jury verdict that found them guilty. Mike (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely. The fact that an editor's personal opinion is that the suit had no merit or Apollo was sued because it had "deep pockets" should not govern what is in the article. Editors are certainly entitled to their opinions but those should not serve to preempt readers from being given unbiased information.  In reading the discussion in this section, most of if is based on personal opinions that don't appear to focus on whether the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.  The item is certain noteworthy and it is certainly not "undue" to include a lawsuit that went to the jury, that the jury held for the plaintiff (quite handsomely) even if the judge vacated the ruling.  The reader is quite capable of deciding if the suit was filed because Apollo had deep pockets or because investors were deceived.  I see no reason why an editor's personal opinions should be used to deprive the reader of that choice.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fact does not make for relevance. Abraham Lincoln was a human.  You don't find this fact anywhere in his bio.  Schools get sued, yes, even traditional schools.  We don't find those lawsuits pasted all over their wikipedia pages, though there is a clear bias against for-profit schools in this regard.  I have not strongly advocated for particularly hasty removal of the material - Mike and I originally thought a couple of months would probably be sufficient to see if there were an appeal before again considering its relevance.  It has been many months since then and I too wonder if it is too soon (or if it should be removed at all).  As I've been editing here with you all I've seen my opinion changed, particularly be the more well thought-out arguments of both Mhedblom and Mysteryquest.  For profit schools, for many reasons, probably do deserve a different level of attention to their problems than many traditional schools because their core problems seem to be of a different type. On a side note, editor's personal opinions as to what is appropriate to be in wikipedia articles (based on wikipedia standards) is exactly what should govern what is in these articles.  My personal opinion is exactly that, mine, just as your personal opinion belongs to you.  My personal opinion is that it has been our tendency here to list every lawsuit involving this school while traditional schools get a free ride in their articles.  It is my personal opinion that this practice is, to some degree, appropriate - especially when there's a pattern that can be shown.  I simply prefer that we discuss it here in well thought out argument before posting - the article is the better for it.  --Caernarvon (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Abraham Lincoln argument is sophomoric, the fact that the man is a human is self-evident and thus not notable which is why needs not be mentioned in his bio. Your contention that because a suit is ultimately overturned by a judge after a multi-hundred million dollar verdict makes it irrelevant is not impressive.  The suit arose from a highly critical Program Review by the Department of Education and the fact that Apollo hid its effects from its investors.  That's relevant.  This suit does not fall into the category of "every little lawsuit that has been filed".  Respectively, your personal opinion may play a role in deciding what should be placed in article, however, it should not override the standard for inclusion, such as notability and independent references.   For example, your personal opinion that a suit is based on a "deep pocket" theory is totally irrelevant, when such an assertion is not supported by any independent reliable source, as to whether the lawsuit should be included in the article when it is notable and there are independent references that support its mention.  Mentioning the lawsuit is not a judgment on whether it was jusitifed or not.  The reader can decide if it was justified based on the references and their personal opinion. Mysteryquest (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found a reference for it yet, but I understand from asking around that the appeal has been submitted to the U.S. 9th District Court of Appeal. Final submissions are due in the next few weeks. Mike (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mysteryquest: My humble thanks for allowing my opinion to be included in the formulation of the article contents! I agree that no editor's opinion should override standards for inclusion, which is a comment we should all consider while trying to work through consensus to develop appropriate material. I also agree that the lawsuit has more relevance than a simple observation of our 16th President's human condition, but the concern is one of degree, not quality. I went around on this question with Mike some time ago and we agreed to leave the lawsuit in for a few months to see if anything came up as far as an appeal.  During the discussion he certainly convinced me that the issue is notable because there seems to be a pattern.  Although we had agreed to remove the article after a few months pending the impact of a possible appeal, it may stand on it's own merit.  I don't think that's a foregone conclusion considering the judge's ruling that there was a lack of a causal relationship between the bad behavior and the harm incurred. My original concern was that dismissal of the suit decreased the notability and suitability for inclusion and it was appropriate to re-evaluate.  I can still see the argument that it may be notable based on the concern of the pattern of bad behavior, not as being worthy in terms of this lawsuit as an isolated incident.  I think it was appropriate to leave it in rather than act hastily and I'm glad I did not insist on re-evaluating immediately after the two-month time frame we originally agreed on - no real harm done and it's probably better to err on the side of too much info in the article rather than too little.  To be clear, my editorializing using the "deep pocket" comment was an expression of my cynicism toward qui tam lawsuits in general and, as was suggested back when I made the comment, is irrelevant to the suitability of this lawsuit for inclusion to the article.  NOT because it is not correct, but because any exploration of that logic would be original research and a violation of WP policy. Mike: I will try to remain aware of developments in this suit as I know you are, too.  At the risk of tempting further criticism for editorializing, I actually think this is a highly interesting suit - I'm curious as to where it's going to go as a point of law.  --Caernarvon (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal Issues Update
Mike, good updates! Your writing style is highly focused, great job! --Caernarvon (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MAPP Quote
Hi Mike - I think the new quote, "However, Bill Wynne, the MAPP test-product specialist at ETS, said 'The magnitude of the change is in the eye of the beholder.'" is interesting but does not add enough value to warrant inclusion. To add this part invites a response from the same article that says that even with Bill Wynne not knowing specific demographic information that the test does show that University of Phoenix students still improve such that, "they were at least as good as those reported by the national cross section." And the debate rages until we should just copy and paste the article into Wikipedia to save time (kidding). The original text notes the concern and the university response includes data collected from the MAPP and SAIL tests. I suggest we let readers go to the article for much more specific data. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with the unnamed editor citing the UPX report as proof that the concerns raised are invalid. Reading the cited article I see that Bill Wynne appears to be an expert and he is noting that the results might not be as impressive as UPX asserts.  i think I've tried to be fair about including he unnamed editor's changes, while noting facts, and not belittling the initial concern.  I'm open for suggested changes. Mike (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Some of the recent edits changed language that was the result of some extensive edit efforts.  I can see your concern in maintaining balance.  Would you consider going back to more neutral language in reference to the tests themselves?  I'll throw something up here for a proposal later today if I get to it.  --Caernarvon (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see - how about something like this:

There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders. The university's 2008 Annual Academic Report asserts that various standardized tests have shown University of Phoenix students improving at a better rate on average in many testing areas than for students at most other schools.


 * It's concise without losing the intent of the viewpoint of both sides of the concern. If readers want to learn more about the testing, including specific tests and opinions about their meaning they can still go to the referenced article.  What do you think? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What are "other schools"? Need some comparison I think. Mike (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote from the acadamic report is, "students performed comparably to or better than students at other institutions surveyed." How does this sound? --Caernarvon (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders. The university's 2008 Annual Academic Report asserts that various standardized tests have shown University of Phoenix students improving at a better rate on average in many testing areas than for students at other institutions surveyed.


 * If this sounds reasonable, do you all mind if I implement? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Mike (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice blog post
I found a nice blog post about the turnover at UPX. If anyone wanted, you could investigate it further and publish the results at wikinews, after which that wikinews article could be cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.77.161 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism
I removed the following passage from the article:

"The university has been highly criticized for having unqualified instructors teaching its programs. Most of the instructors have acquired their academic degrees from foreign countries such as Iran, India and China. The Master's and Ph.D programs provided by the institution are not welcomed in mainstream academia since they lack many of the fundamentals and research required by established institutions in order for students to qualify for these higher educational degrees. Their undergraduates have a very difficult time getting admitted to established universities to continue their graduate work and end up finishing their graduate degrees at this institution."

This sounds like it was written by a disgruntled student. The part about the instructors acquiring their degrees from countries such as "Iran, India, and China" is pretty ridiculous. shotwell (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that this passage is not suitable and should be removed, the issue raised in it has not been adequately covered in the article. UoP graduates do not, as a rule, get accepted into credible graduate programs, and undergraduate work accomplished at UoP is not accepted by accredited undergraduate programs in many cases. In the professional job market, UoP degrees are often regarded as inferior. Many UoP instructors have degrees from UoP and other online institutions with problematic certification; fewer have degrees from strong, accredited graduate programs. Disgruntled or not, this person makes points that need to be addressed and documented in the article. Tithonicus (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Tithonicus

Return of Federal Funds
Hi Mike - I'd like to reconsider the inclusion of the newest lawsuit. First, it appears to be based on (good) original research and blog postings. Nowhere does there seem to be a third party accounting of the issue. Second, anyone can sue anyone for anything. In this case, three deadbeat students are upset that UPX returned Federal backed money to the lending institution and assumed the recovery of the debt themselves. Even if this were noteworthy, there is no third party concern that the activity wasn't completely valid - only an assertion on the part of the plaintiffs. There isn't even a contention that the plaintiffs don't owe the money, only an attempt on their part to get out of paying based on a technicality. They seek class action status but there has been no ruling (apparently) on this yet. Heck, if it was my desire, I could spend a couple of hundred bucks on filing fees and file a few more lawsuits that won't go anywhere just to pad this criticism page (not my first choice, I need my money!). Can we forego this section until such time as there is a reputable, third party, non-blog, reporting of the incident? *Special Note: - there are more plaintiffs' attorneys on this case than there are plaintiffs! Anyone else smell blood in the water? --Caernarvon (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As an aside - here's some research on the blog site that initiated the "reporting" of this information:

http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/stocks/bidzcom-bidz-citron-research-stocklemoncom-soap-opera-continues/

There's more like this out there on them. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Caernarvon, a couple of points:
 * You need to be careful about terms like "deadbeat students". I have read plenty of allegations about UPX enrolling unqualified students who can't meet the course requirements, and the students are then forced to drop out.  Who's fault it is for the enrollment is debatable &mdash; similar to the current home loan fiasco &mdash; but hardly one to be categorized by terms like "deadbeat".  By that definition, all home owners who have defaulted on their home loans are "deadbeat" until proven otherwise.
 * According the Apollo's Form 10-Q, there are eight (8) outstanding lawsuits against Apollo and UPX. IMHO, most are not notable in this Wikipedia article. I would have ignored this one too if not for Apollo's stock dropping 10% in one day.  That caught my attention and lead my research to the Citron blog, which lead me to the court filing. After looking into it, this lawsuit seems as important &mdash; if not more so &mdash; than the other legal issues cited, and it goes to the heart of many of the criticisms about UPX.
 * No where in the complaint are the students trying to "get out of paying", as you allege. Again, please be careful with your terms.
 * I think you miss the point of the article. The issue is not, as you say, about students being "upset that UPX is taking over their loans".  The issue alleged is that UPX appears to be doing this to avoid reporting default rates. If this is true, it can get UPX kicked out of the Title IV funding program, which is where almost 70% of their money comes from.  THAT is very significant.  I don't even think the Qui-Tam lawsuit could have that affect on the company.
 * Finally, your comment about more attorneys that plaintiffs sounds rather snide to me. This is how most class-actions begin.  Class actions require large teams of attorneys to manage and run the case.
 * Lastly, the blog site is not the issue. Whether or not it is a reputable source of information, it does have a factual copy of the court filing.  Feel free to remove the reference to the blog if you wish, but do keep the link to the filing until we can find another.
 * Mike (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe these links would be better:
 * http://www.aacrao.org/transcript/index.cfm?fuseaction=show_view&doc_id=4157
 * http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/01/9570n.htm (subscription required for full article)


 * Mike (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Those links are much more reputable and seem to lend more credibility to the article as a significant issue, please do make the change. The only part of the "deadbeat student" description that isn't accurate is, presumably, the "student" part. It is my opinion that the students in the lawsuit have no conceivable concern whether the money they borrowed is paid to the lending institution or to the school if they agree that they did borrow the money and do have a legitimate obligation and intent to repay it. There is probably a technical problem with how the school is handling this and arguably it has no legal right to compensation if it paid off the loans with company money.

I do believe the students are trying to get out of their loans and I can't see the possibility of a hint that they actually care about how the school is handling the loan, except as a basis for them to avoid paying (heck, maybe even to make some money on a settlement, wouldn't that be great). There is a part of the complaint that requests the school be enjoined from further collections activity, so frankly you are wrong in saying that nowhere in the complaint are they trying to get out of paying.


 * I think we are going to have to disagree on the "deadbeat" thing. *If* UPX is enrolling students who aren't qualified just to get their money, and that is a BIG IF, then that is fraud by UPX, not deadbeats trying to get out of a loan.  Mike (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not miss the point of the article. I think that there's more to this on the student's part than a civic-minded attempt to get the school to handle these loans properly. I think by their lengthy enjoinder section in the complaint that they are trying to profit from their own irresponsibility and I'm sorry if you find it snide, but "deadbeat" is the nicest term I can think of to describe that behavior.

The blog source WAS a large part of my issue. What I was trying to say nicely was that blogs are not appropriate source material according to wikipedia standards of verifiability and to please (as you have just done) find a more credible source. I have always tried to word my posts in your direction politely, even when we disagree, because of your intelligent and thoughtful contributions to this site. I am unlikely to edit your contributions or the sources you use - I would much rather discuss them with you and try to convince you of my viewpoint. Direct editing of another's work is heavy handed. If I seem to challenge you occasionally then please take that in the spirit it is intended - with a better article as a result and a better understanding of the issues on the part of those who read our behind the scenes discussions. Also examine another result - the article normally remains consistent with your version. That's either because you are generally more "right" than I am or as a result of my ability to have these discussions with an open mind and willingness to compromise.

By the way, the school is probably engaging in the reported loan repayment behavior to lower the school's default rate, I agree completely. However, if this is prohibited activity then it's another example of horrible government. Imagine if all schools were allowed to pay off their student's default amounts and then go after the students as an internal matter. Result - the govt gets all its money back to provide to other students who need it and the monetary loss is shifted to the school (who in some cases might have avoided the situation to begin with if it had better vetted its incoming students, yes?). At the risk of sounding snide (but really just mildly sarcastic with a hint of irony), maybe administrators in the federal govt should get an MBA from UPX - the school seems to have better sense at getting repayment on student loans than they do. Imagine a business that punished a client because it intentionally paid the bill of other clients. Peace. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you this. Suppose, hypothetically, that UPX is enrolling students that cannot possibly meet the requirements to pass a class.  Lets say that their "enrollment counselors" tell the students that they are qualified and will get 100% tuition from a government backed loan.  The student enrolls, attends a couple of classes, realizes that he/she is in over his head, and drops out.  What financial debt is owed and to whom is it owed?  If this happens too frequently, it is a red flag that maybe the school is being to aggressive in its enrollment.  Which is why the school must keep drop out rates low.  I don't see that as "another example of horrible government".  Seems to me that the government is just trying to protect students from predatory practices.


 * You are right that the monetary loss is shifted to the school. Why would they do that?


 * This is not a case of "paying the bills of other clients". The students are also alleging that UPX is changing the terms of the loan.  Imagine if you had a home loan with ABC Lender, and XYZ business pays off your loan, changes the terms without notice to you, and then tries to immediately collect the money from you.  Is that legal?  The students are alleging that UPX is doing just that.
 * Mike (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd say that isn't a hypothetical. It's probably happening.  UPX is very likely enrolling students of questionable ability.  I would not use the phrase "cannot possibly meet" for a variety of reasons, but won't quibble.  Here's the kicker - Every other school enrolls students that cannot pass, too.  Most are just more careful to pre-screen the students though there is NO evidence that UPX fair worse than students at other schools, despite the Federal standard criticisms.  We've grown used to it being the school's responsibility to pre-screen students and I argue that it should not have been a school's responsibility.  The UPX model places the responsibility for determining capability completely with the student.  Your argument seems to suggest this is a bad thing.  I suggest that allowing students to make the determination gives students a chance to get an education who never would have been allowed to enroll at a traditional school, previously.


 * Example: High school student barely gets by and gets a diploma.  Starts community college then a 4-year school and his/her head just isn't in it - family, job, whatever, get in the way, and they pass, but with a horrible GPA.  Twenty years go by and the person now has it together and wants to go back to grad school.  No one will admit him/her even with decent GMAT because of a 2.0 undergrad GPA with a failed class or two on the transcript.  This person is hosed for life because of an unguided academic direction when they were a kid.  Who are we really talking about here, demographically?  Minority and lower socio-economic background.  Not the silver spoon my daddy bought me a Yale degree so I could be president kind of guy.  In order to give people like that a chance, you must give them all a chance, even the ones that might not make it.  That's what a chance is.  There's a reason UPX graduates more minority students than any other school and that they're such a high percentage.  There's also a reason that traditional schools are graduating minorities from grad programs at much lower rates.


 * The flip side to this is that UPX is making a profit for the service they're providing. Your focus on profit being the school's motivation seems to be at the heart of your problem here.  Granted, they're probably a greedy, evil corporation, I'll stipulate to that (aren't they all).  But they're also damn near the only chance, because of their open enrollment policies, for alot of people to make it who would otherwise be academically ostracised.  As far as I can tell, there are only two general reasons to go to UPX.  The first is because no other Nationally, Regionally and Specialty accredited university will accept you (GPA or other issues) and the other is that they are just so damn convenient.


