Talk:Capella University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capella University article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] "schools" section

Some expansive lists of every degree program were added to the article, removed, then restored under the rationale: "Restoring the schools section - this isn't "Brochureware", and similar academics can be seen on many entries throughout here (Purdue, Phoenix, UofMN,etc)". I have made a revision reigning it in to just the schools and this is an expanded response to the quoted comment: Firstly, the University of Phoenix article is a bad sample because the article (along with that of ITT and DeVry have been highly contested as flawed under WP:SPAM. Now that's not to say the section is irredemable: certainly the model followed by Michigan State University (one of the finest university articles, gaining Feature status) shows how a good academics section deals with numerous schools/colleges with an university article (although that article was expansive enough to warrant a sub-article on just the academic part of the university). Other examples, like the University of Minnesota, NYU and University of Southern California, only describe as deep as the top-level colleges and schools (sometimes with separate articles on them, ex. University of Minnesota Law School), sometimes going as far as to discuss their rank within the major college ranking systems. Other schools only mention the colleges and schools that have acheived national rank (UCLA). Some do not list individual colleges and schools at all. It is fine to have a section for academic organization, and certainly it's okay to write up detailed information about each school at Capella, much like the aformentioned sub-articles within other university articles (but on the main article until they get too large), however a list that mirrors something that is one click away on the Capella website isn't what Wikipedia articles are about. --Bobak 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Ok, you win :P - Haven't done much editing so consider it somewhat of a learning experience. Though perhaps you can give me an answer on this - seeing as I work here in IT, I understand the technology behind the school quite well - shall I speak up on it, or not? I've done some googling, and the software we use and such can be found out there. Plus, when it goes public, the disclosure docs will spill it all as well. Hrmm. --Pavleck 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea for a section, especially considering how schools like Capella rely on it. The trick is to walk the line between explaining how it works and turning it into a promo for the technology. The nice thing about having so many articles on Wikipedia is that there's usually a good example somewhere of how to approach the issue. Citations always help, the goal is to write something that's more informative than a newspaper but with a semblence of its neutrality (although it does not need to be as strict as a news article). --Bobak 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Augsburg dispute:

the summer courses of Augsburg College are now done in conjunction with Capella (which is HQed only a mile away). How is this similar to any other program, and what reasons are there for legitimate removal? --Bobak 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Capella University has the same type of relationships with numerous other colleges and universities - this is revealed by simple Internet searches on similar alliances and partnerships - the Augsburg-Capella relationship is not unique, by any means, and is therefore irrelevant to an article related specifically to Capella. I don't understand why the physical distance between the two has any meaning. I also don't understand your logic as to why the Augsburg-Capella relationship is different than any of the others that Capella has formed and which would justify both its importance and inclusion for the entry. The links I posted on the article to some of the hundreds of alliances between Capella and various entities (on Capella's web site, no less) should have been more than sufficient to help those interested in Capella's "alliances" to find more information. Why is Augsberg so special? --Shac1 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As previously mentioned: Augsburg College is not a community college. Virtually all universities have deal with community colleges/JCs for transfer credit, etc. When a four year institution has its summer programs handled by a separate online four-year school, that is fairly notable --unless you know of others I'm not aware of. Thus citing the CC/JC list does not demonstrate how the "Augsburg-Capella relationship is not unique". I understand the skepticism of any claim by a for-profit school, they all make outlandish claims and I've made sure those haven't stayed (see [1], [2], [3]). However, doing research on the school to beef up its article from being a sub-stub, I found this unique connection. I can say with confidence it's a unique connection because I've created the article for 30 other for-profit universities (and created the category) and this is the only one like it I've seen. Thus, it deserves mention. --Bobak 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, your claim that the Augsburg College relationship is with Capella is unique simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Nor did anyone state the Augsburg was a JC and, therefore wasn't relevant to this issue. While you claim that having a summer program is “fairly notable,” there are other four-year schools and universities that have stronger relationships with Capella - that’s not an endorsement for these other schools either (and it is also not an endorsement of for-profit schools). ; for example, as noted before, simple Internet searches reveals that some of these schools include, but are certainly not limited to:
University of Wisconsin
University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine
ACT and Boston University
Johns Hopkins University Library Partnership
(which, according to Capella's SEC filings, they will no longer be using in the near future)
Partnerships listed on Capella's site
University of California, Irvine
LOMA Partnership
see also:
Florida Virtual School
Again, the above are just a few of the numerous "partnerships" and "alliances" Capella uses to bring in more students (and of course, money). As noted, some of the above entities (particularly the University of California, Irvine, LOMA, and the Florida Virtual School) have arrangments that go far beyond mere business agreements to enhance for-profit Capella's enrollment figures. Augsburg's partnership is certainly not unique nor is it really relevant to an article about Capella (the same holds true for the above links). Shac1 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow! All right, I am convinced. Thank you for taking the time to grab (and format) all of that. I completely concede the point. --Bobak 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! I guess that means we can be friends :) Shac1 03:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enrollment

Capella University's enrollment has just been reported (December 11, 2006) as 17,203 students by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education (refer to the bottom of page nine).


[edit] AP Quotes

The quotes you noted come from an AP story and are copyrighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.38.94 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

The quote did not come from the AP story but from public record - Capella's own filing with the SEC.Shac1 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, a quote, in and of itself, taken from an article and properly cited is not a copyright violation (of course, it's best for fair use to limit the quote the most pertinent parts). Wholesale copying of the article would be a violation. --Bobak 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright and Link Farms

As noted previously by Bobak, a brief quote taken from an article and properly cited is not a copyright violation - such citations are permissible under fair use. Furthermore, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy for articles to serve as link farms and advertisements for for-profit corporations such as Capella University. The section entitled "School and Alumni Awards and Recognition" is a prime example of a link farm. Shac1 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Your posts are no different than mine. You clearly want tthe Capella site to express what you percieve as a poor company and you want to post what only you feel is relevant.

