Talk:Western Governors University

Student Paced Learning
The contention that classes can only be added one at a time and existing classes must be completed first is inaccurate. When I was enrolled at WGU I frequently added multiple classes at a time, and there was no requirement that everything else be finished first. The following is from the WGU student handbook regarding "Satisfactory Academic Progress" which lays out the minimum requirement for course load:

Enrolled Competency Unit Requirements

''Undergraduate students must enroll in at least 12 competency units and graduate students must enroll in at least 8 competency units each term. Students receive a mark of Pass or Not Passed on their permanent academic record for any courses of study for which they enroll in a term, regardless of whether they attempt an assessment. Marks of Not Passed are counted as units that are failed and, as such, are counted against satisfactory academic progress. A grade of Pass indicates that the student has demonstrated competency at a grade equivalent of “B” or better.''

Maintaining Satisfactory Academic Progress

''SAP is evaluated at the end of every term. To maintain SAP, students must pass a minimum of 67% of the competency units for which they enroll in a given term. They also must maintain an overall minimum cumulative pass rate of 67% for all competency units for which they enrolled. Students are prohibited from receiving federal financial aid for transferring or enrolling in more than 150% of the number of competency units required in their current academic program.''

I couldn't find any reference in the student handbook regarding adding classes during a term, so I can only speak from my personal experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.238.13.4 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

- I am a current WGU Student and the below is a cut/paste is from the current WGU student handbook: "Working Ahead or Accelerating Courses of Study"

''Students who accelerate their studies may add additional assessments to the term once they have successfully completed all term requirements. The student and mentor work together to determine what is best for the student. Bringing additional assessments into the term is risky because should a student fail to pass the assessment, the student will receive a mark of Not Passed on the academic transcript and the mark of Not Passed will count against satisfactory academic progress''

The general rule is that you are only allowed to open one course at a time until you have gotten a few under your belt. After that it you can have 2-4 open at any one time at the discretion of your mentor.

-- I am also a current student who just finished my first term. during my first term i would always work on more than one class at a time. Others who i know would do one class at a time but there are no restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.62.62 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

--

Removing the tag
I have removed the " " as the page been updated and it is no longer written like an advertisement. (Preceding unsigned comment added by somebody else, not Jerodd)

I've placed the tag back, since the article does still feel like an advertisement. The article has no criticism of WGU yet has plenty of laudatory praise. Most of the links at the bottom are to WGU itself. The article also has sweeping claims. I'll be adding needs citation, etc. links shortly. Joshua (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will proceed to remove it. First off, criticism sections are to be avoided in articles (this gives the impression of bias AGAINST them).  The entire article should be written neutrally.  Commenting on the fact that they have specific courses, awards, or accreditations is not unfairly laudatory.  If there is relative, negative information it should be included likewise.  So if you know of any verifiable, third-party sources that have this type of info, please feel free to add it. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely still written like an advertisement. The tag should come back. The claim that criticism sections are to be avoided is a bogus argument. Lots of articles contain contraversy or criticism sections. I'd feel more comfortable about the marketing content if we added a criticism section, assuming the criticism is properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.215.89 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

updates
I have created new definition for the university as it was not including full image about the university. & I also added references.

updates
ok folks, here what I have done so far, as of jan 06, 09


 * I added a photo for the university
 * I fixed the Faculty & Staff counter
 * added complete new sections: Academic offerings, Learning Environment, Competency-Based Learning, Rankings and reputation, explain University Accreditation in details

Please help improving this article by giving a better definition for the University.

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.170.34 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't list specific degrees here
Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to list all the degrees a school offers. The school's web site and marketing materials are the place for that. In this article it is more appropriate to list degree areas, rather than the dozens of specific degrees --Utahredrock 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The NCATE accreditation
The actual date of NCATE accreditation came at their fall meeting on October 21 or 22nd, 2006. The NCATE press release is dated 10/31 refering to that decision made over a week earlier. The WGU press release came out in early November, after NCATE's. --Utahredrock 18:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Metro's comment posted 15 Feb 2007
Here are my recommendations for this article. First, check the establishment date indicated on the main page. I believe that the collaboration was begun sometime in 1995 though I can't find a date right now. This shows one reference for my suggestion of a 1995 creation date, "http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/2.2/news/briefs/wgu.htm".

Secondly, while it might seem marketing related, the kind and type of instruction/educational methods used need to be discussed in some detail because as these external sources show, WGU follows a competancy-based model as opposed to the traditional teacher-learner model: "http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-22.dir/22a02101.htm" "http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-22.dir/wgu.htm" "http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/innovator/2003/0306.html"

This is important in that WGU is the only university in the US at this time following the competancy model to be regionally accredited.

Finally, this article seems to be focused on the collaboration across political lines which is an important aspect to be considered. This is intended to show the broad governmental support in addition to the accreditation and business acceptance support functions comprising civic responsibility with regards to a new college or university.Jacob M Metro

Comment moved
I duplicated the entry, as I searched on "Western Governor's University" and recieved no hits. I deleted my entry, and added the content to this entry. Nobuddy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Article references need work
The references in this article are a mess and could use some cleanup when somebody has the time.

The good news, however, is that there are plenty of them.--Utahredrock (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Specialty of adult education
The opening line as of 7/15/08 seems problematic, even though it's sourced. What is "adult education?" It is not clear in that sentence. The term links to a separate Wikipedia article which itself seems too broad to accurately categorize WGU and WGU's students.