 * At any rate - the question is one of the merit of this topic's inclusion in the article. After my initial concern with the cites I would say that your further research and better sources support inclusion.  If you would like, let's continue the discussion on one of our personal pages - I think it's a fascinating topic and your view definitely makes me think about it in a new way.  --Caernarvon (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the UPX model does NOT place the "responsibility for determining capability completely with the student". If you are not qualified but call a UPX "enrollment counselor", tell them your qualifications, and they say that you are qualified, then UPX has taken the responsibility. And that is the UPX model.  Mike (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is, how do you define, "not qualified"? Every school defines it differently and while, yes, UPX does have enrollment standards, they're pretty loose - but if you do not meet those standards, the school does not just admit a student anyway.  I don't think anyone has yet argued that UPX enrolled them in violation of its own standards. It is my assertion that the lower the enrollment standards, the more responsibility shifts to the student to determine their own academic readiness (the word "completely", as you mentioned above, is not technically accurate - just more completely than any traditional school with which I am familiar).


 * UPX clearly does this for two reasons; the first is that they can cast their enrollment net wider, thereby increasing profit (the reason upon which you are seeming to focus almost exclusively). This UPX behavior is not terribly altruistic, though anyone that condemns a company for profit enhancing behavior should do so only if that behavior has an egregiously socially or economically irresponsible tone to it.  I think that's your concern, that the company's behavior does damage to members of our society (economically) that exceeds the benefit they provide as their main product service.


 * The second UPX stated reason is that it gives more students a chance (as mentioned above) to earn a degree. The question here is, from most students' perspectives, whether the UPX product adds sufficient value to its customers in one of two ways. The first is in the value of the education itself.  Is there intrinsic quality to the education?  The second is in career enhancement.  Does the degree add value to the recipient's career?  The answer is probably "yes" to both questions in the vast majority of circumstances.  I say that based on nothing more than my own observations of students' posts on the web and the couple of people I know personally to have attended and completed UPX programs.  Most naysayers seem to either not have attended the school personally, or to have begun studies and failed to complete for a variety of reasons.  The actual degree completion rate seems comparable to most other schools.  I think I see your point, Mike, but I disagree with your conclusion. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I understand what you are saying and agree and disagree with you. I agree that UPX is enrolling students that meets its own qualification requirements. My argument is that the requirements appear to be so low that many students are destined to fail.  UPX just wants the money &mdash; either from the student or from the government.  That is what both of the fraud cases seem to be saying. Mike (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, you can always include lawsuits if you use the actual court records as your source. 173.3.77.161 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In fairness, I should concede I'm being a bit nit-picky over the references. That's probably just force of habit over the standards some others have tried to enforce here.  Blogs, etc, appear on many non-controvercial sites, even though technically they're not considered to be reliable, and no one says much about it.  I vacillate on the topic at hand.  I recognize that with lower entry standards the school is probably admitting some students that are less capable of succeeding.  I also concede the reason they do this is motivated by profit.  I just think the service they provide to underrepresented demographics justifies the practice.  It's hard to remove the genuine concern folks should have about the motivations of a for-profit school for their financial practices.  For most traditional schools, the motive is (slightly) more pure.  Probably, there is no way to equitably administer financial aid using the same rules for traditional and for-profit schools.  Perhaps the only way to do it right is to have a separate set of rules that help for-profit institutions keep their practices above board and not tempt them to push the envelope on rules designed for traditional, non-profit schools.  I still don't necessarily blame the company.  In an efficient free market, businesses will fill needs for which there is a profitable outcome.  Because I'm not PURE capitalist, though, I hope maybe with the shift our government has taken in the year or so (i.e., increasingly favorable to corporate regulation) we'll see some legislation enacted that actually deals with these problems.  For instance, and this is just a wild idea - maybe the loans for students attending for-profit schools should be made on a per student basis to the school, not to the student, with the school bearing the responsibility for repayment.  Failure to complete a class means they repay that part of the federal loan.  Talk about being a little more careful about who they enroll... maybe that would be just the ticket. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then all the school has to do is pass everyone to keep their share of the loan? And, Title IV rules clearly lay out what a school must do to get funds.  I expect that most schools follow the rules.  The accusations are that UPX doesn't.  Finally, I agree that in free market, businesses will fill the needs where there is a profitable outcome.  Just look at the home loan business!  In this case, I don't believe that any more regulations are needed.  We just need to see enforcement of the existing rules.  Something the recent administration was not willing to do.  But I rant... Mike (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Now once report (Apollo Group (NASAQ:APOL): Actionable Short Alert!) is saying that the case was dismissed, but is expected to be refilled in Phoenix. I can't find anything to confirm either of these assertions. Mike (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need to move quickly on this either way. The criticism is fine the way it is presently - you've done a good job in defending the notability and in citing the references.  I'd like to wait and see if there's confirmation.  Though as for the observation that the school would just have to pass everyone to keep their share of the money, I think logically they would then need to be concerned with the competing forces of accrediation standards and marketing their product.  Either would suffer if the standard fell low enough.  Catch ya later!  --Caernarvon (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism section has been completed diluted to the point where the text does not embody or elaborate on many of the valid and well documented criticisms of UPX's policies. For example, the phrase: "There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders" does not begin to reflect the actual criticism. I would propose more elaboration. For example a statement such as: "This includes allegations that admission advisers are pressured to admit unqualified students, that the university instructors are all part-time and that University of Phoenix's method of teaching depends on group discussion among students." or words to that effect. This is all well documented by neutral and reputable sources and should be included. The article now appears to be more weighted toward and supported by UPX's views.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, the criticism section already includes many times the amount of material that can also be easily found on traditional schools, including the lawsuits and quality issues. The section is well cited and is, in large part, the product of a great amount of argument (intelligently and thoughtfully prosecuted) on your part from some months ago.  I would be hesitant to agree to a great deal of modification, but it does seem that in at least one part, some form of your observation would be informative and appropriate.  Especially after recent discussion from Mhedblom, I think (there goes my personal opinion again!) maybe the observation concerning pressure to admit less qualified students may deserve more attention.  The university faculty are not all part time and this issue has been dealt with, again, after great debate and compromise between you and I some months ago, in another section.  The same goes for the teaching method relying, in part, on groups.  I would propose, to address the underqualified students issue adding this to one of the already existing criticisms to better explain what's going on:

In September 2004, the university paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of the Higher Education Act provisions which prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives.[43][44][45][46][47] "The school faces criticism that it admits students with weak academic credentials to many of its programs." (Add: appropriate citation, pretty easy to find one on this issue, I think)


 * I think this issue might go hand in glove with the recruiting practices suit. Together they show a relevant pattern.  Or does it deserve its own section?  --Caernarvon (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I state before the simple statement: There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders" does not begin to reflect the actual criticism does not reflect the true range and nature of the criticism. UPX is not a traditional school so how traditional schools are treated should not have that much bearing on how this article is treated.  "The school faces criticism that it admits students with weak academic credentials to many of its programs."  should be in the criticism section which is what we had agreed to some time ago.  It obviously does not belong in the legal section as it is criticism.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being too agreeable, you may be right. Assuming no one else strongly protests, would you take a couple of days to give others to voice their opinions but presuming none, go ahead and add this to the criticism section?  I won't nitpick - this probably needs to be said more clearly.  I will probably promote some sort of counter balanced statement to the effect that this policy is defended by the school as presenting opportunities for underepresented and minority populations in higher education, but we can work that out later.  Something like this for now:

There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders.[38] The university faces criticism that it admits students with weak academic credentials to many of its programs.[cite] This policy is defended by the school as presenting opportunities for underepresented and minority populations in higher education.[cite] The University's 2008 Annual Academic Report asserts that various standardized tests have shown University of Phoenix students improving at a better rate on average in many testing areas than students at other institutions surveyed.[31]


 * Back to argumentative: I do think that for-profit and not-for-profit schools do, and should, relate strongly, especially on the quality of education issue.  Detractors want it both ways - hold for-profit schools up when it's convenient to show how they fall short on academic quality but suggest they're not the same when it becomes obvious they're being treated as the red-headed step children of post-secondary education.  For-profits make it difficult to compare them neutrally on the quality of education issue because they're so easy to dislike for their business practices.  Add to that the fact that many for-profits have VERY weak records on the educational quality issue then it becomes difficult to defend a school like UPX (very arguably a reasonably mediumish quality education according to objective, third party evaluators like Goldie Blumenstyk) and I think that's where much disagreement over the content of this page comes from.  Although I want to be fair to them, I find myself being convinced more lately that they should face criticism, just and otherwise - I think their fear of bad branding probably keeps them just honest enough to answer the criticism with improved educational programs.  I think it's working, too - looking historically back at UPX criticisms on the web they seem to be becoming less pronounced - with older problems fading as they've been addressed.  For instance the use of teams, (which I know seems to be a personal pet peeve of yours), earned them a nasty and expensive rebuke from DOE at one time and which today has been addressed as being permissible under department guidelines.  I read an article that said the school had to tighten up its management and tracking of out of class team time and other aspects of the practice.  This was probably a direct result of the criticism and censure it received.  Talking about these problems can only help.  Disclaimer:  None of the aforementioned opinion is designed to express an view on the suitability of any specific article content and is intended solely as a watermark for considering the topic (neutrality and POV) in a very general manner for future content inclusion.  Peace! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrt "teams": I think that they can be a great tool when used properly.  However, I know a guy who went to UPX and was in a team where he was the only member who understood the assignments (several of his team barely understood English).  The others simply could not do the work.  Because his grade depended on how well his team did, he did the work for the entire team so they could all get a good grade.  When he complained to the instructor the reply was, "Sorry, I have to pass everyone and this is the only way I can justify the grade for everyone in your group."  This guy blew off the last assignment, but the instructor just used the same grade from the earlier mid term.  I know it is anecdotal, but ... there are reasons why the criticism section exists.  Mike (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind anecdotal information, it provides perspective. I had a similar experience while attending a graduate class at the University of South Florida some years ago.  I would guess that the argument in favor of teams would be they teach lessons that can't be found in textbooks - like some people slack on assignments, how to get along in groups, life isn't fair and covering for slacker students (which is what I did) means a ton more work for the hard working students.  I argued hard against including "teams" as a criticism and only including it in the body of the article because I actually see the value of the life lessons.  Should we reconsider/re-discuss? --Caernarvon (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about adding anecdotal evidence to the article or airing my pet peeves or anyone else's in the article. I'm talking about including criticism which is overwhelming documented by independent and reliable sources in one section.  How I feel about learning teams or the issue of non-profit vs. profit education is not that relevant quite frankly.  What is relevant is what the sources say and that is what I feel is being diluted or not included.  One form of dilution is moving criticism to other sections of the article.  For example, moving the criticism about the model of teaching, to wit the "learning teams" and the fact that the university "admits anybody" or has very lax admission standards, to the academic section where it doesn't really belong since its criticism.  Also moving the criticism about the recruiting violations to the legal section where it doesn't belong.  Thus the criticism section becomes a single paragraph which does not enumerate the true scope of documented criticism and is immediately countered by UofP one statistics which are of course, self-serving.   We can debate amongst ourselves the pros and cons of University of Phoenix, but our opinions don't really matter.   What matters is the criticism which is documented by reliable sources and whether or not it should be included in the article and what format it should be in.   At the moment, I believe well documented criticism from reliable sources is being diluted in favor of information from UofP which is obviously not independent.  The criticism needs to be in one paragraph, not scattered through the article which tends to dilute it.


 * The proposed paragraph: "There have been concerns that the school does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders.[38] The university faces criticism that it admits students with weak academic credentials to many of its programs.[cite] This policy is defended by the school as presenting opportunities for underepresented and minority populations in higher education.[cite] The University's 2008 Annual Academic Report asserts that various standardized tests have shown University of Phoenix students improving at a better rate on average in many testing areas than students at other institutions surveyed."


 * does not address the issue because it does not include all the critical information aired in by independent sources. The phrase "does not properly balance value to students and profits to shareholders" is needless vague and should be expanded to encompass all the criticism.   To with the controversy of learning teams, part-time faculty, weak academic standards and recruiting violations.  The attenuated criticism section makes it appear as if there is not that much criticism of the school which is incorrect.  Let's confine the debate to these issues, not anecdotes, personal opinions or legal research not supported by reliable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * MysteryQuest, I'm sensing some concern that you think there are a few minor problems with the article. First, pay close attention to the thread - I don't think Mike or I were condoning the addition of anecdotal information to the article.  I think we meant here on the discussion page, only for adding occasional perspective, it has a minor but appropriate use.  If you don't care for a brief topical anecdote, feel free to ignore it - we weren't particularly addressing you.  As to personal opinions and legal research, we've been over this.  Our personal opinions are based on well founded and reliably researched news concerning the school.  You may feel free to express your personal opinion that we shouldn't have personal opinions and we may continue to disagree with you.  Most of the legal research done concerning recent lawsuits was done by Mike, (frankly, he's damn good at it and it has been his well researched and neutral viewpoint that has swayed my perpective several times) and I FIRMLY believe it was from reliable sources.  I think most of what he or I posted on the matter was referenced back to the legal pleadings.


 * I understand that the proposed compromise paragraph, (the original of which was the result of prior consensus developed on this discussion page), does not meet your personal standard of criticism against the school. I have to say, I will never agree to allow what appears (by looking at your posting history) to be a personal bias on your part against "For-Profit" schools to set the tone for the article.  I have compromised my earlier harder line position by suggesting that your thoughts deserve more voice in the article.  The issues of learning teams and part-time faculty are addressed in the body of the article, with the (well researched and cited) opinion noted that some question these practices.  The article leaves it to the reader to decide.  The issues of weak academic recruiting standards I have proposed addressing more fully in the criticism section - if you don't like where I was suggesting to add it then make a counter-proposal, no one will be unreasonable, I think.  We agree in principal that it deserves mention and citation.  The issue of recruiting violations is sufficiently addressed and noted as a pattern in several lawsuits mentioned in the criticism section.  I am certainly willing to re-visit them, but if I may be so bold as to make a request of you, let's deal with one issue at a time.  These shotgun blasts of what you don't like about the article are difficult to handle in a logical way and lead to long-winded, meandering posts....  Sorry, what was I talking about again?  --Caernarvon (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we can disagree and in fact we always have, but I grow weary of your accusing me of being biased based on my posting history. One could easily argue that you are biased based on your posting history as you appear to have disagreed with any inclusion of negative information about UofP and various comments you have made such as calling the NY Times article Yellow Journalism and caling plaintiffs in lawsuits against UofP "disgrunteled students." but I suggest we stay away from such accusations.  I have not been not been making "shotgun" blasts, I have consistently been concerned with the fact that valid criticism continues to disappear. I see no reason to not voice my concerns, even if they are numerous, because you desire or can only deal with "one issue at a time".  It appears that you might have some WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article.  It's not your article or "Mike's article or my article.  I suggest we get some input from an administrator to deal with the neutrality issues as I dot feel that you and I are going to reach concensus.Mysteryquest (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Leslie
I know Lisa Leslie from the LA Sparks and Olympic basketball teams graduated from UoP, but I can't find a reference anywhere on the web. I was at the commencement where she spoke however I don't know how to reference that.--Froalskiner (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no reliable source to verify the claim, it can't be on Wikipedia (especially when dealing with living persons). --99.156.92.12 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll keep looking. She got her MBA and was the speaker at the ceremony.--Froalskiner (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess I didn't look hard enough! Found pictures of her at the ceremony holding up her diploma--Froalskiner (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag
A NPOV tag has been added to the article. I assume this is in response to my recent edits and edit comments associated edits. Here's one paragraph that I removed.

Under the terms of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the U.S. Secretary of Education is required by law to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies that the Secretary determines to be reliable authorities on the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education that they accredit. The University of Phoenix is not accredited by any organization on the U.S. Secretary of Education's list, but is regionally accredited by a few other agencies with long names but tiny offices or P.O. Boxes. It is notable that any individual can in any state can create a completely legal corporation with a name that sounds like it might be a legitimate accreditation agency, with no qualifications or obligations whatsoever. The only requirement for such an agency to issue an accreditation is for it to obtain a desktop laser or ink-jet printer on which to print the certificate.

I don't know what list is referred to in the above quote but UoP is accredited by accreditors that are recognized by CHEA and the USDE. The discussion about accreditation mills is not relevant to the article and seems only to be there to insinuate that UoP claimed accreditation is bogus, at least I don't see any other purpose. This is unsourced and seems to violate wp:NPOV and wp:NOR.

Here's the earlier today edit where I removed three paragraphs. Here is a copy of them.

The University of Phoenix was once abbreviated as "UoP" but is now preferentially abbreviated as "UPX."<-ref name="apolloreuters"->Reuters, Officers and Directors For Apollo Group Inc, Accessed July 18, 2008<-/ref-> UPX is its stock ticker symbol, and the change is intended to draw greater emphasis to the fact that UPX makes money, as opposed to providing education.<-ref name="apolloreuters" /-> Although it can be said that the university "makes" money, it is possibly more accurate to describe its activity as "taking" money. UPX's main mode de vivre is to find students who qualify for financial aid and are the least likely to possess the critical thinking skills or the grades necessary to obtain the best educational value for the money. Such students are likely to have been disqualified from numerous other institutions and are often neurologically disconnected from the value of the money being spent on a UPX education, even if it is money they may have to pay back at a later date. The money "made" by UPX (in addition to executive vacations and generous salaries) goes towards laudable goals to further the educational resources and enrich the experience of its students - such as by purchasing the naming rights to an NFL football stadium.