How is your negative posts about Capella's audits, APA accreditation, and an article that is clearly an opinion piece meant to deter people from investing in Capella Education Co. any different than noting the achievements of Capella Alumni?

What gives you tha right to say "This fact is a farm link but mine isn't?"

What gives you the right to say "You're information is clearly biased so I am going to erase it?"

Your thinking has no rational explanation. 68.117.38.94 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


This dispute will not be easily settled because I do not feel that Wikipedia is not a place for someone like Shac1 to post an opinion article from an investment writer while other factual storied containing no opinion, just facts, are systematically erased.

What relevancy does someone's personal opinion about whether investers should buy Capella stock have to do with fact? It is a fact that some Capella graduates have gone on to win some very significant awards for their work and not the work of the school.

You also post that Capella pulled their APA application because they couldn't get accreditation because of the age of their programs. You have been asked to back up that information with a reference yet you can't.

So don't sit here and tell me that this is that or that is this. The pot should never call the kettle black.

You also post that that Capella is being investigated and make the assumption that they are guilty before any finding by the DOE IG is released.

You clearly are using this post as a means to deliver a message to advertise negatively of Capella University.

I need to check out the site for California. I wonder what the weather is like this time of year?

[edit] Request for Comment: Controversy Section

Once again, an anonymous user 75.134.132.66 is vandalizing the controversy section. By definition, a controversy must contain opinions. The information placed there is obviously controversial as presumably, Capella University and their supporters continually remove it. This section has been consistently vandalized by several users (possibly the same user who is connecting with different computers).

In addition to removing relevant information, problems have arisen because numerous attempts have been made to link directly to Capella University Press_releases which are nothing more than advertisements. Instead of providing relevant information about the University, the article is being used as a marketing tool. This, of course, is not appropriate for an article about a for-profit school. The controversy section provides relevant information that is consistent with other articles on Wikipedia; especially the section on drawbacks potential drawbacks discussed on the For-profit college article. Shac1 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


I am that anonymous user. All I ask is this: POSITIVE opinions can also be posted especially when they are sighted from the same article that the negative posts are from. Shac1 from CA should also note that the [for-profit college] also notes postives concerning flexibility and other points.

1. Shac1 wants to post negative-themed investment opinions than positive opinions should also be posted. 2. Articles from media sources that are NOT considered press releases should stay.

That is all I am saying. We can agree to have a balanced page on a level playing field or we can just keep warring.


Once again, the anonymous user (whose undated post appears directly above this) from Minnesota - home of Capella University - displays his/her penchant for attacking others instead of honestly dealing with the issues. This is noted by the ongoing wild accusations, personal attacks, name-calling, and refusal to acknowledge reality. For example:
1. Many, many other users have posted negative information which gets erased by the anonymous user (IP Address: 75.134.132.66). Note comments on his talk page). Based upon his/her consistently poor grammar, bad spelling, wild edits, name calling, etc., it would also appear as if this is the same person has used many different user names, some of which have already been banned and/or received multiple warnings, including:
Also note Pizzaman’s use of vulgarities on some of his edit comments, especially the one where he states “f*** you” (This is located on the edit he did on 04:48, 19 January 2007 [Edit History]).
  • IP Address: 68.117.38.94 - Again, note comments on his Talk Page
As the talk page just cited reveals, this Minnesota user was recently banned due to his vandalism.
2. Just as disturbing is that someone (perhaps 75.134.132.66, 75.134.132.66, and/or Pizzaman9233) used a [Capella University computer] to not only vandalise this article but was also warned for making edits to another article that could be regarded as defamatory. In fact, the user from Capella University was warned by five (5) different Wikipedia editors.
3. Contrary to 75.134.132.66's false claims that only one person is reversing his/her edits, many, many others have done the same thing, including:
4. There has never been a problem with articles from genuine news sources. The anonymous user has an established history of posting press releases created by Capella University. A prime example occurred when Pizzaman9233 (who as already noted appears to also be posting as 68.117.38.94 and 75.134.132.66), added a large number of press releases that were issued by Capella University. One such edit may be found [here]
Again, of the twelve excerpts that are listed as articles, all of them (i.e., 100%) were news releases that were issued by Capella University. This is easily verified by viewing these [press releases].
Based upon the ongoing viciousness of Pizzaman9233's, 68.117.38.94's (who has now been blocked by Wikipedia), and as 75.134.132.66's attacks, it’s no wonder that an article just published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Employers Often Distrust Online Degrees - some say they prefer job applicants who earned diplomas the old-fashioned way” by Dan Carnevale, dated January 5, 2007, reports that Human Resources Director,

“Ms. Guzman, who hires people for a range of positions, including publishing, administration, and building engineering [stated,] "It's almost like, oh, you're purchasing a degree."

She mentioned several universities that raise red flags for her when she sees them on résumés, including Capella University, an accredited for-profit online institution, and the University of Phoenix, an accredited for-profit institution that has both classroom and online programs.”

That article may be found here [[11]] Unfortunately, access to this article requires a subscription to the Chronicle in order to view it.
As long as 75.134.132.66 continues his/her incessant and unfounded complaints demanding that it's his way or no way, (refer to his statement that, "we can just keep warring"), then it would be best for this article to remain locked. Shac1 02:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to point out that these concerns are not simply stuck with the Capella company, see this very interesting piece dissecting the problems of similar for-profit University of Phoenix that was on the front page, above the fold of the New York Times: Troubles Grow for a University Built on Profits. The point being: to say that there's no room to criticize the for-profit colleges for their problems balancing proper education and the need to drive profits (especially if publically traded) is unfounded, and that article might make a good starting point for writing up the many reasons why these institutions have problems. --Bobak 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Your points are well taken. The criticisms regarding for-profit colleges are certainly relevant to Capella University especially since it is one of the only schools that is not only for-profit, but is also entirely on-line. The New York Times article, while directed primarily at the University of Phoenix, did an excellent in highlighting many of the issues. Shac1 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


I have never said that I am not against the negatives of anything. What you fail to see is that when I post something positive, even from an already sighted article, it is quickly erased as being spam or advertising. I have only retaliated AFTER Shac1 has dictated what I can and can not post.