Somebody should re-write/clarify this.--Utahredrock (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed for now
As of 7/16/08 I cut out the following from the lead:

. . . specializing in adult education.


 * http://www.adultlearn.com/western-governors-university.htm,
 * http://www.sloan-c-wiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Western_Governors_University_-_Strategies_for_Mentoring_Online_Adult_Learners_in_a_Competency-Based_Degree_Program,


 * http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=783685

I haven't checked, but suspect some of those might be good references. Calling what WGU does "adult education" as stated above, is just too misleading.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WGU grants degrees
The 2nd paragraph as of 7/15/08 begins with "WGU grants degrees"

This should be rewritten with more clarity, but should still retain brevity in summarizing the offerings of this school. Future editors need to refrain from listing all degrees, which happened on this page at least once before.

It may want to say something like "WGU offers bachelor's and master's programs, teacher licensure, and other teaching certificates" or something along those lines. In other words an editor needs to be more specific without listing every program/degree. Utahredrock (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A new competency-based section?
Since WGU is so unique in its approach to higher ed it seems a longer treatment on what competency-based ed means at WGU would be useful.

How has WGU been a pioneer in this area? What external links are relevant to competency-based ed?

A separate and even longer article on competency-based ed in Wikipidia would be good too. There may already be something (probably is).--Utahredrock (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an article treatment is warranted; enough so that until then, 'competency-based' should arguably be tagged as a buzzword. Judging from the description given in this article, it might be described in neutral language as an instructional approach where achievement of learning objectives is measured exclusively by scores on some number of exams. To be useful, even that would have to be made less vague about the number and nature of the exams.

If there is a significant community that uses this phrase with an agreed-on definition and has a body of research into the efficacy of this teaching approach relative to others, that would be enough information to merit an article of its own. While, in fact, there is an existing Competency-based learning article, it describes (as of 2012 June) only an approach to job training within an organization and will not serve as a reference for this article's usage of the term in the university context.128.210.3.54 (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV suggestions
The tag is correct&mdash;the article presently reads like an advertisement. While this is often true for articles about universities, it seems especially blatant in this case. I suggest that the following passages or sentences be deleted or modified (please discuss on a case-by-case basis):


 * from paragraph 2 of intro: "This innovative approach allows students to focus on learning what they need to learn..." "Innovative" and "focus on what they need to learn" are POV. Suggest delete passage.


 * from paragraph on aims: "WGU offers an affordable higher education opportunity...." Replace with "WGU aims to offer...."


 * from paragraph on aims: "the University focuses on the needs of individuals...." Replace with "the University aims to focus...."


 * from section on Teachers College: "the WGU Teachers College offers NCATE-accredited, competency-based teacher licensure and master's degree programs designed to produce highly-qualified teachers—teachers who are prepared to meet state and national teaching standards and be in compliance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB)." Sounds like an advertisement.  Suggest delete except for the part about accreditation.


 * from section on online learning and mentoring: "Unlike other online schools, each student at WGU is assigned...." Comparison to other schools is irrelevant.  Suggest delete "unlike other online schools".


 * from section on online learning and mentoring: "Prospective students should be aware that while they will be able to choose when to work on their studies, degree programs at WGU require self-motivation and are rigorous and challenging."  Advice is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and "require self-motivation and are rigorous and challenging" is POV advertising-style copy and not encyclopedia-appropriate.  Suggest delete sentence.


 * from section on online learning and mentoring: "When considering adding additional courses, students should keep in mind that processing recent test results, getting a new course added with the assistance of a mentor, and requesting and being approved for an exam all slow the process down somewhat, reducing a student's total available time to devote to any new class." Advice to the student is irreelevant for an encyclopedia article.  Suggest delete entire sentence.


 * from section on competency-based learning: "Colleges and universities traditionally award credit for classroom hours attended...." This is false; they award credit for a passing grade in a course, based on the same competency-based criteria that this article ascribes to WGU: exams and marked assignments.  From what I can gather from the article, what sets WGU apart is its self-paced nature; if that is correct, the article should mention that explicitly.  Suggest delete indicated passage.


 * from section on competency-based learning: "As an online institution that provides its students the convenience of studying and completing coursework outside the classroom...." POV advertising copy, not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Suggest delete passage.


 * from the section on accreditation: "WGU reports that, in a recent survey of 80 employers, 95% of employers rate WGU graduates preparation for the work force as equal to or better than graduates of other universities, and of the student/graduate population surveyed, 98% would recommend WGU to others." The citation given is WGU itself, so this is a primary source.  WP: Primary source says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."  Since this passage from the article cannot be independently verified, and since it has nothing to do with the topic of this section (accreditation), I suggest the passage be deleted.


 * from the section on affordability: "While both traditional and online universities across the country have increased tuition in 2010 by as much as 8%,...." Mentioning "as much as 8%" instead of "as little as x%" is POV. It's also irrelevant to an article about WGU.  Suggest delete.


 * from the section on affordability: "WGU has announced that it will continue to buck the trend by not increasing tuition through the remainder of 2010." Advertising copy.  Suggest replace with "WGU announced on  [give date and citation] that it will not increase tuition through the remainder of 2010."  Or better yet, delete passage since as soon as 2011 comes it will be out of date anyway.