In addition to reducing environmental waste, the fee also helps pad the university's profit margin, as the average cost of providing access to this electronic library ranges between 65 and 95 cents<-ref name="deseret" /->. Additionally, unlike traditional textbooks that the student can resell to recoup their investment, at the end of the semester, the student is left with absolutely nothing. The university can count on the entire fee going straight to the bottom line and a monopoly uninhibited by used book sales that forces students to pay the entire fee again each following semester - a practice that ensures that the University of Phoenix remains competitive in profitability and attractiveness to shareholders. In practice, this is not a major concern for students, as the purpose of a University of Phoenix education is to get a diploma with minimal effort, with a secondary goal of learning<-ref name="deseret" /->.

I never saw any real source for switching from UoP to UPX. The above reference doesn't really point at UPX anywhere that I can find. In any case, I don't really care if the abbreviation is UoP or UPX in the article but if there's going to be an explicit claim that it is now UPX and not UoP in the article then there should be a source that supports it. The second and third paragraphs also appear unsourced (the deseret reference is a broken link) and in my view a violation of both wp:NPOV and wp:NOR.

Here's my personal view on UoP. I wouldn't consider going there unless my employer was paying because I think that they are over priced but since I don't and never have, I don't care. Here's my personal view on this article. It needs to follow Wikipedia policy. My view is that the article as it now stands does seem to follow Wikipedia policy. Anyway, there's my attempt to justify my recent edits to the article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article's NPOV tag has little to do with what you removed, and far more because something important is missing. The opinion you've shared as your "personal view", as you probably know, is pretty much how everybody else views this place (except the otherwise truly hopeless, and/or those in grief over having signed up with them - the first stage of which is denial).  The way the article reads now completely evades any notion that this school is considered a joke by anyone, let alone just about everyone.  Reswobslc (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TallMagic and Mhedblom are absolutely dead on target. Although some of what was written may have had some merit, much of what they corrected (pro and anti edits made yesterday) was unsourced opinion not in alignment with Wikipedia policy.  wp:NPOV wp:NOR wp:TPG  Without even trying to get into rebuttal of the criticisms (i.e., UoP/UPX students maintain a lifelong student login to the library, including the textbooks (printable, if the student chooses) used in the classes they've taken) the reason Wikipedia requires reliable citation is to lend credibility to the articles.  Also, especially since this is a somewhat contentious page, most of the editors find the greatest success by posting proposed changes on the talk page in an attempt to find consensus before proceeding.  --Caernarvon (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reswobslc, the NY Times article by Sam Dillon is very critical and is drawn on as a reference in the article four times. The news media has a tendency to report on negative things more than positive. Which can have a tendency to slant some Wikipedia articles a little on the negative side. I think this article suffered from that malady a year or two ago, but is in pretty balanced shape now, at least in my point of view. (Thank you Caernarvon and company!) I've done Google searches looking for reliable source articles. Perhaps another search is in order? Although what you're looking for might be found with another review of the NYT Dillon article? Although, any rebuttal from UoP should also be included in the article, IMHO. If what you're looking for can't be found then I suggest that the opinion is not as widespread as you believe. UoP is the king-of-the-hill. People love to take pot-shots at the king-of-the-hill. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the King of the Hill Diploma Mill. Their "diplomas" are still garbage.  The fact is, a UoP "diploma" is widely viewed by employers as a worthless degree.  Even a Salt Lake Community College diploma is worth much more - and no one at SLCC claims to be the king of anything.  "Human Resources (HR) professionals attending the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) 2003 Conference were asked the following question:  "If you had to hire, or promote, an employee that earned an online degree from a traditional school such as the University of Southern California, or that had matriculated at the University of Phoenix, whom would you choose?"  The majority, of HR professionals said they'd select a job candidate with an online degree from a traditional school such as USC or University of Michigan over a job candidate with a degree from an organization such as the University of Phoenix. Only 22 percent said they'd select candidates graduating from for-profit schools like the University of Phoenix. When asked which employee they'd be more likely to promote – a graduate from a traditional university versus University of Phoenix – the results were identical." (http://www.onlineuc.net/oucarticle.html).  That link used to be in the article - now it's long gone, along with anything that even remotely suggests that a UoP "degree" is inferior. Reswobslc (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My statement that UoP is the King of the Hill was referring to UoP's size. Personally I don't consider UoP a diploma mill. It is accredited and my view is if it were grossly substandard then I'd assume that they would lose their accreditation. I think the quote that you discussed could probably go into the article, at least from my point of view. I haven't reviewed the context of the apparent consensus decision that it should not be included in the article but I think in the proper context it should be okay to quote something like that in the article. The most questionable thing about it in my mind was the Onlineuc organization. I never heard of them and perhaps questioning them as a reliable source was why the quote couldn't go into the article? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, guys. That article and the survey it references are more than 6 years old.  That's forever in terms of an opinion survey - moreover there's no indication of reliability data as it relates to the survey.  My last concern with it is that it's not even particularly critical of the school - 22% UoP vs. 50% USC?  USC is not just any traditional school, it's considered to be among the best.  Heck, annual enrollment at the school has more than quintupled in that time.  My problem with the Dillon article is similar - it's old data these days.  There's a ton of new material both pro and con - I can't see the value of going back years to cherry pick the nastiest articles out there.  If our intent is to just go out and find negative material because Reswobslc thinks we haven't been critical enough, Mhedblom and Mysteryquest recently brought up some relevant criticisms concerning enrollment practices that would be more appropriate for exploration.  As an aside, and I regret ahead of time that I'm going to upset him by mentioning this, but out of curiousity concerning his viewpoint, I looked at Reswobslc's contribution history.  He has a strong track record of disdain for the Mormon and LDS viewpoint, of which UoP is known to be associated.  I am not going to be drawn into an argument over this observation, anyone who cares to can do the same as I did and draw their own conclusion. --Caernarvon (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Big LOL... That's quite a hilarious stretch of the imagination. Twinkie defense anybody?  If I'm "picking on" UoP because of its supposed "Mormon" connection, then why am I not picking on Brigham Young University instead?  I heard BYU might be remotely associated with the LDS viewpoint as well.  Does any class at UoP teach the term non sequitur?  Here's some irony... for all the so-called "disdain" I have towards Mormonism, I actually consider BYU to be a real university.  Reswobslc (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I spent quite a bit of time reading trough the OUC website. I feel that especially revealing is http://www.onlineuc.net/news.html . It indicates to me that OUC and their surveys have been accepted and reported on by other unquestionably reliable secondary sources. What OUC is basically saying is that distance learning programs provided by well known traditionally brick-and-mortar non-profit universities have greater utility than primarily distance learning for-profit universities. Not only is there that general statement, they refer to UoP by name. I believe that OUC has a valid point that is applicable to the article. True that the study is five years old. I believe that their point of view still is relevant and would have value in the article. Regarding the Dillon article being old, the Wikipedia article is about UoP from its establishment to the present day. The whole history is relevant. If there's something in particular that is felt to be outdated then perhaps we should include the date in the article to make sure that we give the proper context to the statement? Regarding the argument that it is not that critical of the school because USC is considered a top tieir school. I agree. That could perhaps also be included in the article. TallMagic (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The OUC site seems decent, that really wasn't at the heart of my concern. The story references a 6 year (2003) old opinion survey - that is an eternity when talking about internet based technology and, as I illustrated before, much has changed since then.  The Dillon piece is already cited 4 times in the article, though the cites don't really pull together the level of criticism expressed.  If you feel addition of the material would have value, I suggest putting together something as a draft on the talk page here. I see the validity of the concern that the page may presently lack inclusion of reasonable and well-documented issues - though I still argue that listing every lawsuit, individually, that anyone can find online detracts from more relevant issues, both positive and negative, and is a double standard in how other, more traditional schools are described on most Wikipedia University pages.  I doubt whatever you come up with would be too objectionable! Also, I'm not sure the recent title change for the last section "Views of University of Phoenix" is quite accurate.  Very little in that section relates to the views of the school, except as they address the criticisms mentioned.  --Caernarvon (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering the numerous edits that have been made since the NPOV tag was added and the flagging level of conversation here, it seems we've worn this issue down. I intend to remove the tag on Monday if there is no further discussion or objection.  --Caernarvon (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Objection, since the concerns expressed have not been addressed by any of the "numerous edits". Namely, the article makes no meaningful mention of the well-established opinion among employers that a UoP "degree" is inferior and hence is less valuable to a graduate.  This is a very significant piece of information - just as significant as if an auto manufacturer unveiled a new model of car that could only be driven on 25% of roads.  Reswobslc (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, you have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of the OUC report. It's not "22% Phoenix, 50% USC", like a football game they merely lost by a few touchdowns - because that suggests that Phoenix was good enough to even play in the same league.  Rather, given a UoP vs USC graduate with all things equal, it's saying that 50% of the employers would entirely exclude the UOP "graduate" from consideration, whereas 22% would not.  (On the contrary, the USC graduate would be considered 100% of the time - the figure of 22% merely refers to who would consider both).  In other words, the UoP graduate won't even make it to the employment "tryouts" half the time - let alone be graced with the opportunity to play - just for having a degree from the UoP.  They will be lumped in with the people who don't even have a degree at all.  That sort of thing is important to consider before dumping a wad of cash into a "University".  Reswobslc (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reswobslc, your opinion (which is based on others' opinions) is that a UOP degree is looked upon as inferior to employers is like saying, "my sister's best friend's husband's son had a girlfriend who attended UOP and she said she wasn't hired because the interviewer heard from a co-worker who's brother told him that UOP is not a real school." And you also seem to be so stuck on an article from 2003 as your source! That's a long - time in the Information Age! Then, when you say "the well-established opinion among employers is that a UoP "degree" is inferior..." is "not valid" (edited to remove strong language --Caernarvon (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) because you base this off of the selective interviewing practices of journalists. In addition, Reswo (edited to remove strong language --Caernarvon (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)), why is it that anything positive about UOP would violate NPOV, while your nothing-but-negative contributions do not? I think that someone whom clearly has bias for or against UOP should not contribute to this artice and you have clearly a negative bias... - (edited to remove strong language --Caernarvon (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)) Harpernicus (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added back the last user's contribution with objectionable material edited. He or she is obviously new and has strong feelings on the topic, but that does not make the entire contribution invalid.  His/her observation concerning bias is not without merit, but does not obviate the opinion of Reswobslc, either.  Now, to the concerns about the OUC report - OUC is an organization that promotes onlines schools that are part of AACSB and only AACSB - it is a stated goal of the organization on their website and I am still suspicious of the motive behind the report. I disagree with Reswobslc's interpretation of the wording, but will go back over it later when I have a few minutes to spend on it.  I would recomend either coming up with some compromise wording to discuss here, or the tag will be removed.  Special note to Harpernicus: I am technically not supposed to edit another user's work, but technically, it probably shouldn't have been removed by another user in the first place, either.  We appreciate that you feel strongly on the topic, but let's keep the debate civil!  Special note to Reswobslc: I believe you have a clear bias based on your posting history.  I still think there's something to what you are saying.  Let's try to work something in that gives appropriate voice to your concern.  I don't think many of the editors here will agree to terminology that includes pejorative intonation, even if you can find a quote to support it.  I can argue that a degree from the University of Alabama is "inferior" to one from MIT from the viewpoint of human resources directors, I guarantee I can even find verifiable statistics to show the relationship.  I argue that this is NOT the place for those comparative observations or the whole AACSB vs ACBSP debate (probably more appropriate for those articles, if necessary). We've spent enough time on what we don't like about the article, let's roll up our sleeves and get to work! --Caernarvon (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Margin Reset

Okay, it didn't take long, I just looked it up. These are the exact questions on the survey:

"1) If you had to hire an employee that earned an online degree from a traditional school such as the University of Southern California or that had matriculated at the University of Phoenix, whom would you choose? (please check one box only) University of Phoenix University of Southern California (USC) 2) If you had to promote an employee that earned an online degree from a traditional school such as the University of Michigan or that had matriculated at the University of Phoenix, whom would you choose? (please select one) University of Michigan University of Phoenix

FINAL RESULTS FOR BOTH QUESTIONS Traditional Universities (i.e., USC and University of Michigan) - 50% University of Phoenix - 22% Split Opinions (either) - 13.8% Makes No Difference - 13.8%" (http://www.onlineuc.net/shrmstudy.html)

Now, not even taking into account errors in this survey due to surveyed population issues (were attendees a truly representative popultation of HR professionals or were some demographics more likely to attend than others?) and inexactitude of the question (like USC, like UoP, like UoM), for instance, the survey results are EXACTLY what I had stated. I see no samples size or margin of error - this survey speaks only for the individuals actually there on the date the survey was given and could be very different for the same group on a different day. I hate to be this critical, but I hope these folks that put this survey together didn't graduate from AACSB accredited business schools, because they should have flunked statistics. Furthermore, there is no exclusionary verbiage - it is preference. The survey says NOTHING about not including UoP graduates in promotions or hiring. Sorry, this is tripe, tabloid quality research. --Caernarvon (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would see your point... if it weren't for the fact that you're pointing at a summary of the study from a secondary source - not the study itself (see the link you posted). Basically your point seems to be that the material is "tabloid tripe" because the secondary source failed to plagiarize the entire study onto their website.  Reswobslc (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reswobslc, I think the discussion will go much better if you simply made a proposal for the type addition that you would like to see in the article. Saying that you object to the NPOV template being removed while not bothering to even present a straw horse proposal seems inconsistent. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's their survey and their website, that is NOT a secondary source (and frankly, according to WP standards, conducting a survey, then posting it to your own site hardly makes for a reliable source) - if you have a link to the study better than the one posted I am open to looking at it. I notice you fail to address the fact that you were wrong in saying that the survey stated that HR providers would select from traditional online schools to the EXCLUSION of UoP.  Also, just a suggestion; I also notice you frequently use quote marks when what you are really doing is paraphrasing.  I'm trying not to be picky on this, but you've changed the meaning of others writing several times, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more significant, by the misuse of quotes.  Again, make a recommendation for an addition to the article.  My disagreement with your position to date is more one of degree, or more accurately, intensity, than substance.  I think we can and should be sure your concern has a voice in the article as long as it can be done in a non-denigrating tone.  --Caernarvon (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Recommended Changes
"One of the most compelling concerns about the University of Phoenix is that a substantial percentage of potential employers and employment decision-makers do not consider its degrees to be worthy, or that it represents the same amount of hard work that goes into earning a degree from a more traditional school. Other criticisms are that the school's "Enrollment Counselors" are nothing more than hard-selling salespeople tasked with meeting enrollment quotas."

This is the original just posted on the article page. I don't have any strong objections, but would like to discuss here before posting. This will also give a chance to cite the work, which must be done to be included, anyway. I would probably remove the editorializing verbiage - something more to this effect:

"One concern about the University of Phoenix is that there is indication that some potential employers and employment decision-makers consider its degrees to be of less value than most awarded by traditional universities."

We need a cite for this. If we decide to go with the OUC, then some mention must be made for that organization's less than neutral view on the matter.

"Another criticism is that the school's enrollment counselors function more as salespeople tasked with meeting enrollment quotas than as similar peers at traditional schools."

This needs a cite as well - Question - is this a good place to merge the information about the recent lawsuit? They seem related and the criticism might flow better. Thoughts?