Also in defense of online degrees this article was posted in the October 10, 2005 Financial Post:

COPYRIGHT 2005 Financial Times Ltd. (From Financial Post) Getting a degree online won't place you as far back in the resume pile as it used to, according to a survey conducted by Vault Inc., a New York career media firm. The company's Online Degrees Survey took a look at how employers treat job candidates with online degrees in comparison with those who hold traditional degrees. The result: 85% of employers said they felt that online degrees are taken more seriously today than they were only five years ago. Yet most employers still have not encountered an employee with an online degree -- only 34% have -- and only 20% have hired an applicant with a non-traditional degree. Online degrees -- which are often but not always offered by colleges and universities with traditional campuses and programs -- are gaining more clout on the American workplace landscape. Just over half of the employers surveyed, or 54%, said they would still favour a job applicant with a traditional degree. One employer response to the survey indicated that online degrees were gaining somewhat wider acceptance, at least because of the intense amount of independent study required with Internet courses, where most students have limited interaction with professors. A smaller group of 45% said they would consider the two types of education equally for potential employees, while 14% said online degrees were unacceptable substitutes for traditional education.

On October 19, 2005 Vault Inc., the owners of Vault.com (called by Fortune magazine "The best place on the Web to prepare for a job search."[12])published this article:

Online Degrees More Acceptable in the Workplace, According to New Vault Survey NEW YORK, October 19, 2005: According to career publisher Vault Inc.'s (www.Vault.com)new Online Degrees Survey, 85% of employers feel that online degrees are more acceptable today than they were just five years ago. Vault's 2005 Online Degrees Survey, conducted earlier this month, is comprised of 107 responses from employers representing a variety of industries across the U.S. When asked if they had ever encountered a job applicant with an online degree, 34% of respondents said they had, and 20% said they had hired applicants with online degrees. One respondent who hired a candidate with an online degree said, "The person was tested in all aspects of their field of study with respect to the position and won the position. Great hire it turned out to be!!" Most employers (54%) said they still favor job applicants with traditional degrees over those with online degrees, but 45% said they would give job candidates with both types of degrees equal consideration. One such respondent stated, "It takes a lot of discipline to complete an online degree." Even though the majority of employers (86%) would be willing to accept a job applicant with an online degree, 14% responded that both online bachelor's degrees and graduate degrees are not acceptable. One statistic that should please hardworking online degree holders: when employers were asked what they would do if they found a job candidate who had everything they were looking for, but that candidate only possessed a degree from an online university, an impressive 91% said they would go ahead with the hire.[13]

Other articles supporting online degrees:

Kare11 NBC Affiliate in Twin Cities


I want the warring to stop but I want to be able to post articles detailing positives articles written by third parties. Deal? 75.134.132.66 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


HELLO??!!!??? No reply's to positive input? This is the unbalanced stuff I was talking about! 75.134.132.66 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Capella ROCKS Dude!!! 63.95.176.254 02:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument is best characterized as a battle between those trying to follow normal Wikipedia NPOV and those shilling their home corporation (or investment), the public Capella Corporation, located in a downtown Minneapolis office building. --Bobak 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment on the above discussion but I recently edited the "Controversy" section because it was way, way too long. We must find a balance between documenting this notable controversy without giving it undue weight. --ElKevbo 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Bobak. Any attempt to post relevant information is met with attacks by "those shilling their home corporation (or investment), the public Capella Corporation." Wide spread blanking of the NPOV information contained in the controversy section is not the solution.Shac1 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. First, don't label my good faith edits vandalism or accuse me of shilling for anyone; assume good faith. Second, the section is entirely too long and gives this incident undue weight. If you have a more preferable way to shorten it, please do so. But it must be shortened. --ElKevbo 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You are blanking the article - that is vandalism. If you wish to make constructive changes, then do so. If you believe that the section is "way too long" then constructive changes, instead of deletion of massive portions of the section, are appropriate. Instead of editing, you're removing entire portions of the latest controversies currently surrounding Capella University.Shac1 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
When one shortens a section one necessarily must delete things. The section is entirely too long.
And I again resent your labeling my edits vandalism. You don't own this article and other editors are welcome to make edits to it. That you disagree with some of those edits doesn't mean they're "vandals."
And you'll be thrilled to know that I've reported your violation of the Three-revert rule. I'm sorry it came to that but you must learn to let go and trust other editors. --ElKevbo 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charges

The article currently says "Timothy Lehmann, has been placed on leave due to an investigation commenced by the New York Attorney General’s Office on charges that Lehmann accepted kickbacks from a student loan company..." The cited sources (Reuters and AP) do not say that the NYAG's office has either filed or made "charges". Reuters said "Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office said they may have received improper payments from a student loan company." AP Said " Lehmann was named yesterday in an investigation by the New York Attorney General's office." and "A Minneapolis-based online university has suspended its director of financial aid after he admitted to accepting consulting fees from a student loan company." The word "charges" has a very strong and specific meaning in legal proceedings, and none have been made yet. In light of WP:BLP, I am going to reword this unless and until someone can cite a source that specifically uses the word "charges", "charged" "accused" or equivalent. DES (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

Please can we avoid edit wars and particualrly WP:3RR violations here, and keep the discussions cool and civil, focused on the article and the sourcable facts. One editor has already been blocked for a 3RR violation, but edit warring is not good even when it does not rise to the 3RR level. DES (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section too long

I've attempted to shorten the Controversy section but my edits were reverted. The section is way too long and gives undue weight to this series of facts. Nearly half of the article is dedicated to these events, including many that are very recent and raising the additional concern of recentism.