 * from the section on affordability: "This is comparable to tuition for three semesters at many state-subsidized universities where tuition covers less than half the true cost of education." A vague (which universities?) and unsourced comparison not based on the average university. It's advertising copy, and irrelevant to an encyclopedia article.  Suggest delete.


 * from the section on affordability: "Perhaps more importantly from a student perspective, WGU’s competency-based degrees allow well-qualified students to complete their education and graduate more quickly, and therefore less expensively, than traditional systems that insist on prerequisites and a certain number of credit hours regardless of the student’s background." Again, this passage is basically advertising copy having the effect of putting WGU in a favorable light, rather than just reporting the facts.  Suggest delete.

I believe WGU will still come across as an impressive university if the article just reports the facts in encyclodedic fashion and lets the reader form his or her own conclusions. 75.183.96.242 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Still Has NPOV Problems
This entry still has NPOV problems. The page still reads like a viewbook or advertisement for WGU. Shortening the article to just essential facts may reduce NPOV problems. For example, the discussion of the nonpartisan or bipartisan nature of the governors of the participating states may be true, but it really doesn't signify anything important in this entry. Indeed, it's unclear whether the governors' involvement is much more than ex officio. I agree entirely with the above comment--this is an advertisement, does not take a NPOV, and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.82.130 (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that this article has been substantially cleaned up. How do we go about getting it verified that it no longer reads like an advertisement? If it does still read like an advertisement, can someone provide a specific critique so it can be further improved? JordanHenderson (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can't fall into the trap of believing that if an article simply has *anything* positive to say that it must therefore be written like an advertisement.64.188.200.200 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not just that it has positive things written about it, it's the way in which those things are presented. For example, the accreditation section explains how regional accreditation is the 'gold standard' and then compares this school with a number of other, better recognized, schools on that basis. There shouldn't be a need to explain any of this at all. A simple declaration that it is regionally accredited should be all that is needed. Any additional statements concerning what regional accreditation is, who else is regionally vs. nationally accredited, ect. just fluff and makes it sound like the school has something to prove, something an advertisement would do. We can state all the facts and give WGU all the credit it's due without needless flourish. It would make the tone of the article much better without leaving out any relevant facts. Dojan002 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute
The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter (2011040710017129) from a researcher who indicates that the accreditation of this university with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges could not be verified. This is an extraordinary claim, since the article claims that the subject is the only university accredited by all four. If it cannot be verified and a fact provided, it should be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The complainant seems to be correct. WGU's only regional accreditation is by the Northwest Association. The websites of the regional accreditors have up-to-date lists of accredited schools, and WGU is not on the lists for Western or North Central. I deleted the offending text. --Orlady (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Should WGU Indiana be listed as an orphan?
Should WGU Indiana be listed as an orphan now that 5 articles link to it, and it now has 7 categories?--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

list of programs offered at westerngovernors university through distance education and open learning
how can i register for masters in education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.236.252.116 (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Graduation rate
CBS News claims in a 2012 article that the university had a graduation rate of 6.5%, the worst private university on their list. If true, that statistic would dampen the glowing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3E0B:BA00:A4F2:2AEB:D5F8:C515 (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (although this comment is very old) I'll add the graduation rate from 'College Score Board' on the U.S Department of Ed website. It seems more updated than an old cbs article. Its still at 18% though which is not good and well below the national average. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I added extra information about how graduation rates are calculated (which is somewhat limited in scope in that it only looks at students who have gone to college for the first time ever) and WGU typically doesn't accept first time students per their application requirements page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorStanley (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the rational for reverting this edit on the basis of NPOV. There was a previous edit to the graduation rate section which was also reverted, however based on what I could see that edit discounted the DoE score by using dismissive, Judgmental Language. With my edit I tried to avoid any dismissive language. My intention with this edit is to give Due Weight to rates among the students who aren't included in the DoE classification. It can be inferred that if 99% of students from WGU are not first-time or full-time, then there will be a similar ratio of people among those searching for information on the university, including this page. Therefore, to only represent the graduation rate for <1% of students is to give undue weight to the statistic. I did not remove any sourced information from the Article with my edit, and so retained the POV of the original language, instead qualifying the statements made. One place where I believe you may be qualifying your NPOV reversion on is on the Bias of the source used, however biased sources are not inherently disallowed, and I believe excluding it all together does more to Bias the article than it's inclusion which appropriately balances the weight of each source. The statistic of 49% also seems to be backed up by the same government source for the 26% in first-time, full-time students. In the section on Outcome Measures, it lists rates for part-time and non first-time students. This rate currently tracks students who began in 2008, with a 6-year rate of 40% and an 8 year rate of 44%. This statistic seems to match very closely WGU's assertion on it's graduation rate. However it only accounts for the 2008 entering class. It's reasonable to assume that WGU's rate is more up to date and in line - considering that the new first-time full-time rate of 26% is also up from the 18% previously listed in this article. CrockDoctor (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As is stated by the NCES source - "The overall graduation rate is also known as the "Student Right to Know" ... it tracks the progress of students who began their studies as full-time, first-time degree- or certificate-seeking students to see if they complete a degree or other award such as a certificate within 150% of "normal time" for completing the program in which they are enrolled." FAFSA also reports the same number. This is a standardized metric used for the graduation rate. Other excuses by the university itself are not needed. Multiple editors including myself have removed anything else attempting to muddy the waters of this institutions graduation rate many times already. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the validity of the NCES statistic, and I did not remove that statistic. However just because a statistic is standardized does not make it statistically significant. If the statistic only accounts for <1% of the demographic of the school it makes sense to have additional information regarding that fact. This is not an 'excuse' from the University... in fact, even with the reported 49% graduation rate for non-first-time and non-full-time students this is still well below the national average. As I also pointed out the same NCES source lists the 44% rate for non-first-time and non-full-time students... this is also a government statistic that merits consideration. I don't understand how including any of this information muddies the waters. If the intent is to give a person an insight into what the outcome of a WGU education is, then to list and only list the outcome for <1% of students seems to be muddying the waters. It misrepresents outcomes by giving undue weight to a minority circumstance. From other articles on higher education institutions, almost none even mention the graduation rate including UCLA, Harvard, USC, Princeton, Drexel, SNHU, Texas A&M, ASU and Ohio State university, institutions where first-time and full-time students make up a significant percentage if not a majority of students. Why would the rate be not worth mentioning for these institutions, but worth mentioning for WGU - where the statistic only takes into consideration a tiny minority of its demographic. One article I did find that included graduation rate was for Stanford University, but even then the article qualifies the graduation rate by stating "The relatively low four-year graduation rate is a function of the university's coterminal degree program". CrockDoctor (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you CrockDoctor Paul Smith111977 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"It can be inferred that if 99% of students from WGU are not first-time or full-time, then there will be a similar ratio of people among those searching for information on the university, including this page." - I'm not even sure how you could make that statement. Information gathered from this page and other sources are the reasons why the manyof WGU's students are middle age, working adults and not recent High School graduates. This means that even High School graduates may come here looking for information before realizing WGU is not a good fit for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Problems
Please note the following talk re Department of Education OIG Audit from September 2017. Inclusion of seven month old news in the talk section doesnt follow guidelines for the lead established for universities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice.