Side note: Reswobslc, I commend you on this recommended addition. This topic needed a bit more emphasis and your (sometimes acerbic) persistence is helpful. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest something like "One concern about the University of Phoenix is that there is indication that some potential employers and employment decision-makers consider its degrees to be of less value have less utility than most awarded by traditional universities." Of course, as you point out, a reference needs to be found. Which could impact the proper wording. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me folks, though looking through most of the online info supporting this position it seems to be heavily clouded with blog chatter. I guess we can post it with a {citation needed} tag, not post it or keep looking.  Unless there's a reasonable objection, I intend to remove the neutrality disputed tag on Friday whichever way we go.  --Caernarvon (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not put statements in the article without supporting references. Reswobslc can't force other editors to make edits that he wants to see by putting that template there. That template means that content is under dispute and no one has told him that there would be dispute to a properly referenced statement that he alluded to. My view is that the tag could be removed today. TallMagic (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The objection still remains, just the same as the last time you proposed this. Reswobslc (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there is no proposal from you that is disputed, your assertion that the article is in dispute has no meaning that I can determine. Nothing is in dispute! Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree; posting without a reference is bad form, at best, and I apologize for suggesting it. Reswobslc has had over ten days to work on the proposal with no progress and it's just not my place to do his research for him.  Not that I think he'd give me the same consideration, but I'm genuinely trying to be respectful of his viewpoint.  I'll wait and see what he can find by Friday to give a more than fair chance. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but per Template:POV, the criterion for removing the tag is the absence of discussion, not some arbitrary deadline that you get to make up. Given this page is 100+ KB and has lots of recent activity, the absence of discussion is notably absent.  Reswobslc (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This part of the sentence bothers me; it is hard to understand what it is trying to say: "...is that there is indication ...". Can someone come up with a rephrase? Mike (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is lack of discussion regarding the dispute since there is no dispute. The tag should be removed unless there is a real dispute. Detail discussion of what should be said is irrelevant until a reference is found. TallMagic (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOVD: In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. To recap, the nature of the dispute is that the article gives no hint that a significant percentage of employers consider a UoP degree to be worthless. Reswobslc (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Then provide a link to your reference. Thinking that you can sit on the side lines and do nothing but make pot shots at the article and other editors is not a contructive mode of operation and it is not a dispute. It is something but it's not a dispute. TallMagic (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reswobslc, you seem to believe that you are a high-level (very intelligent) thinker. However, you are taking a bad thrashing in this incessant argument. It's quite embarrassing. Now you are at a point where you need to bring substantial and hard-hitting evidence to support your "input" to reclaim any semblance of your dignity and credibility. Your vest intellect appears to be failing you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.67.220 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no room on Wikipedia for these type of comments. Please keep your comments focused on the article contents rather than your fellow editors. Please review wp:NPA. TallMagic (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored Reswobslc's version. Let's discuss this version. I suspect that Reswobslc has restored an old version. If I've violated some kind of previous consensus then sorry. It seems to me that this version has some more information that I personally find interesting and thought that it added to the article overall. Please share your opinion. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I always prefer better organization with proper headings. Mike (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the duplicate info I removed did away with the better organization. It was a choice between proper headings or content that had been achieve by consensus.  If you like, I will try to add back the organization to the already existing content, which can also be edited to add back any important points (that we can all generally agree on) from the other version.  --Caernarvon (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * TallMagic, it does go against previous consensus, but I think most of us are bargaining in good faith. I am personally against posting major re-writes to the main article before consensus has been achieved on the talk page, but as long as we're working together as adults it's probably not that big a deal.  I will do some editing of the page directly and we'll see if we can come up with something generally agreeable to everyone.  This is a pretty major concession for me, since most of the "legitimate" concerns with the school come from one, already overused, source - the Dillon article.  This re-write gives that article more than double the airtime that any other source enjoys.  That is particularly concerning considering the damning tone of the report.  --Caernarvon (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just did a round of editing - removing duplicate information. I'm sure I removed some points that should be in but it was clear entire swaths from previous drafts were just dropped in.  Let's edit what's there, adding back the important points instead of duplicating...  I'm still uncomfortable with the AACSB stuff - it was removed mostly because of relevance - you simply don't find that criticism on any other non-AACSB accredited school.  The bottom line is, about 45% of business schools in the US are accredited by CHEA recognized agencies, AACSB or ACBSP - the former is research school oriented accreditation and the latter is a teaching school oriented accreditation.  Also, I am concerned about the Intel article for the same reasons mentioned when we decided to pull that portion originally.  Intel made a big splash when they decided to not pay tuition reimbursement for non-AACSB schools (75% of the business schools in the US) - I doubt anyone will ever hear about it if they change their minds.  It may be appropriate to leave in just because there is some concern out there and it probably deserves some coverage and we haven't found a way to more adequately address it.  We should err on the side of inclusion, despite the flaws in that particular situation.  I pretty much left the graduation/retention stuff alone.  I don't believe it to be a valid criticism - online schools serve a different market and purpose than traditional schools, and Federal standards have changed over the years to take this and direct class time with instructors into account.  But it is valuable information just from the standpoint of pointing out that difference.  I am also concerned that by rehashing all of this debate, we're losing focus on a more relevant concern - recruitment.  Mike convinced me some months ago that this is an important focus, not only in the debate of UoP, but in the differences between profit and non-profit educational environments.  I don't argue that there should be an in-depth discussion on the UoP page, but I think it deserves some attention.  --Caernarvon (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like all the improvements that you made to the article. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The AACSB paragraph as a "controversy" has absolutely no relevance to this article or to the University of Phoenix. I could understand that if University of Phoenix was claiming it had AACSB accreditation when it clearly does not - that would be a controversy. It it in no way controversial that UPX doesn't have AACSB accreditation because they are a Teaching school and not a Research school as would be the requirement of seeking AACSB accreditation. Reswobslc, if you are insisting that it is a controversy that UPX does not have AACSB accreditation, please take it upon yourself (if you are truly neutral) to edit and add a non-AACSB accreditation controversy heading to the Wikipedia pages of the following non-AACSB accredited institutions: Nova Southeastern University, Alliant International University, Argosy University, University of Bridgeport, The College of Saint Rose, College of Mount Saint Vincent, Medgar Evers College, Peirce College, Wagner College, University of Maine at Augusta, Southern New Hampshire University, Plymouth State University, Georgian Court University, Alvernia University, Arcadia University, Bowie State University, College of Southern Maryland, DeSales University, Fairmont State University, Gallaudet University, Gannon University, Marymount University, Marywood University, University of the District of Columbia, Virginia Union University, Webster University, West Virginia State University, Wilkes University, Alabama State University, Anderson University, Campbell University. This should be enough just to get you started, Reswobslc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harpernicus (talk • contribs) 05:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Those universities aren't hawking an easy MBA like UoP is.  And it is AACSB who is considered to accredit "real" MBA programs. Reswobslc (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So your real concern is that you believe UoP's MBA is too easy. Unfortunately, CHEA, the national, north central and ACBSP accrediting agencies disagree with you.  Call me crazy, I'm going to go with them on this.  I would like to hear the opinion of a few more folks, but your reasoning does not seem a proper reason for inclusion of this material.  --Caernarvon (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot contribute on this matter. I have personal concerns about accreditation agencies that are funded by the schools they rate — seems like a conflict of interest to me. But that is PPOV.  Beyond that, I cannot help. Mike (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that AACSB is generally considered to carry higher prestige and respect than ACBSP accreditation. This means to me that Intel's position is very likely more general than just that one company alone. Harpernicus's argument that this article can't reflect that fact unless it is reflected in a long list of other articles is a classical Wikipedia argument that is sometimes put forth but should carry little weight. The basic argument being that we shouldn't fix this article because the same deficiency exists in other articles is not a good argument. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mike, you are absolutely correct. It sounds like a shell game of special interest and adds to the confusion.  talk, one thing I have to keep in mind is that whether or not Reswobslc or Harpernicus (or any of us) make particularly good arguments for inclusion or exclusion, the material should be judged on it's own merit.  That being said, the accreditation issue may deserves some attention.  The problem is, there are several fine lines we are drawing.  I think most folks would agree AACSB accreditation is more prestigious - but there's little or no objective research on this to cite.  It is likely that ACBSP accredited degrees are viewed with some prejudice, but there is little or no objective research to cite.  In many ways, accrediting agencies build their own hype, so when does perception become reality?  Nova Southeastern is considered to be a great school.  I believe one step toward middle ground is to move the accreditation issue from the "Controversies" section to more neutral ground - it is not a controversy.  Frankly, neither is the graduation rate.  Maybe leave them where they're at and re-title the section again - it still doesn't seem to fit.  I'll try that later and see if that moves us more toward consensus.  --Caernarvon (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "Controversies" section per my post above. I moved the graduation and retention section to coincide with other information about the university population and I removed the Intel fluff (compared to the statistical research performed in the replacement material) and replaced it with actual research specifically about perceptions of business accreditation.  The reference is excellent, I recommend anyone interested in the topic read through the research paper.  I am removing the dispute tag - it seems by consensus that the majority would agree that Reswobslc's concerns have received the additional attention they deserve (or more), whether or not he feels that is the case. --Caernarvon (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the removal of the controversy section. The controversy exists and is well documented.  When one considers the amount of money the school receives from the federal government and the much of the criticism, again well documented, removing the criticism section seems to be a whitewash.  I would also oppose the removal of the NVOP tag as the way the article is written, valid criticism is left out.  Constantly moving items from a criticism section is simply a way of "losing" it in the text of the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Margin Reset

The title for that section has undergone numerous changes recently. I disagree with the word controversy because I don't believe the word accurately depicts the contents. I would also ask that you check your description, "whitewash" which implies intentional deception. Please assume good faith. Further, I don't believe anyone here has a desire to lose anything in the text. Again, if you have an alternative, please post the suggestion here, we can work out something agreeable, I hope! The NPOV tag may not be used punatively. If the person putting it there has no further edit suggestions then they can't just keep putting it back in. That's not a matter of consensus, but of wikipedia policy. You've mentioned valid criticism being left out in two posts now without mentioning what that criticism is. I'm sure you've got something in mind on it and I am genuinely eager to work on some good old fashioned article editing to be certain that all sides of the issue are represented appropriately. --Caernarvon (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith, I do not agree with changing the title of the section to something more benign. It is not justified.  When you consider the many independent newspaper articles which are unfavorable to UofP's curriculum, faculty, its recruiting abuses, etc. there is obviously controversy which has  been minimized.  Yes, those articles are referenced, however the substance of them are not explored in the text whatsoever.  Yet articles which are less reliable or independent which can be construed as positive are given prominence and quoted or paraphrased at length.  I have been saying this for awhile now.  I believe that the benign title of "Legal" and the sterile listing of the lawsuits does not fully explore the controversies and that is one of the reasons why the neutrality of the article is in dispute and it has been tagged as an advertisement (I am not alone in this opinion as I did not place either of those tags on it.)  If the article is going to be neutral it needs to better explore the controversies surrounding some of the universities practices much more than it does now.  However, every time something even slightly negative is put in the article, it gets immediately diluted.  I'm going to explore dispute resolution or some form of mediation.  As things stand now, I do not believe that we are going to come to a compromise.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Truth versus ability to change
The reality is U of P had a strong program called Asses in Classes. This was verified by the Chronicles in Education. But for some reason, this page keeps getting changed to ignore serious findings, fines, and results from investigations. When a company serves two masters, Stockholders and Students, one will find a compromise at some point with integrity. In the case of U of P, it happen. In addition, while U of P loves metrics, they do not seem to measure the metrics of companies that do not acknowledge their degrees as being legitimate. Because they simply measure money, and all things supporting the making of money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrzop (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree! Clearly this is a concern for many other for-profit institutions as well, like Devry or ITT Technical.  That doesn't mean traditional schools don't have problems of their own.  (I think you mean Chronicle of Education BTW - though I think the article merely reported the story rather than providing any true independent verification).  I would disagree that a for-profit school must inevitably fail the ethics test.  I would liken it to the difference between a public library and amazon.com.  Amazon is clearly a business but seems to add value to the broad spectrum of learning by virtue of the service they provide. Maybe what online education needs are competing canned course formats and lesson plans that are approved by accrediting bodies, sort of like how Amazon sells books.  Also, I would not characterize a company's ability to qualify a degree program as "legitimate" as valid.  Accrediting agencies and governments may have that power; companies can probably only add their two cents as to the "value" of a program.  I mention this because, for instance, Devry and American Intercontinental also suffer from many of the perception issues of UoP, and probably to a greater degree.  They are not equal programs in terms of legitimacy, however, just as the University of Louiville and Western New Mexico University are not - even if they are lumped into the same category by people that have not done their homework. Ciao --Caernarvon (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Companies don't acknowledge that their degrees are legitimate? OMG!  What a strange concept!  That's impossible!  You don't really think that, and neither does anybody else.  I thought that was old news, like 2003.  That can't possibly still be!  Who cares if UoP "gradumates" can't get a real job that matters, since the UoP is now accredited by the ABC and the LMNOP, and even the WXYZ.... and Santa Claus is real and has delivered lots of toys to lots of kids. Reswobslc (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure how to respond to this. You've apparently crossed logic wires not to mention engaged in some serious pronoun ambiguity.  Wading through the angry rhetoric, ambiguous writing style and sarcasm, I think you are trying to say, "UoP Sucks, so there!"  While your argument is convincing, allow me to offer my perspective, if I may.  I know of five persons in my organization that have degrees from UoP.  All are at the graduate level, one is working on his Doctorate (DBA).  In the past two years, all but two have gotten promotions.  One went from supervisor to business analyst and two from assistant manager to department manager.  Of the remaining two, one has been a business analyst and his upward mobility is constrained due to promotional opportunities.  The other is an assistant manager and I don't know why she hasn't been promoted other than she's been with the organization a fairly short time for such a promotion.  I have heard the occasional snide comment about these degrees, but nothing that could be verified by looking at the actual performance of the individuals involved.  Masters and bachelors degrees are fairly common among the management ranks where I work and these folks seem to be competitive.  Nasty comments seem mostly to come from disgruntled individuals who were passed over in favor of these UoP folks.  I don't tend to try to compare their degrees to mine, though I would be annoyed if I felt like someone was getting a promotion over me based on a degree rather than performance - but that would be a degree from anywhere.  Because of my fascination with the topic, I've asked some of them about their school experiences.  I heard complaining about instructors that didn't care enough about the students, I heard a story or two about exceptional instructors - I heard a sour story or two about learning teams, I heard that the volume and complexity of reading is difficult to accomplish because of the accelerated courses - that there is a ton of writing, and more.  Basically, the same complaints and compliments I heard during my traditional school experience.  I don't know anyone with degrees from other for-profit schools, so I can't compare first hand.  Is there a perception from employers that the UoP degree is inferior?  From some, very likely.  What is it based on?  Ignorance of what the degree is and how it works, as far as I can tell.  Mistrust of online learning, in general.  You can't convince me that the people or their degree is inferior because I have first hand interaction with folks who have been through the program.  I do believe that to make comment that some companies feel this way is legitimate to the article, though, because it is a fact.  --Caernarvon (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * “Arrogance has never been in short supply in Academia nor of those who think the only good degree is one that comes from being glued to a seat in a classroom in a mind numbing stupor for years.” Reference: DiUlus, F. (2008). The best worst in online degree programs. Global Academy Online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.31.126 (talk • contribs)