I most certainly do not advocate watering down or deleting the section; the facts covered in the section are very important and should remain in the article. However, the section needs to be shortened. As my attempt to shorten the section was rejected, does anyone else have any thoughts on how best to go about this? --ElKevbo 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? --ElKevbo 15:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Clearly this section is way too long and is in an example of recentism as described by the article.

The wikipedia explanation of recentism clearly points to this article:

Recentism is the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention. Established articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens, new articles are created on arguably flimsy merits, and the relative emphasis on (more or less) timeless facets of a topic which Wikipedia consensus had previously established is often muddled.

Rather than being thought of as a sufficient argument for article deletion, allegations of recentism should be considered a symptom of the editorial process and an argument for further improvement and refinement of thought through discussion of where the content may belong. Recentism is often cited as one of many elements of Wikipedia's problematic systemic bias, but this bias may be the result of the difficult editorial decisions in documenting controversy as it happens. Recentism can be thought of as a feature of the dynamic editing process, and may not necessarily be always negative.

Articles accused of recentism need not be deleted; they should be revised to become more balanced and timeless. The aim should not be to remove notable information about recent events (see wikipedia:deletionism and wikipedia:inclusionism), but to add information of the same detail to other events. If an article becomes difficult to use because of its length, that should be countered by structuring the article better. Wikipedians are reminded that sometimes in-depth information on current events is more appropriately added to Wikinews.

The points are clearly made and articles reflecting the news stories/articles are sited. The need to add beyond required statements provides no more relevancy to the subject because those pointd can be researched and found through the sited material.

also note from the recentism page:

When an event appears to be newsworthy and is covered by the media, Wikipedia editors create and update article(s) on it. Even when it turns out that the topic wasn't historically significant in any way, some Wikipedians keep updating it with the continued reporting that is being done on this largely non-historical topic. The result is a well-written and well-documented NPOV article on a topic that may hardly be remembered a month later (see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate).

An article should be historically relevant to a majority not a small minority.

Furthermore one can clearly see that there has been a great debate as to what is and what is not relevant. Clearly we do not want "advertising" for the corporation involved but we also do not want to provide a soapbox for other parties as well. DES made corrections to this section and corrected wording supposedly quoted by news outlets that did not appear anywhere in the sited works. In a web search of phrases posted in this article by the author Shac1 including charges and kickbacks only one website returned results that mirrored those posted here. In reveiwing the site one can clearly see that the author of the site has a biased against the subject of this article. If Shac1 and the author of the website are one and the same than there is a clear reason for the use of recentism in this article. Wikipedia can not be used as an outlet for someone's message. The same thinking must also be used in dealing with those associated with the corporation entity of Capella University.

I also have viewed previous changes to this section and have done a lot of research on this subject. It does appear that ElKevbo and Fizzleoneseven are correct that the controversy section is a form of recentism. These recent stories concerning Mr. Lehmann only speak about possible investigations and no where mention that charges have been files. Should we assume that Mr. Lehmann is guilty of his of a crime when the only thing done so far by the New York Attorney Generals Office is the sending of a letter?

Take for example the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scanda in which guilt was assumed from the start by local and national media outlets. Mr. Lehmann and the other financial aid officials with such schools as Widener, University of Texas and Columbia University are innocent until a jury of their peers finds them guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We need to keep these posts in Wikinews as they best fit there.

The shorter controversy section now is much more useful to the average user because they can use it to start their research if they so wish.

It is my belief that the present set up create by Fizzleoneseven is the best so far and does not have any indication of vandalism as the relative facts remain. There is no support for the arguments of Shac1 against ElKevbo in which s/he staes "You are blanking the article - that is vandalism. If you wish to make constructive changes, then do so. If you believe that the section is "way too long" then constructive changes, instead of deletion of massive portions of the section, are appropriate. Instead of editing, you're removing entire portions of the latest controversies currently surrounding Capella University."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines con·tro·ver·sy (kŏn'trə-vûr'sē)as:

1) A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. See Synonyms at argument. 2) The act or practice of engaging in such disputes: writers skilled at controversy.

And it describes in·no·cent (ĭn'ə-sənt)adj. as:

1) Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child. 2) Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges. 3) Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful. 4) Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank. 5) Candid; straightforward: a child's innocent stare. 6) Not experienced or worldly; naive. 7) Betraying or suggesting no deception or guile; artless. 8) Not exposed to or familiar with something specified; ignorant: American tourists wholly innocent of French. 9) Unaware: She remained innocent of the complications she had caused.


The postings concerning Capella voluntary withdraw of their application for APA accreditation also violates one of Wikipedia's three content policies: Wikipedia:No original research which says:

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research."

No where on web page of the sited source is a reason given for Capella's voluntary withdraw and the person who posted the date is clearlt making an assumption and is has violated Wikipedia:No original research. Quite simply the fact that a entity pulled their application for accreditation falls no where under the definition of controversy. Various schools are listed on the web site as having pulled their application for APA accreditation and no where on the world wide web can I find notations calling these voluntary withdraws as controversial. Picklepickle23 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


I have erased the IPO offering from the Controversy section for the following reason: A search of Google and Yahoo returned thousands of stories where the original investors/founders of a company that went public also "cashed out".