Department of Education OIG Audit from September 2017
This is noteworthy and should be included in the article. But it's listed three times throughout the entire article. Is that necessary? Paul Smith111977 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be listed in the introduction as it is pretty big news about WGU, just how University of Phoenix or DeVry's federal investigations are listed. An item mentioned in the intro typically gets expanded elsewhere in the article. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What are the consequences for the school of an adverse finding? The lead as its written casts a cloud but doesn't make clear what that cloud is or might be.  More to the point, are there any consequences for the school right now, pending DOE review?  What are they?  If there are none - right now - then it's all tentative, and it seems premature to elevate the findings of an as-yet incomplete and unreviewed investigation to the lead, particularly if the material is properly covered in the body of the text.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The biggest consequences are it would effectively shut the school down, having to pay back almost a billion of federal aid to the US Government is absolutely unheard of. But even if the DOE doesn't require any repayment and speaking of right now it is huge news of gross misconduct by WGU. Quoting from the chronicle higher ed- "It’s not every day that such a high-profile college faces a penalty generally understood to be a death sentence. " "Even if the secretary rejects the audit’s recommendations, that won’t happen overnight, .... It’s possible that the threat of losing $700 million — a sum that would jeopardize its future — would be enough to force the university’s accreditor or the states that authorize it to operate to take action, ... The audit could also have a "chilling effect" on enrollment, which would have financial implications for the university"