 * Global Academy Online? Isn't that the company that sells the "university in a box" software?  You quote him like he's Homer or something, rather than a software maker simply disparaging his competition. Reswobslc (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I quote him because he makes a good point about the arrogance of academic traditionalists such as yourself; it does not matter what he "sells." Whereas, you sell the idea that UPX is an illegitimate university propelled by your brazen personal angst. I maybe new to this Wikipedia process, but after reading this entire discussion page I was sickened by the amount of personal and ruthless conjecture on the part of a few. If Wikipedia at all wants to be a respected and reliable source of information, "criticism" entries should not exist -- just plain facts. Not entries that include subjective phrases such as "employers view..." or "students feel..." And don't try to argue that without a "Criticism" section the article would not NPOV, as I have seen argued earlier in this discussion page. It would be neutral if below or above this "Criticism" section there was an "Awards and Accolades" section as well; many of which the University of Phoenix has and can be verified. Yeah... why isn't there a mention of any of the good UPX does? Oh yeah, that would be a viewed as a "sales pitch" for the University. Matter of fact, I think I am going to start writing an "Awards and Accolades" section. Don't worry Reswobslc, et al, I will make sure it is concise and doesn't outweigh the tediously incoherent "Criticism" section.Harpernicus (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, speaking of the ability of truth vs. ability to change - I'm not sure how long it's been since I've seen this many posts over a weekend! At any rate, not that everyone is actually looking at the talk page before posting, but for those who are - please chill on the wholesale additions/changes on the page.  It's not that they're not valuabl, it's just that there is very little likelihood they will stick, for one thing.  Please bring major edit suggestions here first to be discussed.  Let's not allow the editing to degenerate into edit warring as this is coming close to.  Thank you to those who are working to preserve the article integrity.  We all have opinions and biases as Harpernicus pointed out in one of his edit comments - the trick is to discuss them here so we can all agree on the article content.  No one is going to get exactly what they want, but if we do our work well, it may be possible to give all legitimate viewpoints a content perspective.  --Caernarvon (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
Reswoblc - you will either work as a cooperative editor here or I will report you for disruptive behavior. Two editors have weighed in on the tag and agreed it should be removed considering there is no stated controversy. You may not use this tag to denigrate the article simply because you don't get your way on everything. Suggest edits or cease the unruly behavior. --Caernarvon (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that the NPOV tag should be removed. I maintain that the article has been watered down to eliminate valid and well-documented criticism.  The fact that other school articles do not have criticism sections is a weak argument, perhaps those schools do not lend themselves to such criticism.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Mysteryquest! Actually, I think the issue is that the NPOV tag is being misused and that's not an issue of consensus - please review the post by Tallmagic on this topic above.  I'll say the same to you as I did to Reswoblc - toss out some ideas on the talk page and lets get editing.  You've always had a distinctly negative view toward the school, but I have to say you've never been slow to dig in and work on actual editing suggestions.  On a side note, I found an excellent article that validates one of my key perceptions about the school - that the education is reasonable for a standard university, but that it leaves much to be desired as far as its business practices go.  Closer scrutiny and inclusion of its business, (recruitment practices, for example) is a topic I've been wanting to explore for inclusion for awhile now and I think this is a good starting point.  http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul_v2.php?numer=20&id=446  --Caernarvon (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closer scrutiny of UofP and its recruitment practices, etc. were once well represented in the article, thus I find your desire to "explore" their inclusion puzzling. I believe that the NVOP tag is not being improperly used.  The article at the moment is devoid of valid criticism and has almost taken a promotional bent.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the reference you cite is a good starting point. This is what I see as part of the problem with the article as it stands.  Material that promotes UofP is included and material that is critical of UofP is excluded.  For example none of the valid criticisms in the NY Times article are included or they are minimized in favor of UofP positions, yet you want to use a pro-UofP article from a dubious source as a starting point.  For example, what UofP thinks of the false claims act suit is not neutral and is taken directly from their website.  It should not be included in the article.  The fact that the school has a part-time faculty is not seen cricially though there is plenty of well sourced material available criticizing it.  Instead, UofP's position is promoted.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial opposition to the "well represented" recruitment practices, in retrospect, was the denigrating tone in which they were voiced. I think I overargued their pruning and a valid issue lost appropriate coverage because of that.  Do not be puzzled by a genuine change of view, it is a natural condition for a person able to see both sides of an issue and to be open to new possibilities.  In a significantly kidding tone, I'd like to ask that if the article is presently "devoid of valid criticism", does that mean we should go remove all the criticism that's left since it is apparently not valid?  More seriously - the tag shouldn't just sit there.  The days of listing the blogs from uopsucks.com as a major source for this article are gone - that doesn't mean there aren't valid concerns - but progress must go forward, no one gets to drop a tag bomb and fly away - or hold the site hostage to their wording or point of view.  Let's work together, we can get it right. What UoP thinks of the suit is not neutral, it is their viewpoint and response - I think the author thought that to give voice to the opposing view was a way to give balance to her review.  I'd be in favor of adding some criticality to the tone on the part-time faculty issue if voice is given to ther idea that students get some benefit from learning from practitioners rather than academicians (Yes, there are non-UoP sources that say that, too).  --Caernarvon (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag belongs until this situation is resolved. We are supposed to use neutral sources to to bolster the text. From my opinion, you bend over backwards to ignore that fact simply to insert non-neutral viewpoints to "balance" an article.  Now, this is hyperbolic, but would you insist on adding non-neutral articles by Nazis praising Hitler, in order to balance an article on him?  Obviously UofP disagrees with the suit, there is no need to cite their comments from their webpage for that.  Thier response is contained in the neutral article about the suit which is a more suitable source.  Criticism is what it is and it might be denigrating, however, that does not give you right to exclude it or include non-neutral sources to counter because you do not agree with it.  The source http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul_v2.php?numer=20&id=446 you are enamored with is dubious at best.  The author of the article is not renown or authoritative and from what I can see E-mentor is a commercial site.  Again, the neutrality of the article is compromised, because dubious non-neutral sources and text is given prominence over well documented sources and text which criticize the school.  As to your "kidding", quite frankly I do not see any criticism in the article as it currently reads.  I believe that situation should be rectified before the tag is removed.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking back on the situation from last week and previous, my opinion is that anyone arguing that an article is pushing a certain POV and places the POV template in the article and then expects OTHER editors to cow down to their demands and make the edits that they would like to see before the template can be removed while not making any edits themselves, nor suggesting specific edits, nor disagreeing with any edits, and not even participating in the discussion is a rather unproductive use of the POV template. Here on Wikipedia, you either participate in editting in an article or you don't. You can't expect to be able to tell other editors what it is they should do to the article, disappear, and then claim that the article is in dispute when nothing suggested has been disputed. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The POV tag is not a weapon of war, or a battering ram, or a way to hold an article hostage. It has a well-documented purpose that is far less nefarious than you make it out to be.  The notion of "put out or get out" you seem to be touting is nowhere to be found in the template documentation. Reswobslc (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reswoblc, of course it is not found anyplace. It is what you seemed to be trying to use it for and I was arguing that it was unproductive. I believe that you had not really made any edits to the article after adding the POV tag. I think I was the one that reverted your edits that probably prompted the placing of the tag in the article. I suspect it was this edit of yours Your edit comment says, "Let's start with this. This is the biggest problem, in a nutshell." The paragraph eventually ended up being after you completed additional edits to be.
 * "One of the most compelling concerns about the University of Phoenix is that a substantial percentage of potential employers and employment decision-makers do not consider its degrees to be worthy, or that it represents the same amount of hard work that goes into earning a degree from a more traditional school."
 * It's a nice little bit of text. Very encyclopedic, informative, interesting, the problem with it though was that it was an opinion that was not sourced. So, you write some nice text for the article. It doesn't have any source associated with it so it gets reverted. So you add the POV tag template to the article. You seemed to expect other people to find supporting references to support the nice paragraph that you had written. The nice paragraph that described UoP in a nutshell. Then you leave and don't participate except to pop back in and say that the article is still in dispute. This does not seem to be very productive to me. Find a valid source that says that UoP is the worst school and the world and then put that in the article or give me a link to the source and I'll happily put that in article myself. My dear fellow, you need to find sources for your additions to the article. Otherwise your text is going to likely be reverted.Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even worse, there was this misleading ridiculous paragraph that I deleted from the article. Who added this nonsense I wonder? TallMagic (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I no problem making suggestions that would make the article more neutral. That would entail a full hearing of the criticisms aired in the both the New York Times article, and the Dallas article which at first were countered and now have simply disappeared.  Whether you like the articles are not, they are at the fore of verified reliable sources per Wiki standards and the issues they raised are indeed issues which should be addressed:  The include the (1) the issue of shareholder concerns being taken above educational concerns; (2) the rampant violations of recruiting practices (I do not believe that they are sufficient addressed in the legal section); the fact that many academics feel that the truncated teaching schedule and the use of learning teams gives the student less academic instruction; and (4) the controversy over the UofP's returning federal funds when a student quits and then attempting to collect the money from them which appear to be a clear violation of federal student loan policies.  Now some editors have danced around these controversies, rationalized, minimized and rationalized them but the are there and need to be aired in some form more pominent than they are now.  Additionally, the "note" regarding the accreditation issue of UofP Business Program needs to be moved to the accreditation section.   Also there is the issue of some of the references which are being used, to support UofP.  The "Goldie" reference I have an issue with and I do not believe it is proper to use a reference to Appollo's cite to reference their position on the false claims act suit when the Dallas News has a neutral reference dealing with it.  The article may have have once been slanted against UofP, however, it is now slanted for UofP. I'll be glad to institute edits along those lines or we can wait until an administrator can sort it out.  At this point, I fear we have reached an impasse of views.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like all of your suggestions, Mysteryquest. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. You have very valid points. Mike (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "note" is in the accreditation section. If it seems confusing, though, feel free to move it up.  The Dillon article is quoted seven times in the article and the Dallas article is quoted three times.  We can reference either seventy or not at all if that's appropriate but I contend they have not "simply disappeared."  I do dislike the Dillon article; it is replete with information from only one perspective.  Much of the information is still valuable, but the between the lines negativity should be avoided as they were not previously.  The first of your points I agree is valid.  The shareholder viewpoint is mostly gone and it should not be.  I don't have a problem discussing the issues with their recruiting practices, but many of these are alleged with no finding of guilt.  Though I believe them to be true, that is not what matters - verifyability is much more important.  Again, the learning teams issue is addressed, I realize not to everyone's satisfaction, but have no problem going back over the wording.  The issue on the return of loan money directly to the lender, though I agree is a point of interest at this point, I'm not up on.  Did that lawsuit go away?  (I have not touched that section to add or remove since Mhedblom and I discussed it some time ago).  Articles by Goldie Blumenstyk of the Chronicle of Higher Education appear a few times as references.  I apologize, but I am unsure of the point, exactly on this.  Last, don't jump so quickly to the perception of impasse.  Even with differing views, Mysteryquest and I have been able to reach consensus in the past.  We've barely even tried here.  Frankly, his insightful statement that the article may have once been balanced against the school, but may now be slanted in the other direction is an excellent concession in working together in a respectful tone.  The article was once completely overbalanced to the negative, period.  In fixing that, as I have suggested before, I argued too strongly for the removal of some important material.  My motivation was in no way nefarious - I absolutely contend that the article is better for my (and Mysteryquest's, as well as others since that time) work on it.  If we work on it now together, I will feel no need to be defensive of the position that was almost completely absent when I first started editing here so long as the critical views are objective observations.  A strident, unilateral view is helpful only in the presence of an opposing strident, unilateral view (and not particularly pleasant, even then).  It is unnecessary when everyone is being reasonable.  Last, I apologize if my suggestion to handle these issues one at a time is disagreeable.  I personally find it easiest to analyze a problem - break it down into manageable components - I get a better product that way.  Let's bury some hatchets, preferably not in any vital organs (metaphorically speaking, of course) and edit for consensus and an excellent product.  --Caernarvon (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

MARGIN RESET

Caernarvon said,
 * I don't have a problem discussing the issues with their recruiting practices, but many of these are alleged with no finding of guilt.

Actually, the US Dept of Education did find that UoP/UPX violated the Title IV requirements for recruiting practices in their 2003 Program Review Report. It might not have been a court of law, but it was the government agency responsible for determining compliance. And as for the lawsuit that disappeared, I have been told that it has been refiled in California, but I haven't been able to find record of it. Still looking. Mike (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that you (Caernarvon) do not like the New York Times article and have referred to it is Yellow Journalism, however, it is a legitimate, verifiable source and the fact that you do not like it does not mean you can ignore it. It might be cited, however, none, if any of the text in the NYT article, is referenced in the text of the Wikipedia article, whereas text from other pro-UofP sources are represented.  For example, in the business accreditation section, there is a huge note "apologizing" for the fact that UofP does not have AACSB accreditation and the there is no mention of the reason why some companies or academics feel such accreditation is necessary or desirable, at least until I just put it in today. What has happened is great weight is given to sources that are pro-UofP and there is much text supported by those references, while sources which are in any way negative of UofP are simply cited almost in passing, and not explored in the article.  Regardless of why the NVOP tag was originally added, I feel its existence now is justified because of the reasons I just cited.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that we have the business accreditation text sorted out, as I mentioned above, in order to bring balance to the article by introducing the changes I indicated earlier for which there appeared to be agreement. I may not be able to get to it right away, I do not want anyone to feel that my advocacy of the presence of the NVOP tag is an attempt to hold the article hostage. On another note, the reference I had a problem with was not the "Goldie" reference it was the "Rhonda" reference which appears to be from a blogMysteryquest (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not been able to make any of the suggested changes I felt were needed above because of other issues pressing and I see nobody else has. I will endeavor to make some of them this week.  There are two references I believe are not suitable: (1) New Models For Higher Education: Creating an Adult-Centered Institution Craig Swenson, Accessed 18 Sept, 2008.  Craig Swenseon is a the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at UPX thus, even if what he is writing is scholarly for the University of Quebec, it is obviously biased and should not be included. (2) Why Recent Criticism of the University of Phoenix is Unjustified, Rhonda P. Urba.

Ms. Urba does not appear to have any "scholarly credentials", moreover, E-mentor an online magazine E-mentor is the online magazine published by Warsaw School of Economics that does not appear to be neutral or scholarly.Mysteryquest (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, as I have been promising to do for some time, and there was some consensus for me doing so. I have re-written the "Legal" section to take make the article more neutral, i.e. no so favorable to UofP that bonafide controversies are ignored or diminished.  The changes I have made are not overly dramatic.  Instead of a sterile list, I have added a lead in and tied some of the cases together.  I have also renamed the section title back to Controversy which is what the section is about.  I put my rewrite into the text because I felt it would be difficult to put it here because the references would be messed up.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Image of Shaq
I have reprinted what I felt about the fact that Shaq's image does not belong in this article and also what TallMagic (talk) felt about the article. It is in the second archive of the discussion page. His notability was not derived from UofP. He is famous not because he is an academic nor has his success been derived from his attendance at UofP. Putting his image in the article cheapens it, in my opinion. "I have looked at numerous school articles and there are no pictures celebrity alumni. The one article that is cited is 4. That article has a picture of the CEO of Pepsi, who is an important business person whose success is derived from his attendance at the school. So that's hardly an apt comparison. As I pointed out Shaq has only an incidental relationship with University of Phoenix. He obviously doesn't make his living of his MBA degree. His endorsements, philanthropy, advertisements and basketball contracts and everything else come from him being a famous basketball player and personality, not because he has an MBA from UofP. An image of him might be appropriate and relevant in the athletic section of the university he attended. I can see putting a picture of Spellman in the article. I could see putting a picture of Einstein in the article of whatever school he went to. It just strikes me as turning an encyclopedia article into People's magazine. If Jerry Seinfeld got a degree from UofP I suppose his picture should be included also.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the image of Shaq in this article provides undue weight to the fact that Shaq graduated from UofP. The picture is not sufficiently relevant to UofP and in my opinion, the article would be improved by its removal. TallMagic (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"


 * I've always been a bit shaky on the Alumni info. The project page seems to suggest that graduation from the school should account for some portion of the individual's success.  I'm good with it either way.  --Caernarvon (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shaq's success is obviously not at all tied to his tenure at University of Phoenix. They don't teach professional basketball at UofP.03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't more clear, I was trying to make that point. His career has little to do with his degree, so would certainly not oppose removal of the material.  I meant shaky only in the sense that I've had the question in my mind of relevance, not promotion.  I'm not a big NBA fan so I didn't initially see the material as promotional (why would anyone think a professional athlete should have any weight in the decision for which school to attend, but I guess it's possible for some folks).  --Caernarvon (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article would be improved by the removal of Shaq's picture playing basketball but the mention of Shaq in text being an alumni should stay. If instead a picture of Shaq could be found doing something studious rather than playing basketball then I might like that picture for the article. TallMagic (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Placing an image of Shaq performing some other task besides basketball would not solve the "problem." He's a basketball player and that is the sole source of his notability.  Portraying him doing something else does not detract from that.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically I don't think that the argument that he is only notable for his basketball is a very good argument not to include him in the article. We don't want people to think he played basketball for UoP. That's why I think a picture of him outside basketball would be better. But, he's a UoP graduate. I assume he went to UoP because he wanted a college degree. In particular, he decided that he wanted a UoP degree. He's famous and notable. It is notable information for the UoP article, IMHO. IIRC, when this discussion was first going on he was the only alumni with a picture and the picture was larger and showed him dribbling down the court. I don't think that the current picture detracts as much from the article as how it was orginally. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While we are discussing an article that currently has, as a disputed matter, the wording describing its subject's extraordinary poor graduation rate in the eyes of the Department of Education, I thought I would take this opportunity to point out that "an alumni" is not a word. A person who graduates from a university is called an alumnus.  Actually, a person who graduates from high school is even called an alumnus.  Alumni is the plural. Reswobslc (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reswobslc, I appreciate the information but, if you're trying to earn my respect that effort fell a bit short. Instead why don't you just respond to my April 22 edit at the beginning of the first "NPOV tag" section on this talk page? If I'm not mistaken those edits I'm discussing in my April 22 comment are your edits to the article. TallMagic (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I took out the image, left the text - Feel free to continue the discussion on keeping or removing the text, but it seems we all agreed the image could go so I did it. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)




 * I did just find this one, though - is it more reasonable? --Caernarvon (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like this picture better. As I mentioned previously, my concern with a picture of him playing basketball could lead some to falsely assume that UoP has a basketball team. TallMagic (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * UoP paid $154 million to help people falsely assume it has a football team, so by UoP's own standards there is no shame in misleading people this way. Reswobslc (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know where the "consensus" is. Here are my comments from above:  "Placing an image of Shaq performing some other task besides basketball would not solve the "problem."  He's a basketball player and that is the sole source of his notability.  Portraying him doing something else does not detract from that."  Any image of Shaq in the article is improper whether it portrays him playing basketball or not.  He's a basketball player.  That's where his notability comes from and that notability is completely unrelated to UofP which does not even have a basketball team.  I do not believe an image of him on the site is proper.Mysteryquest (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really feel strongly one way or the other about the picture but I do strongly disagree with the above argument. It is rarely known how important the degree was in the success or notability of notable people cited as alumnus (thank you Reswobslc :-) ) for different colleges. I do not believe that is the proper criteria for inclusion of someone in an article as a notable alumnus. The criteria is simply do they have a degree from the school and are they notable? If the answer is yes to both those questions then they may be included as a notable alumnus. It is not called "Notable alumnus that derived career success and notability through their degree". The category is notable alumnus. I suspect that no one here can say what success Shaq may have had in endeavors outside basketball due to his degree. It is not necessary that the degree had to play any part in why the person is notable. That just doesn't make sense to me. If Jeffery Dahmer had a degree from someplace then he could be in the article of that school as a notable alumnus. There are probably hundreds of TV/Movie/Music/sports stars that are listed as notable alumnus. Their degree probably didn't play an important role in their career success. It is not a valid restriction to say that the degree had to play some role in the notability in order for them to be a notable alumnus. It is an unreasonable burden to prove such a thing and not relevant. Whether or not any pictures of notable alumnus are included is a different matter that I don't really have an opinion on. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Learning Teams
I would like to recommend we revert or re-work wording Mysteryquest and I came to consensus on in reference to learning teams some time ago. Not only has much of it disappeared, but the new version is missing the reference and the note of concern of using this method. Here is the version I think we had worked out:

Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to teach one another by working on projects for four or five hours per week in what it calls “learning teams,” wherein students engage classmates in course material discussions. The abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams has caused concern among some academicians and former students.[15] The course schedule is more convenient for professionals who can log on anytime.[16] The university uses a standardized course format that allows individual faculty little flexibility in choosing the course materials.[17]

15 ^ a b c d e Sam Dillon, Troubles Grow for a University Built on Profits, The New York Times, February 11, 2007. 16 ^ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5306/is_200704/ai_n21287067/ [1] University Of Phoenix Opens Campus In Columbia 17 ^ http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3082/whats-online-learning-really-like Goldie Blumenstyk

I replaced the last reference with a different source because it previously went to a UoP online manual of some kind. I changed the wording on that part to "little flexibility" because it matches the new source more accurately. Also, I recommend listening to the podcast associated with that source. Blumenstyk has reported both positive and negative about UoP before, as she does in this podcast, but this article by a neutral third party completely supports my supposition that the educational quality offered by their classes is at least middling quality. She did what many others have not done, actually gone and taken a class before forming an opinion. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Business Accreditation
This language is inappropriate to the section it was placed in. We just discussed the inclusion of Intel not providing tuition assistance for non-AACSB schools, hence the change that deals with the subject in a broader manner. This is the University of Phoenix wiki page, not a place to argue over AACSB vs. ACBSP. The issue received the coverage it deserved and users may review the issue on the pages dealing with the specific accrediting agencies if they wish to pursue further information on the matter. --Caernarvon (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Some companies and academics have concerns that UPX's business program is not accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Intel acknowledges that UOP is regionally accredited but an Intel manager is quoted as drawing a distinction of "highly accredited" and clearly excluding the University of Phoenix from it. John J. Fernandes, the AACSB's president, said the University of Phoenix has never applied for membership. He feels that their chances of acceptance would be low because they have a "lot of come-and-go faculty".