Motley Crue and other investment organizations notes that there cashing out, raising money, and venture capital are the primary reasons for IPO's.Spellmanloves67 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well if the news media thought it was a story and its verifiable I'm not sure why you would see fit to remove it. The fact that others are cashing out does not change the fact that the insiders were cashing out. When insiders do things is different, they are running the company. The fact that others do what the insiders do doesn't make what the insiders do irrelevant. I'm inclined to put the link back in.Mysteryquest 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The student loan scandal has been broken as a scandal and is not what is has been played to be in the media. The House JUST passed the Student Loan Sunshine Act which would make the things that many financial aid officers and college professionals engaged in illegal. Capella agreed to change their tactics and business practices to be better reflect the wants of the New York Attorney General (a protector of consumer rights) but no criminal charges are being pressed because nothing criminal was done. Ethics is a fine line of interpretation that can be looked upon by different parties. What one see's as ethical one may see as unethical. Abortion is one of those areas as is smoking, mandatory seatbelt use, and many other areas.BooBooJohnson 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I reversed your edit. Readers are perfectly capable of making a decision on the merits and/or ethics of the student loan scandal without your viewpoint which appears to indicate a distinct POV. If you want to put in information about Capella agreeing to change its policies why don't you do so?Mysteryquest 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BooBooJohnson and find that this is a clear case of recentism. Relevant or not we must be inline with policies and procedures of Wikipedia and highlight what matters v. what a minority considers.Spellmanloves67 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree and I am utterly unconvinced by BooBooJohnson's argument. In fact, his or her argument seems to make a strong case for retaining the information as it's related to a series of events so large that they have attracted attention from Congress. To attempt to play off what this person did as acceptable or non-notable because "other people do it, too!" is disingenuous.
As time passes, I would certainly be amenable to shortening this section and possibly eliminating it altogether. But to do so now seems too much like whitewashing a notable event described by reliable sources. --ElKevbo 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I think what needs to be added to this is more specific information including what Kare11 television im Miieapolis noted that Minnesota Attorney General noted that "Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson said she didn't pursue fines or restitution because Capella wasn't aware of Lehmann's relationship with the loan providers. She said her goal was to get the school to agree to a code of conduct that would prevent any improper arrangements in the future. " and "Mike Offerman, Capella University's president, said an internal review found Capella didn't accept any commissions or fees from any lenders, including Student Loan Xpress. He said many of the provisions in the settlement are already part of the school's policies."Kare11. Seems to shed more light on the subject and clear Capella in many aspects. Wouldn't you agree?—Preceding unsigned comment added by BooBooJohnson (talk • contribs) 14:17, May 16, 2007

I think that sounds like it would be an excellent addition. --ElKevbo 19:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


The article pertaining to the student loan scandel is most definately a formal example of recentism. One example of recentism says "When an event appears to be newsworthy and is covered by the media, Wikipedia editors create and update article(s) on it. Even when it turns out that the topic was not historically significant in any way, some Wikipedians keep updating it with the continued reporting that is being done on this largely non-historic topic. The result is a well-written and well-documented NPOV article on a topic that may hardly be remembered a month later (see Jennifer Wilbanks and the article's deletion debate)."

Hardly any mention of the student loan scandal has hit the air waves since it was reported that the very person leading the senate "investigation" Senator Edward "I'll Never be My Brothers" Kennedy took free flights from Sallie Mae the very company he chastised in a 50 page report. "Jet Set: Sallie Mae's Plane Was Fine For Senator Kennedy Before Lender Controversy Took The Spotlight" (The Chronicle of Higher Education)http://nasfaa.org/publications/2007/awkennedyjet062707.html


The time has come to put this piece to rest. I am removing it.Spellmanloves67 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mysteryquest you need to do more research into the essay on recentism and any pre-existing agreement you have with others must be disolved due to the lack of weightness this point now carries not only in the relevancy of the article but its lack of news worthyness. Please engage in discussion before changing. I have agreed with you on many facts (advertising, NPOV) but the points of concern in an article must be squarely pointed. You yourself have stated your dis-like for "for-profit" schools but they must be given the same regard as any school. The articles noted CLEARLY show that the AG's of New York and Minnesota felt that Capella committed NO wrong and the blame needed to be place don one individual. TO include these points without a clear and substantial understanding makes this a blatant examples of the lack of NPOV and only strengthens your resolve.Spellmanloves67 01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Spellman: Considering the fact that the student loan debacle has blossomed into quite a "situation" of conflict of interest, and has not disappeared from the news, in fact, has only become more amplified, I don't see how this is recentism. The fact that schools were employing loan officials who were in bed with loan companies, and sending students to these companies continues to resonate in the news and has provoked legislation in Congress to address it. I feel its quite worthy since this was one of the first instance of this sort of behavior. We aren't supposed to be giving clear and substantial understanding. I thought we just cite facts. My views have nothing to do with the fact that I feel that this is an important fact to point out. If you read down lower in the talk page you will see that issue was discussed before and the consensus was to leave it in. It was not some agreement with others. I don't see where there is POV involved and am not impressed with your argument that it is. Mysteryquest 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

MysteryQuest: The AP and Reuters have not run an article on the "student loan scandal" since June 20 and that was only about Senator Kennedy asking for cuts in subsidies to lendors. The last significant article to hit the internet or print was the Chronicle of Higher Educations short piece detailing the fact that Senator Edward "I'm not John" Kennedy accepted free and discounted air travel from Sallie Mae. ABCNews, CNN, MSNBC and Fox have carried nothing since those previous mentioned dates. Again this is proof of recentism.

NO charges have been filed by any attorney general of any state because what happened, though unethical to some, was not illegal. Enron was illegal as those executives lied and covered up. Tyco was illegal as the CEO used funds that didn't belong to him to pay bills and furnish his home. All that happened to most of these Financial Aid professionals is they took a second job. Pure and simple.

In this case Capella knew nothing of Mr. Lehmann's activity as was noted not only in the KARE 11 article but also in the New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, and St. Paul Pioneer Press.