 * I really don't think it should be mentioned 3 times in 1 article though, makes the most sense to remove it from the history section- which was added most recently. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If it's that important, and if these consequences are described in the article text, then the lead should add something like, "if confirmed, these finding would like cause the school to go out of business" or whatever description is reasonably accurate, and well-supported in the article text. Better that than just to leave it hanging out there.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's good that it is included in the header and that the possible consequences of the audit are understood, but I think that leaving it without a qualifier misrepresents the likelihood of those consequences. For all we've seen over the last 5 months, instead of any action being taken on the audit - instead there's been the PROSPER act which would make the audit irrelevant, and no sign that states will reverse course as supported by Governor Haslam's comments. As per many articles, it also seems as though WGU is having increased enrollment as opposed to a chilling effect.
 * CrockDoctor (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead paragraph notes the existence and tentative conclusions of the investigation, as well as the university's having disputed the findings. The matter is summarized briefly in the lead, without citations, as is proper in a LEAD paragraph, and the content is more fully set forth in the article text. Indeed the lead is not the place to lay out the whole dispute. Editors should feel free to rework the lead to ensure its neutrality, but should not restate the article text there. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the article text as well and IMHO the matter needs to be described only once, in the separate section devoted to the audit. It was also included in "History", but the audit isn't final and including it there as well as separately again struck me as premature.  Now the DOE position, and the school's, is laid out in reasonable detail in the article, and (p)recapitulated in the lead, which is as it should be.  JohnInDC (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The language in the lead regarding the audit does not fall into the criteria set forth in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice. To summarize the guidelines, the lead should only include basic information without "undue weight to any particular section". As currently written, the audit is seven month old news that most likely will not be actionable and thus is not basic information suitable for a lead... Also, having it in the lead gives negative undue weight to the "Federal Audit" section and would possibly thus demonstrate a negative bias. E.g... If you look at the article for Princeton, the lead is mostly basic information. Princeton offers free tuition if you earn less than 140000 which is newsworthy but as per the guidelines not included in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more. It is definitely not suitable to be in the lead. The "audit" (Not investigation) is old news and not a Scarlet Letter.  This is why I created Wikiproject WGU - because of all the negative energy against WGU Paul Smith111977 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully disagree with you and the IP editor, whose only edits appear to be in WGU articles. This has already been discussed yet it keeps getting removed without any other discussion. It should stay in the lead as JohnInDC wrote. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed you deleted what I put in the lead ("Western Governors University offers degrees at the undergraduate and graduate level and is comprised of four colleges: the College of Business, Teacher's College, College of Information Technology, and the College of Health Professions" (which was properly referenced). Please note that I added this information to improve the main WGU article as part of WikiProject Western Governors University).  Please note that JohnInDC made those comments over three months ago and still nothing has occurred (and it's obvious that nothing ever will).  Since that time WGU Ohio has now been approved and expansion is likely.  Also, it's way over the top to call it an Investigation (it's a Department of Education audit), and no one is being charged criminally as is being implied with that sort of misleading verbiage which you insist must be put into the lead (as opposed to the history section where it belongs). Paul Smith111977 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because you made this article's own WikiProject doesn't give you free range to change whatever you disagree with. Just because you think "nothing will happen" doesn't matter. The fact is that a federal investigation/audit occurred at WGU and found some vital information about the universities status. We discussed this months ago and have agreed it should be placed in the lead. If you would want to change this we should get different editors to talk about it in the talk page. You are not addressing this article with a NPOV. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I respect your views, but I totally disagree with the term "Investigation" as opposed to "Audit". I also do not think it should be in the lead (as opposed to the history section).  I agree that additional editors need to get involved because clearly we can not agree on this (also things have changed now that a number of months have passed by and no action has been taken (and likely never will)). Also please do not delete things I posted that are sourced correctly. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Right now, Fresno University has bad press due to a professor's actions on Twitter. Harvard is being sued regarding Affirmative Action. Neither of the corresponding Wikipedia articles have leads mentioning this as leads per the guidelines only should state basic information and not give undue weight to any particular section. No one prior, either in January or April, has stated a reason that resolves to the Wikipedia guidelines on why the audit should be included in the lead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree those schools have a little more history and pedigree than compared to WGU. WGU also has a completly different education model, which is its main attraction, and that same education model is being attacked (under a federal investigation/audit) by the US Government, so its certainly different circumstances. Furthermore this was discussed before and was agreed to be put into the lead due to the nature of the event. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that WGU does not meet your pedigree standards. But WGU is a non-profit online university for working adults that is competency based (which the Department of Education OIG is too antiquated to understand this new innovative approach to higher education).  This is why the WikiProject WGU is so important to increase awareness of the great things that are happening at WGU.  You will see in time Competency Based Learning should become the standard as opposed to the outlier for the US Higher Education System. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Opinions on history and pedigree are irrelevant here... The President of the United States thought otherwise than you when he gave WGU such high acclaim mentioned here(https://www.wgu.edu/about_WGU/obama_recognizes_WGU_8-22-13). WGU is a 21 year old non-profit, accredited university (NWCCU, NCATE, CCNE, CAHIM). That warrants having articles on WGU follow the guidelines established at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article . Currently, it does not as it unduly emphasizes seven month old news. I dont think Wikipedia's model means that these articles should stay frozen in time. As such, a discussion that happened in January is just that.. a discussion. As far as the model being attacked by the US Government, Thats not true either. No action has been taken on the audit while the Legislative branch address the 30 year old regulation that snared WGU's model. In other words, the Feds are looking to encourage this model by fixing the regulations rather than punish or attack WGU.


 * Seven month old news should not be in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the history and pedigree are irrelevant and shows bias. Also note that the OIG audit clearly lacked merit, and I do think the Chronicle of Higher Education make a huge deal out of this - as it's in their interest to protect the status quo. The Department of Education did not agree with their own OIG and chose not to pursue the antiquated audit findings (trying to peg WGU into a one-size fits all mold was ridiculous anyway).  I suspect the OIG lacked the technical sophistication to understand the underlying Salesforce technology that is serving as the backbone for this innovative higher education approach.  It is also likely that the OIG also could not understand the role of the mentor and how competency based learning is meant to be facilitated. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * About that "high acclaim" from the POTUS – I don't really find a lot of evidence of high acclaim there. There is some acclaim, but not so much. What I see at that link is a self-congratulatory press release from WGU itself. The press release does not contain any quote from the POTUS that mentions WGU explicitly. As noted in the WGU press release, the POTUS only identifies WGU "as an example of an institution that 'Awards Credits Based on Learning, Not Seat Time. Digging deeper, it appears that the POTUS didn't really say very much about WGU. The indirectly linked fact sheet about the President's program mentions the university only once. It list several things that the President encouraged, and mentions WGU as one example of an institution that is doing one of them (awarding credits based on demonstrating learning accomplishment rather than hours of participation) and has relatively low costs and relatively rapid degree completion. That is not a wholehearted endorsement of everything about the place. There are various other institutions that are mentioned as examples of that particular encouraged practice and other practices. There isn't really a big focus on WGU in it. Regarding the follow-up commentary from another editor about how meritless and status-quo oriented and antiquated and ridiculous and unsophisticated and incapable of comprehension the OIG and its audit allegedly are, that seems a bit like expression of biased opinion. I have not seen any reliable source saying that the DoE has conclusively rejected the OIG audit report and chosen not to pursue any further inquiry on the concerns that it expressed. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have a reliable third party source that concludes that the OIG Audit was without merit; or for the conclusion that DOE has abandoned the recommendations and chosen not to pursue the matter further? JohnInDC (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Even though the deletes will be undid and the undo's referred back to the talk page.. It seems like the majority consensus here is that seven month old news should not be in the lead per the wikipedia guidelines.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2018‎ (UTC)