 * I reverted your edit, I see no reason why there is a huge note explaining the fact that the UofP not having AACSB accreditation is not an issue and there is no explanation as to why it might be desirable. The fact that UofP does not have AACSB accreditation is an issue which is supported by reliable, verifiable sources.  If you are going to mention that the business program is accredited then issues involving what accreditation it has are relevant especially in light of the fact that the text (in the "note") takes great pains to trumpet that fact that the UofP program is one of a select few that has specialized program accreditation and then seeks to blur any distinction between the accreditations.  This is an example of what I see as an issue with the current article.  Valid criticism which is supported by reliable, verifiable sources is suppressed whereas sources which "herald" UofP are promoted. Mysteryquest (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is not having AACSB accreditation notable? Fewer than 25% of US business schools have it.  This issue is inappropriate for a full discussion in the article of a member page.  Look at it this way - inclusion of this much discussion in a school article that has AACSB accreditation would be deemed promotional material by an reasonable wiki editor.  There are articles that discuss this information.  Mention of the concern might be appropriate, but in-depth exploration should occur in the appropriate section. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is notable because much of the text is devoted to UofP having specialty program accreditation for its graduate business school including discussion of how only 40% or so MBA programs have such specialized accreditation and then more detail involving the differences between the three accreditations. The fact that they do not have AACSB has an impact on the acceptance of the program as indicated in the several prominent news articles on that fact.  Adding information from these sources is proper.  Reality is not necessarily merely promotional so I disagree with your position.  If a University's law school program is chosen as the best in the country it should be included in the Wiki article and if it promotes the school so be it.  The fact that UofP's program does not have AACSB accreditation has had an impact on its acceptance.  In other words its as notable as pointing out that only 40% of MBA programs have specialized accreditation and pointing out the view that they are all supposed to be equivalent.  There are two references for that purpose.  Yet, opposing acaemic and business views on UofP's business program are not notable?Mysteryquest (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the discussion of AACSB versus ACBSP is appropriate in the article. Intel has said it is important to them. There are good sources that say it is relevant. I think enough discussion so people can have some kind of understanding of what it means is appropriate. I like the current coverage in the article, although I think a statement that only 25% have AACSB might be appropriate to add after the current statement that mentions the 42%. TallMagic (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't agree with the appropriateness, but I can live with this version. The sources do not say that it is relevant, I think that you may be saying that it is implied since they bothered to write the articles.  There was discussion in the Stu Woo article that the decision was likely the result of financial pressures in tough times and that may need saying in some format.  Frankly, Intel did not even comment on UoP particularly until asked specifically, at which point Alan Fisher, Intel's manager of global extended education programs, said the change is in no way an indictment of for-profit schools like the University of Phoenix, which should also be mentioned.  --Caernarvon (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well no Intel's decision was not an indictment of for-profit schools it was a feeling that AACSB accreditation was important, of course this article is not about for-profit schools so not sure why that would be relevant. I believe that the text is balanced enough to show both views.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's relevant because he said not just for-profit schools, but specifically for-profit schools like the University of Phoenix. It's in the source you're quoting from.  My point, however, closely parallels what you've just stated, that the UoP article is not about for-profit schools (or AACSB vs. ACBSP or any other accreditation).  It is my contention that you're edits, while not incorrect, aren't appropriate in this detail in the University of Phoenix article.  We've turned a section of mere reporting on the accreditations of the school into a discussion on the merits of the AACSB vs. ACBSP.  There are Wikipedia articles on the MBA in general and both of those organizations in specific where this level of differentiation is more appropriate.  I further believe that making objective statements about the school, (accreditation status, for instance) is neutral editing.  Reporting value judgments about the accreditation organizations, while not inappropriate in itself (actually potentially adding value to the article) leads to difficult and contentious ground.  I do want to ask, however - are there any more areas you feel could be improved?  I know I argue hard and don't tend to agree with your positions, but can't help but feel your ideas on the article do speak for a certain segment and have value.  The point I made above concerning someone's removal of the learning teams part, is an example.  We worked hard on that section and I think someone removed your points - I believe they should be edited back in. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Accreditation issues, I believe, are relevant to the article. Just like mention of the value of accreditation is worth mentioning in articles on unaccredited institutions. There's good sources indicating that some business accreditation might have more utility than others as well as business accreditation from any of the three is better than no business accreditation at all. I don't believe that the current content goes overboard talking about accreditation. I believe that it is a very important issue and should be covered. TallMagic (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We will have to respectfully agree to disagree. Consensus is not with my position in this case, which is fine - that's how good articles are made - everyone gets something of their view included.  Again, since there have been no further suggestions for balancing the article, I am going to remove the NPOV tag, probably tomorrow.  --Caernarvon (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: The "come and go" quote now exists in both the accreditation section and in the faculty section citing the same source. It should be in one place or the other, not quoted twice in the same article for no distinct purpose - any preferences?  --Caernarvon (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is an advertisement
It's amazing to me that a for profit technical school that advertises on television and is infamous for its shoddy academic standards is described so glowingly. I'm making a few changes. .froth. (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind I dont have time. But someone read this and make some changes? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/education/11phoenix.html?_r=1 .froth. (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here


 * One of the aspects of this article which contribute to it appearing as an advertisement and also question its neutral point of view are the inclusions of information which are supported by PR Newswire, which appears to be mostly a public relation tool used to give promotional "news releases" by companies, the veneer of an actual news. Footnotes 43 and 44 to this article fall into that category.Mysteryquest (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another aspect of the article which contributes to its "advertising" appearance is a lot of material that is not notable and would appear to be more promotional than anything else. For example, the section on Diversity seems unnecessary, not particularly remarkable and is only supported by UofP references and PR Press releases.  I do not see the relevancy of this section if its not to promote the University.  The Online Education section is also unnecessary even develing into how much students pay to access the library.  Discussions of online education would be better suited to a Wikipedia topic devoted to it.  It's existence here appears to be only promotional.  The entire section on admission requirements is also unnecessary considering that none of is particularly notable or exceptional and could easily be retrieved from the UofP website.  All these contribute to the article being considered more advertisement  than actual encyclopedic information.  I would suggest substantially reducing or even eliminating the aforementioned material. Mysteryquest (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the information presented in footnote 43 is notable. Footnote 44 is the justification for a notable alumni which also seems okay to me. The diversity information seems notable to me. Although I believe that the tone of the presentation of the infomation needs to be made more neutral. I think some discussion of online education is relevant for a number of reasons. A significant portion of the students at UoP take at least some on-line classes (75%), online education is still generally unfamilar for many people, and since UoP is the largest university in the USA (perhaps the world?) a significant portion of the online education students are or have been associated with UoP. I agree with your point about admissions requirements. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue with footnotes 43 and 44 is not so much notability, though I do not believe that they are notable and they appear to be more promotional, is that they are really reliable sources" as per Wikipedia standards. Of course, they tend to make the article appear promotional and an advertisement.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Really good edits by and large, Mysteryquest! I genuinely admire the effort you've put into them.  I do support TallMagic in the observation that the two "in-question" references are appropriate to the article.  I would not be adverse to a review/revision of the tone, either.  I would also not make the assumption that the diversity information is, in and of itself, promotional.  There are many who I believe would not get the impression that the statistics leave a more favorable rather than less favorable opinion of the school.  I would agree that some of the material in the article would be better placed in the articles that deal with side issues (see my argument above on getting this deeply into AACSB vs. ACBSP accreditation).  Perhaps either, or both, could be dealt with in a more concise manner. --Caernarvon (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point in editing, I do not feel that the advert tag should stay. I feel the article has achieved enough balance.Mysteryquest (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Mike (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree - I will implement the change to include the NPOV tag later this week to give a chance for further discussion first. --Caernarvon (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused, I thought you were going to make a proposal about the NPOV tag and I did not see one. The editor who put in the NPOV tag has not had a chance to weigh in and should be given a chance to respond. We all agreed that the advertising tag should go, however, that discussion did not extend to the NPOV tag.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor that placed the NPOV tag has not participated in this discussion for many months. This discourse has been on the board for more than two weeks. No one is going to get everything their way in a polite, adult discussion where there is more than one opinion - that is not the same as not NPOV. Quoting from a poster above from nearly a month ago while talking about the advert tag, "the article has achieved enough balance." Here's a simple test on the balance of the article - does anyone think that UPX would write this article including any mention of their legal troubles or criticism/concerns about its accreditation, perception of its academic quality, low acceptance standards, "counselor" misbehavior, mishandling of student aid or the myriad other issues that are pointed out?  I think that inclusion of this material is proof that the editors here have done a decent job, through consensus on these pages, of including various sides of the issues.  The NPOV tag is probably inaccurate and should go. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I am not sure if I am missing something but what happened to the criticism section? I believe there should be a heading called "criticism" on the main page. A simple Google search will prove a plethora of evidence of criticism. I agree there are some problems with citing this material. However, ignoring hundreds if not thousands of personal voices altogether on this topic is unfair and unethical. I will wait for a week to hear back comments on this. After which I would like to start a criticism section that has the following line, "There has been an abundance of criticism of UPX on blogs and consumer websites." This would not be hard to source and I will do so when I make the change. Srabbab (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)srabbab
 * Scroll up and see the Criticism topic above. Mike (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read that part But Simply changing the criticism section to the Legal is misleading as there has been extended criticism by many newspapers Srabbab (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Srabbab

Good New Material
Good material overall, though it makes some assumptions that constitute original research or that are incorrect based on the source quoted. The article does not attribute the “growth” of the University of Phoenix to anything at all; it talks about “explosive growth” for Axia College, a different subsidiary of the Apollo group and, at the end of the article, it states that “Phoenix, Axia and other online education businesses now have virtually no impediments to growth.” Further, the 50 percent rule was not repealed. An exception was made, “for institutions that provide instruction through telecommunications, such as online education, and the new Education Department rules simply reflect that change. The department did clarify that the technology used for telecommunications must involve a significant amount of interactivity. That is to prevent correspondence programs from skirting the 50-percent rule by including minor e-mail exchanges between the students and professor, or putting a syllabus on a Web site.” http://chronicle.com/blogPost/No-More-50-Percent-Rule-for/2455/ The mention of George W. Bush exists nowhere in the cited article – this is an original research, unrelated comment. The article makes no mention of lobbyists and does not mention the word even one time – it talks about “supporters” from the U.S. Department of Education and House Minority Leader Senator John Boehner, to whom the article mistakenly attributes the majority house leadership. The cited article does not say that UoP had an impact on the 50% rule. It drew the interesting and unsupported conclusion that Apollo Group accomplished this task. The wording of the article suggests Apollo did this on its own, with no mention of assistance from any other group that might stand to benefit from the repeal of this rule. Overall, it seems to be a fair addition once the problems are corrected. The cited book passage from, University, Inc., says nothing about the Sperling seeing the company’s educational practices as departing from those of traditional higher education. I've made some corrections to address these concerns. --Caernarvon (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned, I have found excellent material that discusses President Bush signing into law the HERA revision and a much better explanation of what it changed.

"DISTANCE EDUCATION Modification of the 50 Percent Rules §102(a)(3), §484(1)(1) The HERA modifies the current statutory institutional and student eligibility requirements that made schools offering over 50 percent of their courses via correspondence (or through a combination of correspondence and telecommunications) or enrolling 50 percent or more of their students in correspondence courses ineligible for participation in the Title IV, HEA programs. Under the HERA, courses offered by telecommunications are no longer considered correspondence courses, and students enrolled in telecommunications courses are no longer considered to be correspondence students. As a result, otherwise eligible institutions that offer over 50 percent of their courses by telecommunications, or have 50 percent or more of their regular students enrolled in telecommunications courses, are now eligible for participation in the Title IV, HEA programs. The 50 percent limitations continue to apply to correspondence courses and students." --Caernarvon (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN0605.pdf

The information about the way the classes run is outdated
They don't do work groups very often any more. Now they focus on two discussion questions a week in a forum, along with "checkpoints", exercises, and assignments. Besides answering the questions the students have to post two "substantive" messages in the discussion question topics four days a week (It used to be three days a week but as of September 1, 2009 they are changing it to four days a week). Also instructors are allowed to make curriculum changes as of September 1, 2009. I received the following in an email from Axia on July 20, 2009: http://aptimus.vo.llnwd.net/o33/phoenix_edu/email_images/RC/RC-1057/RC-1057-browser-1.html - JQ 71.197.62.227 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello - your update on current affairs with the school is appreciated. I am having a hard time finding a reliable source that agrees with the email you posted the link to as a pervasive University of Phoenix policy.  I did check their website and they are still posting that teams are a major part of the educational experience provided.  Is it possible this is Axia specific?  --Caernarvon (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.phoenix.edu/students/how-it-works/student_experience/learning-teams.html
 * While I don't have the email to back it up, I confirm this, as I am a current student. -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Being an instructor for both UPX FlexNET® (ground/online hybrid) and AXIA (online) courses, I can tell you that the University's policy on Learning Teams is very much alive, however not within Axia. In UPX courses the Learning Team portion of the grade is set at 30% while the individual portion is 70%.  It should be noted that UPX is but one in the great majority of higher education institutions (private and public) that utilizes some form of learning team model.  Also, I can confirm that the Axia model mentioned concerning Discussion Questions and Participation requirements and faculty modification of course requirements was changed as of 9/1/09 to match the greater UPX model.--192.85.47.11 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Outsourcing of Criticism
I've outsourced the Criticism section to Controversy regarding the University of Phoenix. If what's remaining on this main article is too bare bones, a little more detail may be appropriate, but it should just present a summary of what's on the subpage, as established by WP:SP. —Eustress talk 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I reversed your edit, "outsourcing" the controversy section would appear to be in direct violation of WP:CFORK. Mysteryquest (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review CFORK...this is not a content fork but an attempt to shorten a section that dominates the article. —Eustress talk 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that the article is long enough to justify spinning out the controversy section. Moreover, you yourself stated that your reason for spinning it out was not because the article was too long, but because you wanted to bring "balance" to the article which would indicate a POV fork.  Especially considering that the neutrality of the article is under dispute.  Spinning out or forking are not justified here.  The controversy section does not dominate the article.  Even if it did, "spinning" it out would not be justified under the circumstances.  "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."Mysteryquest (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. I won't push this issue too hard right now, but if the Criticism section gets much longer, I think it would be reasonable to dedicate a subarticle to the topic. —Eustress talk 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting in References
When putting in references, please follow Wikipedia guidelines and put in a complete reference including the publication, date, authors etc. This allows editors and readers to see where the source is coming from so it can be evaluated without having to click on it. There is a template which editors can activate in "Gadgets" under preferences which makes it very easy to create proper cites. Thanks.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Though the word "proper" seems to be subjective as used here, to be more specific on finding the add-on tool,


 * When I said "proper" I was clearly not referring to the "quality" or "choice" of reference itself, I mean only the cite to the reference. Whether the inclusion of the reference is proper or not, the cite to it should include all the information about the reference: Title, Publication, Author, Date, etc.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

and select "Gadgets"