I am not saying that everyone involved isn't guilty of something but there is enough official statements and actions to prove that Capella did nothing wrong and that there is NO strength to the argument that this isn't recentism.Spellmanloves67 23:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, this needs to go to arbitration. You can't simply make points YOU think are great, pat yourself on the back, and then change things. You characterize my edit as bad when all I did was restore the language you erased. And please furnish a citation for Capella's special distinction as Homeland Security Department favored university or I'll remove it.Mysteryquest 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
MysteryQuest, I made my arguments based on Wikipedia policies and backed them up with sound evidence. You make no case what so ever only to say it was "agreed upon". By whom? What evidence or policy was used? My changes had more than enough supporting and documented evidence. I am working on thre NSA citation.Spellmanloves67 15:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we can continue with personal attacks and edit wars are we can submit this to arbitration, its up to you. I'm going to continue to insist on the language until some kind of arbitration or consensus. Simply because I do not agree with your assessment I want to do things my way? And your deciding unilaterally what recivitism is is wanted to run things? And why do you need to work on citation, I assume you got the Department of Home Security information from that citation.
I am not adverse to taking out the reference to the loan scandal in the future, however, at this time I feel its relevant inasmuch as though Capella admitted no wrongdoing, and there certainly appears to be no wrongdoing, they did agree to a code of conduct. Of course, other schools did agree to the same code of conduct and Capella was certainly not the only school "implicated" in this scandal though one of the first. This might make the story less significant. So, let's wait and see how it shakes out and as Spellman says, monitor the news, and see ultimately how important the information is to the article. Mysteryquest 17:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118601593775485560.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Here is a link to an article on the student loan conflict of interest in the Wall Street Journal only a couple weeks ago. This "situation" has not just blown over and is quite relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 00:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarship Section????

How is a scholarship section relevant to this article? I have looked at several articles on universities and never seen a scholarship section. It sees as if its a mere attempt to promote the school, i.e., it smacks of advertising. Every school gives out scholarships so, is that a reason to list them all? Ironically, it is now bigger than the controversy section that was complained about as being too long. I am inclined to delete it. If there is a defense for keeping it I would like to hear it.Mysteryquest 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good assessment. Though it may show some disctinctions about the school you do lend credibility to the fact that this section may in fact be advertising. It would be very safe to say that it is indirect but should not be here.Spellmanloves67 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stock Offering

Removed the mention of stock offering delay, recent offering, and high profits. This clearly has no long term relevance to the controvercy section and is a form of recentism.The delay adds no value or weight to the controversy in itself and is nor more than an after effect of an continuing investigation. Many other factors have also caused companies to delay offerings. If you can offer insight that shows how a delayed stock offering adds weight to this section I am all ears. LusciousDiamond 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Contro. Section Related to Student Loan Scandal

MysterQuest and I disagree. We have added some more relevant info that shows more. I still argue that this is without argument recentism and I will keep an eye on the news worthyness of this. No story has been mentioned by AP or any source so we will keep it up for now.Spellmanloves67 17:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


I have been watching this "edit war" and I do believe that Mysteryquest is no tin the right. Spellman has given clear evidence supporting his arguments about this being more in line with recentism than having any sort of overall history of the subject. Its time to remove this portion of the article and move on.LusciousDiamond 23:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


The section relating to Tim Lehmann needs to be removed. MysteryQuests arguments that the situation is news worthy is, at best, weak and unsupported. Searches on Reuters, CNN, ABCNews, FOx, MSNBC, and the New York Times finds no mention of the scandal for over three months.

Evidence and the comments of the Attorney's Generals of Minnesota and New York clearly show that Capella University did not participate in any illegal or unethical behavior. Unlike other schools that were actually involved in the scandal and had to pay a fine, Capella was afforded the fact that it was innocent of any charges.

In researching the scandal you will find that many other schools that actually were shown to have been aware of the wrong doing have nothing included in their article on Wikipedia. This in itself clearly shows a biased against Capella as a whole. To keep this part of the article intact not only shows a biased but also can contribute others who are unfamiliar with all the facts to assume that Capella is guilty of a crime and "was able to get away with it."

Wikipedia clearly states that an article must be balanced and fair and should be impartial to delivering opinion and not facts. The facts show that Capella WAS NOT involved in the scandal.

Create an article about Tim Lehmann if you wish to convey your desire to make public his Legal (though possible ill-advised) attempt to earn more. He broke no laws and was never charged with a crime or sued in civil court. He only was fired for violating Capella's company policies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118601593775485560.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Here is a link to an article on the student loan conflict of interest in the Wall Street Journal only a couple weeks ago. The fact that a controversy has been settled doesn't make it not a controversy. Many schools settle controversies without admitting liability. This was one of the first instances of conflict of interest involving the a post-secondary school. Though I feel it is quite relevant and informative, I'm not going to fight about it anymore. Not sure when there was a recent article about the Civil War, guess we should just delete any reference to it, lol.Mysteryquest 08:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Mysteryquest its nice to see that you and Spellmanloves67 can agree. I support Spellman's assertion that mentioning the scandal paints an untrue picture of guilt and taints Capella University. No fine, no settlement, no criminal charges just an understanding that they (Capella) will place more oversight. 207.250.199.126 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User 207.250.199.126, Not sure where you got the impression that I "agree". I said I wasn't going to fight about it anymore. I made it clear I feel it is relevant. There was a settlement that Cappela would adapt a code of conduct, which is hardly irrelevant.Mysteryquest 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCAE Designation

Additionally, the source does not indicate that "only" 83 institutions received it. So the addition of only is a not supported by the source and violates and is original research, bias, and violation of a Neutral Point of View which are betrayed by your stated reasons for putting it in. It may be "wow" for you, put that is your personal opinion and does not belong in the article.Mysteryquest 16:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MysteryQuest (or whatever your name is), this is NOT rocket science. I just looked up the NCA's centers of academic excellence page. There are only between 85-86 in the nation and Capella happens to be one of them. It only took me a couple of minutes to find it: http://www.nsa.gov/ia/academia/caemap.cfm?MenuID=10.1.1.2

Next time please do some research before posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelNoah (talk • contribs) 15:09, August 31, 2007