 * The only majority consensus arrived was deciding to leave the information in the lead. Reverting the information with IPs and other accounts with very few edits in only this WGU article is considered WP:Sock puppetry. Let's have a full discussion on the matter before attempting to change it further. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit war back and forth needs to stop as it's against Wikipedia Rules. If you have an issue about Sock puppetry with a another user then I recommend talking with them about it on their talk page (not the WGU talk page). There is consensus that this information should be kept in the article, but not necessarily putting it in the lead.  I think everyone should cool off and not continue the edit warring back and forth.  We need more users to put their opinion on whether this should be put in the lead or not and the matter should be re-evaluated now that it has been seven months. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't attend a Flagship university such as the University of Buffalo, but that doesn't make me a sock puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxm01ced (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to sign all your comment when you post - some comments remain unsigned. On the issue of the lead section, nothing precludes the inclusion of the OIG audit per Wikipedia guidelines. The question is whether it's given undue weight. There is a case to be made that after a certain period of time the audit does become null as a Department does not have to act on an OIG recommendation, either in the negative or affirmative. However, it must also be considered that the legislation you referenced - The Higher Education Act - has not yet been renewed, and so the legal background in the OIG's recommendation is still in place. Considering the length of time, it may be of use to keep the blurb in the lead, but shorten it, while also including other information about the university such as Paul Smiths edit to the lead (the "western governors university offers degrees...") I see no problem with that and it should be replaced. Audit vs Investigation is really quite trivial as they are synonyms, however I think using audit is better suited as it is the language used in most sourced articles. As per "edit warring" this piece of information has been the subject of many malicious deletions over the last 6 months (without any justification or talk) and so discussing changes to it in the talk page is really preferred over what has happened here (over 10 edits by different authors). As a last note, I need to point out after reading this conversation the point of a WikiProject is not to "increase awareness of the great things that are happening" at an institution. Wikipedia is not for publicity it is for information. Please keep that in mind, especially when talking about undue weight and NPOV. CrockDoctor (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What about "In September 2017, an OIG audit concluded that WGU may have ran afoul of Title IV regulations enacted in the Higher Education Amendments of 1992. The Department of Education is reviewing the disputed audit but potential congressional legislation is currently underway which would rescind the offending regulations. If passed, this could conclude the audit and it's findings as irrelevant." Wxm01ced (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No, we're not in the business of prediction or speculation. The OIG audit appears to go to the heart of WGU's business model and as such is pretty significant.  It may be a few months old, but I hazard to say that, knowing the glacial speed with which the Federal government can move, it's too soon to say it's a dead letter.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks John for the feedback. The current lead blurb sounds like a hit job however and isn't a summary but a majority of the same language found in the actual section. What about "In September 2017, an OIG audit concluded that WGU may have ran afoul of Title IV regulations enacted in the Higher Education Amendments of 1992. The Department of Education is reviewing the disputed audit." if we should cover this in the lead... Wxm01ced (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to tighten it a bit but may have mangled it. We'll see what people think.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution Paul Smith111977 (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"The OIG audit appears to go to the heart of WGU's business model and as such is pretty significant." - Before making claims that the investigation is significant to justify the location of this information it would do well to understand the investigation itself. The regulations that the OIG was basing it's recommendations on were created in 1992. They were not designed to target schools like WGU, or even Univ. of Phoenix. who business models may be similar to that of long distance schools that existed in 1992(ie: National Radio Institute) where interaction with the school faculty was extremely limited, but that is not the case with distance education today. On top of that with WGU ranking as one of the top schools for educators in the US. WGU is developing a reputation beyond that of DeVry or Univ. of Phoenix and will take any corrective action it needs to take to prevent the Government from interrupting the services it provides. As a current student who has professionally benefited from my education at WGU I am trying to make the case based off of knowledge and not bias. However, I urge anyone who disagrees with me to read the report and the regulations and gain a good understanding of how WGU works before editing any of the information related to the OIG report. Vbnetdev (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable third party sources reflecting this analysis? JohnInDC (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/14531/Will_the_OIG_Audit_of_WGU_Cool_Interest_in_CBE "First, it's important to note that few people in the field expect that the U.S. DOE will actually require that Western Governors return over $700 million in Title IV funds." "A prospective student might be made more cautious in considering WGU because of this, but only because of lack of understanding."