--Caernarvon (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Tag
The POV Tag talk entries that accompanied the initial placing of NPOV tag have apparently been archived, however, I would like to weigh with my continued views. I did make some edits which I feel balanced the article somewhat. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I am very critical of the way valid, well sourced criticism has been subsumed, obscured or absorbed into other sections of the article instead of where they belong: the criticism section. For example, putting concerns about the abbreviated or (accelerated) schedule in the Academic section simply hides it as far as am concerned. The fact that UPX gives almost 50% less instruction in favor of students teaching themselves in "learning teams" has been the cause of much concern. Also, the issue of the low graduation rate which is, arguably exacerbated by the high pressure recruiters who enroll students who are not qualified and who end up dropping out and of course not graduating -- information which is well documented by reliable, verifiable sources. There is the issues of the part-time faculty as well. All these valid criticism are now distributed throughout the article, in faculty, academics, and students, instead of where they belong, guess? well criticism, of course. That said, I do understand that there are counter points to these criticisms (though not very well documented by independent or reputable sources, inasmuch as references which are press releases, media company releases, "independent studies" involving UPX corporate officers and faculty, or websites which promote "distance learning" are suspect). Thus, placing the criticism in other sections allows for the issue to balanced out. At this point, I would settle for enhancing the lead in to the controversy section to include these issues. For example, "There has also been concern expressed by former students, employees and academics that in its quest for higher profits the university has compromised academic quality." Should include language including the issues concerning the faculty, the high pressure recruiting, and the open enrollment. The reason the POV tag was originally placed, as I recall, was because there was no information on how a UPX degree was perceived by employers and academics. I personally do not believe that is necessary so would not insist on its coverage in the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the best suggestion for improvement to the article that I've seen in months. The lead is supposed to be a full summary of the article. Lead section Today the lead is not that. TallMagic (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can work out an agreeable solution for the issues you point out, Mysteryquest, though it seems you are talking about the lead to the Criticism section and Tallmagic means the lead to the article, itself. I'd like to take the suggested wording and start from there.  I think the placement of the wording should be at the beginning of the criticism section if the intent is to point out problems the school has had, though am definitely for a fuller opening to the article, too.  The Criticism section has a brief opener that speaks to some of what you mention already. The article itself, as you mentioned, already speaks to the balance of the issues.  I disagree that the issues are buried.  The entire article isn't that long and I think anyone interested in knowing more about the school would read it in its entirety.  The low graduation rate is a non-starter.  It is based on the standard using a VERY small part of the student population as the group described and has been easily explained by the school - first time students simply are not the school's targeted customer and make us a small fraction of the actual student population. Their actual graduation rate is proof that government devised standards simply don't accurately reflect what happens at for-profit schools.  I disagree with the word "quest," which suggest a single minded focus to the exclusion of all else.  That is an allegation, not a substantiated fact and should not be presented as such. I also disagree that the counterpoint articles are not well documented by independent sources.  Frankly, the vastly over-cited source for this article is the Dillon article, as I have mentioned before, though the counter view does not rely on any such single source.

The current opener to the Criticism section actually seems to already speak to much of what you were asking for including, so most of it should not be a problem. Here's how it reads:

"University of Phoenix has been the subject of legal and regulatory controversies as a result of its student recruitment practices and accelerated academic schedule. There has also been concern expressed by former students, employees and academics that in its quest for higher profits the university has compromised academic quality."

A proposal that adds much of what you suggest be added could read something like the below wording. Please remember as we work this through, that Eustress has suggested much lengthening of this section may justifiably lead to the Criticism section splitting out to its own article (which I am undecided on whether I personally support - just something to keep in mind). I changed "accelerated" to "abbreviated" because "abbreviated" is in context here and does not only suggest a shortening of the class time:

"University of Phoenix has been the subject of legal and regulatory controversies. There has been concern expressed by former students, employees and academics that investor interests have compromised academic focus. The student led "learning teams" that abbreviate class schedules and substitute for direct instruction time, the ubiquitous use of part-time faculty and high pressure sales techniques coupled with minimal acceptance standards to degree programs form the basis of this perception."


 * Your suggestion is not bad actually, however I believe that the graduation rates should be included and the high pressure recruiting which resulted in many lawsuits. Not sure about the word "ubiquitous."  As for graduation rates, in 2009, according to OEDB which has been cited by one editor here for the proposition that University of Phoenix is rated 25th in online education, states that UPX's graduation rate is 4%, which appears to be from the Department of Education. http://oedb.org/rankings/graduation-rate


 * Well the problem with the explanation of the graduation rate is well its UPX's explanation which is already in the article, and according to the Department of Education, its low. UPX has an explanation for everything that might be controversial about the school, as of course they would. Which is why Wikipedia discourages the use of self-published sources.  Most of the sources that support UPX's positions suffer from the malady I pointed out in the beginning of this section.  The critical articles about UPX are hardly confined to the Dillion article.   As far as forking out the Criticism section, that would be clearly be a POV fork.  At this point I'm just suggesting a longer lead in to the criticism section though it wouldn't hurt to have something in the lead in also.  When actual instruction is 23 hours v. 40 hours, that's shortening of time.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also be willing to work on beefing up the article opening if you'd like to start a separate thread, Tallmagic? --Caernarvon (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "The student led "learning teams" that abbreviate class schedules and substitute for direct instruction time, the use of part-time faculty, high pressure sales techniques coupled with minimal acceptance standards to degree programs, and low graduation rates as measured by Department of Education standards, are the source of some of these perceptions."

That is my suggestion for the last sentence of the opening controversy paragraph. The sentence differs only slightly from what Caernarvon suggested. It does include a reference to the Department of Education low graduation standards. It does leave out the allegation that the reason the the graduation rate is low is because the aggressive recruiting results in the enrollment of students who are not qualified and thus drop out.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I've seen high pressure or aggressive recruitment as a source of any lawsuits - though it seems to be a pervasive criticism in blogs. Though I've also seen many students left seemingly bewildered by the claim as well.  Recruitment pressure concerns seem to be more centered (though not exclusively) on the pressure management placed on their own recruiters than what the recruiters placed on prospective students.  Also, the question of acceptance of students that aren't qualified - qualification is subjective from school to school and program to program - there is no standard so the allegation is meaningless as an absolute criticism, i.e., "unqualified."  Since students are not vetted to the higher standards used in many traditional schools, thus their qualifications are less well known.  That doesn't make them unqualified, it simply makes their qualifications questionable. I think there's a reason your recommendation leaves out the allegation that low graduation rates are linked to lower admission standards - frankly, I don't recall seeing the allegation in any credible sources.  I don't mind the changes to the last sentence, they are reasonable except for the last few words... "are the source of some of these perceptions," should read as, "are the sources of this perception..."  This is because "are", correctly referring to multiple issues, must agree in number with "sources," and "some of these perceptions," should refer to the singular issue in the previous sentence that academic quality has been allegedly compromised.  Therefore, it should read, "of this perception."  Putting the whole thing together and making only the correction for number agreement:

"University of Phoenix has been the subject of legal and regulatory controversies. There has been concern expressed by former students, employees and academics that investor interests have compromised academic focus. The student led "learning teams" that abbreviate class schedules and substitute for direct instruction time, the use of part-time faculty, high pressure sales techniques coupled with minimal acceptance standards to degree programs and low graduation rates as measured by Department of Education standards are some of the sources of this perception."


 * Good? --Caernarvon (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with you, upon further research there is no clear source indicating that UPX's low graduation rate is the result of the recruiting of unqualified students. The "reason" article merely implies that is the case.  If pressure is being placed on recruiters to recruit students, it directly follows, that the recruiters are, in turn, are pressuring students to enroll.  That was the reasoning behind the Department of Education prohibitions against paying recruiters based solely on how many students they could recruit.  That said, I believe we've fashioned a fair enough compromise on the wording.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When I went in to insert the wording I thought we were just focusing on the "additional" sentence but I see you have proposed changing the wording of what was already in the article don't really agree with that.  I would leave in quest for profits as opposed to "investor interests" and academic quality rather than academic focus.  I believe that is supported by references and is much clearer.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did mention these in the above paragraphs, but I sincerely understand they get a bit long and difficult to get through sometimes. I can agree with the "quality" / "focus" substitution because it's minor semantics. I completely disagree with inclusionn of the word "quest" because it assumes unequivocal knowledge of how and why the company operates the way it does.  I think the company's motivations are certainly to turn a profit, that is clear and a reasonable assumption, but the word "quest" suggests they are ignoring any other goal.  It is phrased here as a fact, when it is actually an opinion and is not impartial in tone.  The concept of weasel words springs to mind.  It is supported by some references, but not nearly all of them.  --Caernarvon (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that I actually removed the Fernandez reference as you suggested. If you look under the Accreditation where he is cited and under the Faculty where he is cited, he is basically saying the same thing.  I am opposed to multiple citations for the same concept from the same quoted entity from the same article, which is what I think has happened.  The citation of Fernandez needs to be either in the Accreditation section or the Faculty section, not both. --Caernarvon (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(Margin reset) In response to your problem with using the same reference in two parts of the article, I changed the reference in the Faculty to one well supported in the reason article. Issues with UPX's use of part time, nomadic or come-and-go faculty are well documented by several articles, the yung, dillon and reason articles initially come to mind, however there are more.

I don't really see the problem with "quest" for profits. I don't believe it implies that the company is not producing a good product. That's what for-profit corporations do, make a profit and that is their quest. That's what for-profit companies do and I don't see it as a weasel word, its merely stating a fact. "Investor interests" is needlessly obtuse and unnecessarily euphemistic. The issue with the potential and real incompatibility between offering a competent academic product and turning a profit are well documented. That appears to be one of the more important criteria for inclusion in the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "The criticism has intensified during the last few years. In a series of breathless stories culminating in a comprehensive takedown last year, The New York Times aired accusations by prominent educators, former students, and current and former staff members that at Phoenix "the relentless pressure for higher profits...has eroded academic quality." The story highlighted the school's low graduation rates, numerous sanctions from regulators, and a mounting concern that Phoenix was taking taxpayer education dollars without providing promised services in return. David W. Breneman, dean of the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, told the Times that "Wall Street has put them under inordinate pressure to keep up the profits, and my take on it is that they succumbed to that." Or as James Samels, president of the Education Alliance consulting firm, put it to the Dallas Morning News in 2004: "One cannot serve two masters. They've got investors, and they have a different mission."


 * University of Phoenix President Bill Pepicello readily agrees that Phoenix has a different orientation than a traditional school. "A successful for-profit higher education enterprise has to survive on the tension between the academic side and the business side of the house," he says. Students want low tuition and easy classes, so there is always commercial pressure to ease academic rigor. Part-time instructors are cheaper, and a standardized curriculum handed down from on high produces lower transaction costs. "Every academic decision has to be a business decision" Pepicello says, "and, conversely, every business decision is an academic decision." Pepicello, whose previous role at Phoenix was as a dean of academics, thinks for-profit education's reputation is "tainted by earlier endeavors," such as cash-for-paper diploma mills. "Bad business decisions and bad academic decisions left a bad taste," he says.


 * Phoenix offers a much more substantial education than fly-by-nights like degrees-r-us.com. But there's another aspect of its business decisions that does leave a bad taste."


 * Above, is an excerpt from the Reason article which encapsulates some of the quotes and concerns from the New York Times and Dallas News articles concerning the profits trumping academics at UPX. It also extensively quotes UPX's president who readily admits that academics and profits have to coincide and that there is a tension between the two.  However, we are in a protracted fight over just mentioning this important, well documented issue in one passing, compact sentence.  As I have said before, that is part of the problem with the neutrality of the article.  Single source, self-published and news release references are given prominence, explored and quoted extensively in the text when they compliment UPX, sometimes only tangentially.  However, references, regardless of how well sourced including many direct quotes, are marginalized in the text of the article when they are critical of UPX.  This is an example of that trend. Mysteryquest (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AACSB
Reviewing the article, I'm unsure of why the below quote is in the article. This part of the article is about the fact that UPX does not have AACSB accreditation and what impact that might have on the quality of its MBA program and/or how employers might perceive the lack of AACSB accreditation. I think the pros and cons of AACSB accreditation are pointed out well in the article without the bit below. The benchmarking study commissioned by the AASCB concerns the Technology Mediated Learning practices and I'm not sure how that reflects on UPX not having AASCB accreditation, even if their MBA program has engage in exemplary practices with regard to their TML programs.

"Although not accredited through the AACSB, a May 2000 benchmarking study commissioned by the AACSB and the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) in Houston, Texas identified the University of Phoenix, along with Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, Ohio University’s MBA Without Boundaries Program, UCLA’s Anderson Graduate School of Management and Wake Forest University as engaging in exemplary practices with regard to their Technology Mediated Learning (TML) programs. The programs were evaluated on the dimensions of organizational practices, learning practices, teaching practices, and approaches to assessment of TML outcomes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 September 2009


 * This is a properly sourced fact relevant to the apparent controversy that UPX is not AACSB accredited. It should remaim. --Caernarvon (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed the crux of my question.  I'm not arguing that the material is not properly sourced, however it is not relevant to the material as it does not pertain to AACSB accreditation, the study merely points out that UPX business program and other university business programs excel in Technology Mediate Learning.  I fail to see the relevance of TML to AACSB accreditation.   Are you simply pointing out some kind of tangential similarity between AACSB accredited schools (assuming those other schools are ACCSB certified) and UPX's programs.  Again, the relevance escapes me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 October 2009


 * My view is that it shows that the AACSB commissioned study found that the UoP program (amongst some others) were well designed and good programs. This is relevant to the article and should definitely stay in the article, IMHO. I think that it is relevant to the related AACSB section because it is about AACSB and provides further support to the reasons that it may not be AACSB accredited by eliminating some of the reasons that people might conclude that it is not AACSB accredited. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The study did not find that UPX are other schools business programs were "well designed" or "good" programs it stated that they excel in Technology Mediate Learning and I'm not sure what that has to do with AACSB accreditation. Also, the text does not appear to be about AACSB accreditation so I'm not sure how it "eliminates potential reasons" why UPX does not have AACSB accreditation.  I think the beginning part of the article did a good job of explaining the merits of each Business School accreditation and pointing out why AACSB accreditation might not me as important.  I do believe the text in question thus appears to be superfluous.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave my opinion. The information is interesting and relevant. You gave your opinion. The information is superfluous. We both seem to agree that the information is properly sourced. Therefore, can we just agree that the information stays in the article? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, we can agree to disagree. The consensus appears to be to leave it in, thus it shall be left in.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

wp:Lead section
IMHO, the article is currently in pretty good shape. MysteryQuest made a suggetion to improve the introduction. I thought the suggestion was regarding the lead paragraph. Perhaps not but when I just look at the article it seems in pretty good shape except for the introduction. The lead paragraph should be a summary of the whole article. I think currently it only covers the most important points of the article but is not really a very complete summary. TallMagic (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was confined to the lead in to the controversy section. The controversy section right now is confined to lawsuits and I would simply propose putting some more of the criticism of the school in the lead in to that section.  I will come up with suggested working.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

New Heading
I have made a new heading for the legal and regulatory matters. This leaves a heading under controversy which can be expanded to include some of the problems that have not been litigated by regulatory agencies or private lawsuits. We have discussed expanding slightly already with a sentence or two. We will see what comes of that discussion.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

NPR series of pieces criticizing the school
The NPR money show Marketplace is doing a series of pieces on the criticisms of UPX. They always put the pieces online for free and sometimes with transcripts. That should all be included --it's unprecedented for a school to get that kind of attention. --166.137.139.51 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to today's piece on the company's recruitment tactics. --166.137.139.51 (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This NPR "investigation," if it can be called that, was outsourced from Marketplace to Propublica. Propublica is funded by liberal billionaires Herb and Marion Sanders.


 * Here's what others are saying about Propublica:


 * ProPublica is self-described “as an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses on truly important stories, stories with „moral force.‟ We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.”


 * “I might find that believable except for the fact that ProPublica is funded by Herbert and Marion Sandler, the founders of Golden West Financial, who exploited the weak for their personal gain through their aggressive marketing of sub-prime mortgages to the marginally qualified. They did not „vindicate the trust placed in them,‟ either in their behavior with sub-prime mortgages, or in their sale of their about-to-collapse company to Wachovia, which [nearly] failed as a result.” — Cheat Seeking Missiles


 * “A media outlet that will produce left-wing „investigative‟ hit pieces that can be given to cash-strapped newspapers at no cost… Unfortunately, what used to be called "muckraking" is likely to produce little more than left-wing ranting and conservative bashing. On the basis of what‟s been produced so far, ProPublica would be better known as ProLiberal.” — Cheryl Chumley, 2008-09 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow, Capital Research Center, Foundation Watch, May 2009


 * “ProPublica, an initiative launched last month in the United States to help revitalize investigative journalism, is a great idea trapped in the worst aspects of the best instincts in contemporary corporate commercial journalism.” — Robert Jensen, Professor, School of Journalism and Director, Senior Fellows Honors Program, College of Communication, University of Texas, Austin, February 2008


 * “Now if this enterprise were called a „progressive‟ nonprofit, as other projects are, it wouldn‟t be news. But given the chairmanship of Herbert Sandler, and Steiger's claim that ProPublica will be run according to the "strictest standards of journalistic impartiality and fairness," there's reason to wonder if this isn‟t a new bid to drive the political agenda leftward under media disguise.” — Investors Business DailyEditorial, October 2007


 * “What do the Sandlers want from their millions? Perhaps to return us to the days of the partisan press… If I were a newspaper editor considering ProPublica copy for a future issue, the first thing I‟d want is proof of a firewall preventing the Sandlers and other funders from picking – or nixing – the targets of its probes. And if I were an editorial writer, I'd call upon Herbert Sandler to provide ProPublica with 10 years off funding ($100 million), and then resign from his post as the organization's chairman so he'll never be tempted to bollix up what might turn out to be a good thing.” — Jack Shafer, Editor at Large, Slate, October 2007


 * “Under control of billionaire mortgage lender and founding donor Herbert Sandler, a board of directors including the Pew Charitable Trusts, a manager from the Rockefeller Foundation – as independent as a lapdog on a leash with allegiances sworn in advance to left-wing causes.” — UndueInfluence.com


 * “ProPublica will most certainly push a liberal agenda. …Sandler, like Soros, is a political philanthropist. His passion in life is to fund groups that counter the "vast right-wing conspiracy." There is no way he is going to waste $10 million per year on an organization that does not advance that agenda.” — John Carlisle, Director for Policy, National Legal and Policy Center, The American Spectator, January 2008


 * Additionally, here is a report by Capital Research on Propublica: http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.html?id=687


 * Also, here is UPX's official response: http://www.upxnewsroom.com/_downloads/UPX_responds_to_marketplace.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.85.18 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Stadum image
The U of Phoenix stadium image no longer occupies a prominent position in the intro section. User:Beyond_My_Ken switched its position with that of the corporate HQ.