Well whatever your name is since you didn't sign your post, if you had actually read my message you would have realized that finding the article was not an issue, especially since a cite to it is already in the article and I even mentioned the "source." The issue is with the insertion of the superlative "only" in the article which doesn't belong there. Mysteryquest 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mysteryquest - the issue is with the subjective adjective "only". We've got firm numbers so unless the source states "only" (which, as far as I can tell, it doesn't), let's stick with the numbers and let the reader draw his or own conclusion(s) about the NSA's selectivity or lack thereof. --ElKevbo 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Folks, the negative tone and thinly veiled hostility isn't helpful. Please try to keep things collegial! --ElKevbo 19:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The selectiveness of the program is a bearing on the quality of the designation. Kepp in mind that formal decisions for acceptance intot the designation are extremely difficult to achieve. The "only" must be kept as indication of this. 207.250.199.126 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of your claims. --ElKevbo 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
207.250.199.26: If you want to have "only" in the article find a source containing it. Your putting it in and your claims about the selectiveness of the program etc or just original research. In the absence of that, putting it in violates several Wikedia guidelines which I have already cited. As for CACREP, I have found no cite on CACREP's website or other source outside of Capella itself stating that Capella is the only online master's program with this accreditation. You state that CACREP states that Capella is the only online program, please come forward with it. Propositions for which there is not a verifiable source do not belong in the article. Capella may well be the only one but they are the only one making that claim as I stated.Mysteryquest 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


207.250.199.26: I agree with Mysteryquest that "only" needs to be cited to be in the article. I do like the Accreditation and Designation header. Spellmanloves67 00:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designation Header

Please show me a Wiki article on a college that has a special heading for "Designations". Look at the schools that have this designation and see if it is even in the article, nevermind under a special heading.Mysteryquest 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's a big deal. If you want to add it into other articles and place things like Land grant, Sea grant, etc. in the section I think it would perfectly appropriate. --ElKevbo 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AQIP

www.aquip.com does not indicate that Capella is the only online university participating. It merely lists the schools that participate w/o any indication as to which ones are online or not.Mysteryquest 03:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] University of California Payments

This doesn't belong int he Capella article. Nothing illegal happened nor has anything "controversial" taken place. Capella entered a legal agreement with UIC and as the article notes it has numerous relationships with several schools. Also, no wheere does the article say that Capella is being blamed or put under a microscope. The violation may have been done by UIC but Capella violated no policies, laws, or department of ed rules.207.250.199.126 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


From the Chronicle of Higher Learning:

  • "The U.S. Education Department considers such arrangements legal. "
  • "In its 1992 renewal of the Higher Education Act, Congress banned commission-based recruiting by colleges that receive federally guaranteed student aid. The intent was to take away an incentive for recruiters, motivated only by the commissions they would receive, to enroll students in programs they were not prepared for. Senate staff members at the time described cases in which recruiters had visited welfare offices and low-income housing projects, hoping to find people willing to sign up as college students and receive federal aid.
  • But the Bush administration published regulations in November 2002 that modified the ban on incentive payments. The regulations created a series of conditions, known as "safe harbor" exemptions, that expanded the types of recruitment payments that would be allowed under the law.

Capella's relationship with Irvine, which started in the fall of 2002, dates from that period."

  • Under the 2002 regulations, universities are not considered to be among the entities barred from receiving per-student payments for recruiting, said an Education Department spokeswoman, Jane Glickman. She said that the department would not discuss individual cases such as the arrangement between Irvine and Capella, but that "the payment of a per-student fee for the marketing services is not in itself a violation of the incentive-compensation prohibition."
  • The Education Department believes it is "not uncommon" for colleges to sign contracts with other colleges to develop and provide academic programs, with compensation paid on a per-student basis, Ms. Glickman said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.199.126 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that this practice is legal does not make it uncontroversial in the least. As the articles clearly state the paying of referral fees are indeed controversial.
  • Critics say incentive-based agreements such as that between UCI and Capella are unethical because they turn college counselors into salespeople.

"This is basically a finder's fee or a commission paid by one institution to another for qualified leads that pan out financially," said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Assn. of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers in Washington, D.C. "It's a problem when an institution ends up having a financial stake in where a student enrolls."

That would be controversy notwithstanding legality and certainly could be construed and are by many as unethical.Mysteryquest 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncommon or illegal for banks to charge $35.00 in overdraft fees or charge 19% interest on credit card accounts when the federal funds rate is 5% or so, however it is controversial and many would say unethical. Your focus on the fact that Capella's practice is legal or even frequent does not make it uncontroversial or perceived as unethical and creating a conflict of interest. That is what the articles focus on and such payments per the parts of the article you did not quote are indeed controversial. Your argument that the onus is on UCI and thus the article belongs under UCI is unfounded. UCI discontinued taking the referrals because they can be construed as unethical not because there was a "violation". If there was a violation then Capella was certainly as culpable, they are the ones that make the payments. However, again, nobody is claiming that the payments are illegal, just potentially unethical and thus controversial.Mysteryquest 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Mystery. Unethical is so open to interpretation. This article places much more on the fact that UCI di dit without telling the students than the fact that the agreement existed. The DOE has already said that nothing is illegal and quite common. The picture painted here tend towards guilt and give strength to some who are trying to assume that because Capella is a for-profit institution than it must be doing something unethical.207.250.199.126 19:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversy comes to each individuals own assessment. One persons ethical delimma is anothers simple decision. I thinkt he article is much more balanced now and states BOTH sides.207.250.199.126 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your assessment that the article places more on the fat that UCI did not tell its students about the arrangement. That is mentioned only once and it appears to have little bearing on the perception, expressed by several people that the arrangement raises ethical and conflict of interest issues whether its disclosed to students are not. The arrangement has been widely publicized so its no secret to students. Of course unethical is open to interpretation. Everything is open to interpretation even black letter law, or we would not have a cadre of lawyers and judges. The article does not accuse either university of an ethical breach it states the belief that such a breach could be construed and it expresses the opinion of those who feel it is raises those issues.Mysteryquest
The article is not balanced since you saw fit that delete the quote from the article that you did not like and instead quoted the one you preferred. The issue is is NOT legality, that is not the question, the issue here is potential conflict of interest and the perception of questionable if not unethical financial arrangements which have been criticized by many including the Department of Education. The wiki article now goes overboard in emphasizing that the arrangement is not illegal by supplying a long quote to that end which btw I do not see in the source. It appears you are cherry picking quotations to suit a particular point of view. I put the other quote back in, it is straight from the article and is no more NPOV than the one you picked. The quotation is from an article from a reliable source cited the opinion of a recognized professional in his field and his views are not unique as I have already pointed out. If you like, let's remove both the quotations and let the reader simply read the articles. If not, then both quotations should stay. The simple synopsis of the article maintains that the arrangement is legal but can be construed as questionable from an ethical point of view. In other words the wiki article could simply state and have the citations to both LA Times article and the Chronicle article and leave it at that.