Let's also consider the state affiliates, one that was approved after the audit was released, and where many students are eligible for state assistance. WGU is not another Univ. of Phoenix and the fact that many traditional schools are trying to follow it's lead and produce online competency based degrees of their own should be proof of this. Like I said, the audit produced a recommendation based on 1992 regulations. If anything this is not a knock on WGU but a knock on a bureaucracy's predictable inability to keep up with the changes of society. We'd have an easier time getting religious people to approve changes to their religious text than getting the government to update or do away with regulations it probably didn't even know it had until they have done their damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Those do though appear to be opinion pieces, published as excerpts by an advocacy group, and not of the highest utility for the article here.  As for the rest - you've obviously brought a lot of thought to these issue, but personal reflections or considerations really aren't part of the equation.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators is a very important non profit association that serves nearly 20,000 student financial assistance professionals at approximately 3,000 colleges, universities, and career schools across the country. NASFAA's opinion is of high importance and should not be dismissed as just merely an advocacy group.  Bottom line NASFAA is of the opinion that the OIG was way out of line/misguided in how they conducted their audit.  They stipulated that WGU had to take the brunt of an attack simply because these government bureaucrats could not understand the merits of Competency Based Learning. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is another article written by Louisiana State University Associate Provost A. Sasha Tackaberry calling into question the OIG audit and the attack on Competency Based Education, WGU, and Higher Education Innovation. I'm sure there are a number of source out there who would agree the OIG audit is junk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Smith111977 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Any from sources outside academia? JohnInDC (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. According to this article Former Governor Mike Leavitt said that the OIG Audit was quote a "sneak attack by the past on the future." Paul Smith111977 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A link to the actual recommendation should probably be included. WGU's official response to the audit starts on page 52. Vbnetdev (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yet, it appears they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

WGU Ohio
At the WGU team meeting in February, they said that WGU Ohio would start in the next few months. They have already hired regional affiliates. Should I update it as an upcoming school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pttplayhouse4 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find any sources for this, if it is only internal at this point then it is not yet official CrockDoctor (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a source stating that Governor John Kasich of the State of Ohio is looking to potentially create WGU Ohio. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It has been officially announced CrockDoctor (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

State Affiliate vs Campus
Using the term campus is misleading. WGU does not have a physical presence in any of these states, nor does it host buildings or classrooms for students. As such the term State affiliate or subsidiary are more appropriate. No one is implying that WGU is a public school, and nowhere is the private moniker being contested. Using state subsidiary or affiliate matches the structure of the institutions, considering they are subsidiaries of WGU based in an individual state and is the same wording that WGU uses in it's communications - not campus. It's the same way that a company could have a headquarters and a "Boston" office or a "regional" branch... this does not imply that the company is ran by the city of Boston or by the government of the region. CrockDoctor (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually Some of the WGU State Online Universities received state appropriations to get them started. For instance WGU North Carolina received $2 Million in startup funding from the citizens of the state. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * To be very clear and I'm not surprised this is causing so much confusion (which is why I made the edits getting rid of the word State) WGU is a private university, there is no such thing as a 'WGU State Online University', that is giving the impression that it is a public college. There are none. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and made the change to 'Affiliates' but the way it was written before was not correct. It made the assumption that WGU was actually a state-college or somehow affiliated as a public college is, which is not the case. As mentioned in my edit notes it is like what the University of Phoenix or DeVry do, it is still a private institution in all respects. Changing the word from 'State-Affiliates' to just 'Affiliates' makes the most sense in order to not muddy the waters of WGU being perceived as a public/state institution. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WGU is a non-profit Private University founded and governed by state governors. The states have built online "competency based" universities to partner with WGU to increase economic opportunities for the citizen of their respective states (I believe they have state based advisory boards).  True no brick and mortar physical locations though. Also note University of Phoenix, DeVry University, Strayer University, Kaplan University have some similarities to WGU but they are For-profit institutions. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an actual partnership or compact between the respective states and WGU. For example, NC residents are eligible to use state financial aid and grant programs that normally are reserved for the community college or sixteen campus  university system. This is not an apples to apples comparison to University of Phoenix or DeVry. Wxm01ced (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a great point. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

High Approval Ratings by current students and graduates - should this be in the main article?
Here is a forbes article showing the high approval ratings by students/graduates based on Gallup Polls. In addition their is high approval in the 2017 annual report as well. I am sure I could find a number of additional articles that confirm these sources. So my question is should it be included in the main article? Paul Smith111977 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears that the Gallup Poll you're referring to was something commissioned by the school itself, according to that Forbes article. Polls can be set up to tilt the result in one direction or another – I suggest not putting too much credence in a poll that was designed by the school itself. I also suggest not trusting what the school says about its popularity in its own glossy annual report (although I couldn't find exactly what statements in the annual report you were referring to). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Rankings and we should consider starting Wikiproject Western Governors University
Rankings:

I did some research today and noticed WGU has been ranked in the following. Should this be included on the main article?
 * OnlineDegreeReview.org
 * 20
 * Collegechoice.net
 * 13
 * Thebestcolleges.org
 * 11
 * Collegechoice.net Online Software Engineering
 * 1
 * Bestvalueschools.com best value in Utah
 * 1

Wikiproject Western Governors University

I think its time to start WikiProject Western Governors University. Is anyone else interested in being part of it?