Proposal: That the image be returned to its original position (which it has had during the.last 6 months).

Yes, naming rights for the stadium is a promotional tactic, yet other Wiki articles use corporate logos and trademarks in high-profile article positions. Personally, as a reader who knows little about U. of Phoenix, I find it very interesting to see how a 21st C. educational institution has come up with a new business strategy in respect to sports. High-rise corporate headquarters are a dime a dozen. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag discussion
I propose that the tag be removed. Disagreement? TallMagic (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Trading stock
Would someone please kindly fix the first paragraph? Or explain how a "wholly owned subsidiary" can also have it's stock traded? I believe it;s the parent company who has it;s stock traded, not the U. of Phoenix. --Drmike (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POV
Someone added the POV tag and left the following edit comment, "So long as this article makes negligible mention of its infamy for shoddy educational standards, it is flaming POV."

The following is roughly 10% of the article! It seems to me that calling it "negligible mention" is an inaccurate characterization.

The University of Phoenix has been the subject of legal and regulatory controversies as a result of its student recruitment practices and accelerated academic schedule. There has also been concern expressed by former students, employees, and academics that in its quest for higher profits, the university has compromised academic quality.[24][25][26][58]

“ Its reputation is fraying as prominent educators, students and some of its own former administrators say the relentless pressure for higher profits, at a university that gets more federal student financial aid than any other, has eroded academic quality.[59] ”

The student-led learning teams that abbreviate class schedules and substitute for direct instruction time, the use of part-time faculty, high-pressure sales techniques, coupled with minimal acceptance standards to degree programs and low graduation rates as measured by Department of Education standards are some of the sources of this perception.[24][25][26]

There is concern that its quality of education is too basic is echoed by its collegiate peers.

“ '[Its] business degree is an M.B.A. Lite,' said Henry M. Levin, a professor of higher education at Teachers College at Columbia University. “I’ve looked at [its] course materials. It’s a very low level of instruction.”[59] ”

An instructor at the university explained that he could only cover a fraction of the syllabus because he said that the university required him to cram too much information into too few sessions.[59]

This same person did the same thing earlier then refused to discuss any further his assertion only refusing to agree to remove the POV tag. I hope that this person is more willing to at least discuss his feelings this time. TallMagic (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is totally POV throughout. It gives undue weight to the spin, and then salts on a quote from a critic or two.  That's not balance.  It's about as balanced as cigarette billboard with a surgeon general's warning that can only be read with binoculars.  One telling sign of POV is that the article makes a prominently positioned mention that some unheard-of "online education" website ranks it 28th, but the fact that the New York Times recently published a lengthy scathing review receives no mention other than a link in the footnotes.
 * If you want to see an article I would consider more balanced, have a look at gambling. The form of the present UoP article, if applied to gambling, would make look gambling sound like the most wonderful thing everybody has got to try, everyone has fun doing it, beautiful women flock to those who do it, famous people all get rich doing it since everybody wins, and "oh, by the way, some people might have said gambling might be addictive and you might lose once in a while" mentioned in passing about 3/4 of the way through the article. Reswobslc (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Looking at the gambling article, an objective view would indicate to me that the negative aspects of gambling is basically less than 5% of the article. The negative aspects of UoP in the UoP article is multiple times larger. If you want to add some information to the article from a New York Times article then why not just do it? Why are you instead playing what appear to me to be games involving unproductive drama and exaggeration? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Relax. Have a beer.  Assume a little good faith.  It's just a tag, which quite frankly is accurate.  That's not game playing.  I am sure that if the cannabis article were adorned with two photos of renowned pot heads and spoke of nothing but the wonders of weed and the joy of getting high, the stoners would get upset if I added the NPOV tag to their article too.  However, adding detailed criticism to this article is futility - it eventually gets whitewashed and then deleted.  I am sure you aren't honestly suggesting that nobody thus far has ever thought to mention the New York Times in the article but just hasn't gotten around to it. Reswobslc (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Reswobslc, I'm not the one who has expressed an emotionally charged state by saying things like "So long as this article makes negligible mention of its infamy for shoddy educational standards, it is flaming POV." or compared UoP to gambling and smoking. My suggestion to you was to simply try to fix the article rather than this unproductive belly aching about some unknown ghost from your past. If what you want me to do is to simply acknowledge your pain then consider it done. TallMagic (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotes in Controversy section
There were some quotes in the Controversy section that showed a reference of a New York Times article. However, that NYT article was about the football stadium and did not contain those quotes. I went back a little ways to see if the reference had been changed, but did not see anything. If someone wants those quotes back in, please find the reference that contains them. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just curious folks... what if UPX changed for the better in light of the criticism that it receives? Would that be allowed into this article? Or would that be shot down as POV? Would it be considered too positive even if information came from an independent source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.162.162 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it would be wonderful to improve the article with more information, especially if it gave a different point of view. TallMagic (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
A considerable portion of the language in this article is lifted directly from reference 25 (as of 4/11/10) or is at best a minor paraphrase of language therein:

Sam Dillon, Troubles Grow for a University Built on Profits, The New York Times, February 11, 2007.

Though probably well intentioned, this would constitute plagiarism at any reputable college or university in the country. An article so critical of UOP (deservedly in my opinion) should strive to an especially high standard of intellectual integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmadden (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Worthless Degree?
My explanation for making my recent alteration: The first cited reference in the paragraph links to a hyperbolical opinion piece by Amitai Etzioni (a Professor at George Washington University) as published in the Huffington Post. The next source, cited after the "worthless" sentence, (by the Online University Consortium) does not specifically state that online university degrees are "worthless". Also, there is no data cited that online university students default on their loans any more than those at traditional universities. 24.0.195.5 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

what a slant
I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts. This page seems to be an attack against UoPX. Are the editors from FOX news? Seriously this needs to be cleaned up a bit and less opinionated. -10/6/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.113.1 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

GAO report
The GAO report cited does not use the term illegal. Describing the activities as illegal, regardless of what the USC says, is improper synthesis. See WP:SYNTHESIS. WP wants verification, not user conclusions. --S. Rich (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
The redirects and sections "Debate Against University of Phoenix and For-profit Colleges" or "Debate About University of Phoenix and For-profit Colleges" to UoP are improper. They select/target UoP as the lead "culprit" in the controversy -- a POV approach to the topic because other colleges are part of the controversy. --S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I have added an NPOV tag because the sequence in which details are presented in the article bear no relationship to their importance. This gives undue weight to all the wrong details.

Yep, the UoP has problems, the biggest being that their diplomas aren't worth being taken seriously, and they've had some issues with the Federal government over student loans, and some problems with predatory marketing. I don't think those problems should be expounded upon in the FIRST SECTION (undue weight)... nor should they be the LAST SECTION (they're not a mere minor afterthought or glitch).

Right now, the article introduces the university, and goes straight into its "legal issues".

A balanced version of the article ought to introduce the university, MENTION its elephant-in-the-room issues (no more than a sentence or two) no later than the introduction, then go into all the meritorious things about the university (its history, its methods, etc...) and then go into detail about its skeletons in the closet.

Past versions of this article have been much better. It has a bit of a syndrome. It's that it slowly evolves from being good to being whitewashed. Each time a UoP student comes along, a little bit of criticism disappears, and a lot of poor writing appears in its place... until the article eventually becomes a poorly written glowing beacon about how wonderful the university is. You'd think it belonged in the Ivy League for being so "big". Then, every once in a while, someone notices that it's extremely imbalanced, and so that person tosses on a heap of critical information, perhaps overdoing it. Pretty soon, what you have is, well, today's revision, which is terrible, and at the very least, deserving of a big fat NPOV tag. Casascius♠ (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The legal issues you are referring to are part of the university's history, and since History sections typically appear first in university articles (see WP:UNI), UPOX's legal issues do appear towards the beginning of the article. This isn't POV. However, in order to avoid any appearance of POV, I have renamed the History subsections using a numerical convention (years), which is stripped of any potential POV language.


 * Regarding the issue of undue weight, the university's history is what it is. However, expansion is needed; hence, why an inline expansion tag is already present in the History section. Therefore, since the legal issues are provided in a proper context (History) and an inline tag for expansion of the section already exists, I feel the newly added NPOV can be removed. Regards —Eustress talk 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Eustress, I agree with you that the legal issues are part of the university's history... but so is each piece of chewing gum a student spits into the trash can during class. I certainly am not looking to whitewash the University of Phoenix - I think its problems are glaring and need to be well known.  But if I asked somebody to tell me about the University of Phoenix's history, I might expect to hear about the circumstances around its founding, about early student life and course offerings, about some influential actors that made a big difference in its evolution, perhaps how it came to be big over the last couple of decades.  Opening its history with a mention that the UoP got assessed fines by the government and its rap sheet totally goes against any logical sense of flow... it may as well say how much gum the students chewed or what brand of copy paper they preferred in the copiers.  That's not history!  It would, in the very least, be far more sensible in the abstract to point out that UoP has received a great deal of criticism in the press lately (e.g. NY Times, Huffington Post), and then to elaborate on it.
 * Basically, I am pointing out that the article is NPOV not because it was written by somebody with a POV agenda, but rather, because it is a terrible hack job brutalized by numerous actors, presumably each with POV agendas. To make it no longer have POV problems, it needs to be fundamentally rewritten or reorganized, not just its section headers changed.  If there's a tag for that, maybe it should go on there as well. Casascius♠ (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The use of dispute tags is to call attention to the talk page to resolve a dispute. Per WP:NPOVD, we need you to list the "troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution." Saying the article "sucks" and needs to be rewritten is merely opinion. If there is no dispute to resolve, the tag should be removed. Parenthetically, if you think the article should be wholly rewritten, you are welcome to draft a prospective version in your userspace and then post a link here to propose its implementation. Moreover, we welcome your ideas on how to improve the article and help it meet the WP:GACR. Cheers —Eustress talk 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of drafting something in user space, I'd vouch for plenty of the prior revisions in the article's own history. I just clicked at random - beginning of September 2010 - the article is much more coherent.  UoP's issues have a brief but concise mention in the intro, and are tackled in depth closer to the end, with the "history" describing how the organization came to be, rather than rattling off a list of the university's misdeeds.  I would boldly say that the article would be well served just to revert it that far back. Casascius♠ (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the history section who be more credible and appear NPOV if other historical items were considered and interspersed with the controversial points. The following is the history of UOP from their Website. By no means am I saying use all of the below, but us some of the more significant items:

Yotes623 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Hope you don't mind, I put the text into a hide/unhide box... lots of text for a talk page ;) —Eustress talk 22:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

OEDb Rankings
The resource website has this "about" page: http://oedb.org/rankings/about. It provides this methodology: http://oedb.org/rankings/methodology. The various data providers -- College Navigator, Peterson's, accreditation, DETC -- are certainly legit. So, does it come down to how the metrics have been massaged? It looks like they are being empirical as possible. So, my rather casual view is that OEDb be considered a WP:RS. --S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but simply naming (some?) of the sources of data doesn't mean that you've detailed your methodology. And it says nothing about how that methodology was constructed and how it has been tested and verified (a ranking is essentially a measurement so you have all of the associated issues of reliability and validity).  Further, I couldn't find any evidence that this ranking is actually used and respected outside of one Chronicle article from a few years ago and a bunch of press releases, mostly from the OEDb itself and a few from institutions trumpeting their placement in the ranking.
 * Have you found some other information that might be useful? ElKevbo (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like University of Phoenix has been de-listed from that ranking. I did not see them on this page.  That would be another good reason to not list this out-dated ranking. JamaUtil (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if they are not currently listed, then that's good enough reason to leave out the reference as a failed verification. But the other question is whether or not OEDb is a legitimate service?  I mentioned the listing of some of the data they use not to justify the entire service, but to point out legitimate aspects of their data massage. In any event, it is not my methodology in any sense.  I have no connection to OEDb!  The links provided above were for expanding the discussion, nothing more.  But let's not poison the well in the discussion -- it may be a useful service.  Someone with more expertise should comment.--S. Rich (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that it was your methodology and I apologize if that was the case. I was using "you" in a more generic sense.  And my comments were more directed at OEDb and my assertion that it doesn't appear to be very useful, at least its rankings. ElKevbo (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I simply wanted to be clear on my non-association least my good faith and integrity be questioned. Apology not at all needed (but certainly appreciated.)--S. Rich (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair and balanced?
The article is well done, but could be improved to provide a more balanced perspective. As written, the article negatively comments on the quality of UoP degrees, yet citation 10 includes a comment from Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, "I think it's great that we have the University of Phoenix. I wish we had more [schools like it]. It's providing a great education service to a large number of Americans at no direct costs to the taxpayers, though I might add that indirectly it depends on government loan money."

As written, this article appears one-sided. UoP is accredited and, whether liked or not, this is the one uniform standard of quality education in America. A single professor's opinion, whether he hail from an Ivy League school or Ohio, is just that--a sample size of ONE.

Tmagov (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

AN UTTER WHITEWASH OF THIS "UNIVERSITY"'S FRAUDULENT HISTORY

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT SPEAK THE TRUTH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.146.170.58 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

wtf
as good as most wikipedia stuff i was accepted to teach a uop but did not (instead teaching part time at a local major university) so with the insight of having gone through their filter and their training (and having taught at 2 major and one other for profit university and having interviewed at other for profits ) i say that this article seems fair and balanced if perhaps a bit uneven in places BUT SO ARE MOST WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES

sounds like the uop haters and the uop grads having a p***ing contest about the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.221.232 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Summer 2011 Re-organization Effort
Better organization of this article will lead to less of a 'drift' in quality from one POV to the other. Perhaps we should delay any discussions regarding addition/removal of content which may arise from these efforts so that this doesn't spiral into a WP:NOTABLE or WP:NPOV debate.

A good place to start would be to work on the 'history' section, which is currently broken down by decade. As it stands now, anything that took place at any point in time could be added to these sections, since they just serve to sort information of any kind by date range.

I propose that we rewrite such that a section called 'history' describes the university's founding and major events that had a profound impact on the university and/or its students. Other subject matter, where more than a couple of sentences and sources exist, should be broken out into its own small section.

Good things to think about while doing this are:
 * Is each piece of information in a place where a user can easily find it?
 * Does all of the information in each subsection belong together
 * When a reader first arrives at this article, do the section titles provide reasonable hints as to the information contained therein?

— Mike : tlk  16:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for that idea. Actually, I was thinking of doing some minor touch-ups here and there. I did notice one thing that I wanted to gather input about: Does University of Phoenix and University of Phoenix Online count as the same institution or are they separate and what are the defining criteria? Is is just go with what the school indicates or is it what the Department of Education indicates? User:Aneah 21:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support this if any distinction between the two has been covered by reliable sources -- otherwise it could be seen by some as WP:OR. — Mike : tlk  15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Online/On Campus
I am currently a student at UOPX and love the flexibility it allows for individuals with a career already set in place and/or a family. I graduated with my Bachelors online and continued my degree with my Masters, however, I decided to do my Masters in class since my children are a little older now. To answer your question in regards to them being the same program, they infact are. The students have the option to work in class or learn online. Though they are not combined, it is either or. I hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.165.199 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 3 November 2011
Article notes: "University of Phoenix has an open enrollment admission policy, rather than requiring a high-school diploma, GED, or its equivalent", which infers that it does NOT require a HS Diploma, GED or its equivalent.

Request change to this line to read: "University of Phoenix has an open enrollment admission policy, requiring a high-school diploma, GED, or its equivalent as its criteria for admissions." or something along those lines.

Thank you.

Crociato (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done - I've used the univesities admissions requirements page as a reference, the currently used reference isn't a reliable one. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 November 2011
Hi, I need a registered user to update the University of Phoenix logo. I have the file, please email me if you can do this for me.

Loomis95650 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can request images to be uploaded here --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)