Paul Smith111977 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A ranking is only as good as the ranking institution. Are any of those websites considered good, reliable sources of information? Those sites look rather low quality to me. In fact, I suspect they are all published by the same people. All five of those sites have a very similar looking query box that asks the reader to answer the same three questions and then click on a button that has essentially the same label on it. For most of them, there is no clear identification of who publishes them. Several of them seem to be connected to the same person who has some connection to both Seattle and Ottawa. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Western Governors University was just created on 04.01.2018
The WGU WikiProject has now been created. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Western Governors University Main Article turning to GA Status
As part of WikiProject Western Governors University - I would like to try to turn the main WGU page into a Good Article (GA). I know BarrelProof has already done a fantastic job of cleaning up the citations. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and would like some guidance on how we can make the necessary edits to achieve this distinction. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So I think everyone has done a good job of mitigating the neutrality concern and the GA Nomination should not get an immediate failure. Now for the main article we need to meet the following criteria going forward (1) Everything needs to be well written (2) Verification (3) Broad in coverage (4) Neutral (5) Stable (6) Illustrated - Hopefully the GA Review process can tell us what needs to be remediated to achieve this distinction. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ACBSP Accreditation
https://www.acbsp.org/members/default.asp?id=18776342&hhSearchTerms=%22WGU%22

https://utahbusiness.com/wgus-business-programs-now-accredited-by-the-accreditation-council-for-business-schools-and-programs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Presidents Listing
This article incorrectly names Bob Mendenhall as WGU's first president. This is incorrect. I adjusted one of the references to remove that component; however, the other is in the listing of presidents. I did not adjust that one as I could not remember the name of the first president. Mendenhall became WGU president in 1999; however, the university was created in 1997 and had a president for that period of time prior to Mendenhall. I can't remember who it was and I can't find any references to that person anywhere online; however, they existed. 174.79.34.199 (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it back, pending reliable sourcing. JohnInDC (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Roy Romer Colorado.jpg

Vandalism of WGU Article
Wow! Unbelievable negative edits of the Western Governors University article just occurred (I reverted them all as vandalism). Looks like the negative forces are attacking WGU again simply because it's not prestigious enough for them. We need to have the Wikiproject WGU reformulated because this is a fine non-profit university with over 120,000 student and over 150,000 alumni and needs to be treated with some respect. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be specific about how my edits were "negative." And please review WP:NPOV and WP:COI. ElKevbo (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Heavy sigh. It's obvious that your only attacking this non-profit university because its tremendously successful with enrollment and keeping the costs down.  I do not understand why some feel the need to go after an innovative school that does not rely on an antiquated brick and mortar business model.  Can't you all just be happy for WGU while also defending your antiquated brick and mortar agenda? Paul Smith111977 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cut out the bullshit ad hominem attacks and focus on the article. To what specific content in this article or edits do you object? ElKevbo (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to upset you. Simply to point out what I feel is an injustice/bias.  Be well and have a good day. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I genuinely appreciate that. Seriously, if there is any content in the article or any edits that are concerning then we should know about it so please bring it up. ElKevbo (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've returned to edit-warring at this article to ensure it includes essential information like a list of state governors and a list of the members of the board of trustees. Please (a) revert your edit so you're not edit-warring and (b) explain why this information is so critical that it needs to be included in this encyclopedia article. Exactly what are readers supposed to learn by knowing the names of the governors of the member states (information they can also easily find in the articles about those states)? Exactly what are readers supposed to learn by knowing the names of the members of the board of trustees? ElKevbo (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

WGU Idaho
It looks like there is a new WGU affiliate for 2021. A WGU press release states: "In celebration of the WGU Idaho affiliate..." This seems to be in the very early stages, but WGU is using the term "affiliate" at the very bottom of their press release from June 15, 2021. An identical press release has been posted on the Idaho Office of the Governor's website Does anyone see any reason why we should not expand the section on WGU affiliates to include Idaho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.56.42 (talk • contribs) 05:41, July 4, 2021 (UTC)

Nonprofit
Although more nonprofit universities are coming online, there are still a huge amount of online schools that are questionable and/or for-profit. The resistance to including "nonprofit" in the lede comes off as if there is an effort to hide/bury/make-difficult-to-find the fact that WGU is a nonprofit university. Since stating this fact is not allowed in the first sentence of the lede, would it be acceptable to include it elsewhere in the lede? For example, how about:

''Western Governors University (WGU) is a private, online university based in Millcreek, Utah. The university uses an online competency-based learning model as opposed to the traditional, cohort-based class model present at most universities.[6] The nonprofit university was founded by 19 U.S. governors in 1997 after the idea was formulated at a 1995 meeting of the Western Governors Association to expand education offerings to the internet.[7] WGU degree programs are accredited by institutional and professional accreditation bodies such as the NWCCU, ACBSP, CAEP, CAHIIM, CCNE, and the NCATE.[8][9]''

....or elsewhere in the lede? If not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryUSAUSAUSA (talk • contribs) 18:10, July 8, 2021 (UTC)


 * The practice right now is to not include "non-profit" from the lede of articles about colleges and universities because the vast majority of them are non-profit so it seems to be unnecessary. I expect this practice will change at some point as we do seem to be out of sync with many of the reliable sources that explicitly include this information in their descriptions of colleges and universities e.g., IPEDS, Carnegie Classification. Until this practice changes, I have no objections to this information being included somewhere else in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

History Section Overhaul
Is the section about a financial aid audit in 2017 relevant? The section basically says there was a financial aid audit, due to a technicality the auditors recommended qualifying WGU as correspondance education instead of distance education, the Department of Education disagreed, and the auditors eventually agreed with the Department of Education's assessment. Financial aid and the school's status were never affected. Is this information useful? Does it belong in the history section, or is it just cluttering up the article?

My opinion is that the entire writeup about the incident does not provide any useful information about the school or the school's history and should be removed. Userdk (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)