"Capella University's agreement to pay fees to the University of California at Irvine (UCI) for referring students to its programs has been criticized. Though the practice is not uncommon nor illegal, some critics claim it constitutes a potential conflict of interest. This criticism and the concern that some may misconstrue the arrangement as unethical has led the University of California at Irvine to discontinue accepting such referral fees."

Mysteryquest 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The source you cite is a subscription based and the teaser does not include the language you cite. I assume that you must have the complete article or you would not know what it stated so why don't you provide a cite to the complete article?Mysteryquest 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Inserting UCI into the quote puts the editor into the position of assuming they know what the person being quoted is stating. It could appear that Mr. Nassirian feels that such a relationship is a potential conflict of interest for both universities to the detriment of the student who is treated like a commodity. The reader should be free to read the source and put whatever "spin" on the quotation, if any, he or she feels without our learned guidance. By Spellman's reasoning in the quote: "This is basically a finder's fee or a commission paid by one institution to another for qualified leads that pan out financially," it would be necessary to indicate "one institution" being UCI and "to another" being Capella. The reader does not need such prompting. The source is what it is and should not be massaged to suit a point of view. If we are going to engage in a contest of trying to find the quote (or tamper with a quote) so that it suits our point of view or shifts the "blame" as we see fit, we should just, as I previously suggested, put in a short paragraph characterizing the article, leave out any quotes and allow the reader to read the source articles unfettered by our cherry picking or "manipulation" of quotes from itMysteryquest 06:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Took out the quotes and put the basicness back into it75.134.128.140 13:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The point of taking out the quotes and leaving a short summary was to allow the reader to draw his own opinion and stop the war of quotes. This war now continues because the summary you choosed mischarterizes the article by making it appear that the article was only about a potential conflict by UCI. It was not as any read of the article would say. If the summary is going to focus on the parts of the article you perceive and which suit your point of view we might as well go back to citing quotes. I choose a summary that did not assign blame and I have edited the summary back accordingly. The article critized the arrangment and did not focus entirely on either university as "at fault." The summary needs to reflect that.Mysteryquest 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you .Mysteryquestand find that 75.134.128.140 may have a point. The blame lies with UCI for not telling its students that it was sharing information with Capella and getting paid for it. Capella did nothing illegal or immoral except purchase referrals which are perfectly legal according to the US Department of Education.

The one quote that shows that UCI had more control over the situation. UCI has very similiar agreements with Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences in Claremont, and two online programs offered by the University of Wisconsin at Platteville and the Florida Institute of Technology. It only collects fee's from Capella and it (UCI) initiated the collection of those fee's. Evidence: "Because it is for-profit, I felt that it was logical for us to seek some sort of compensation for the marketing we are doing for them," Matkin said, "so we asked them to give us money for the number of students that matriculated to them."

I feel the way it is is the best.Spellmanloves67 17:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You support user 75.134.128.140?? What a shock, lol. I saw that quote, and there are other quotes that support the notion that payments by one school to another for the recruitment of students are ethically suspect regardless of their legality. That's the problem with quotes, it depends on who you are quoting. The articles, when taken in their entirety, took a dim view of Capella or any school purchasing referrals regardless of whether it is legal or not and there are quotes which support the view that such a practice is ethically suspect: "Any time you reduce the basis of recruitment to cash kickbacks or commission sales, the ability and willingness of recruiters to act in the interest of students goes downhill quickly," he said. That is why I suggested we dispense with quotes and work out a neutral summary of the article and let the reader choose their own interpretation. There is enough in the article to support you and user "75" interpretation that UCI's is solely at "fault" and there is enough to support my interpretation that the problem is the nature of such an agreement and that Capella and UCI share "culpability". We are supposed to be neutral here and that is what I'm striving to be.
You feel Capella only "purchased referrals," some say they are "kickbacks", as illustrated by the above quote which sees this practice as morally nebulous. Again, the article does not focus entirely on UCI's behavior, it does take two to tango. The summary should be neutral and not assign "fault" or we go back to selecting quotes that spin our particular positions.Mysteryquest 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


The agreements Capella has with other schools ARE common and ARE legal (read the citations). THe University of Minnesota has transfer agreements with over thirteen schools located in Minnesota. THe citations read that Capella would accept non-credit, continuing education credits as graduate level studies. UCI received marketing money. Nothing illegal. Unless you can PROVe that there is no other agreements out there than it does not belong in the article.24.31.31.41 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As stated before the legality of the agreements was never questioned, that's not the issue. Yes, they are legal, that doesn't make them non-controversial or not morally suspect. We are not talking about transfer agreements. We are talking about fees being paid by one school to another school to refer their transfer students to the fee paying school. This has the potential to turn a student into a commodity and cause a potential conflict of interest between the adviser and the student whereas the adviser might be inclined to "advice" a student to attend a particular program less because it is suitable for that student and more because the school or he or she will receive money for such a referral. Additionally, I don't know how common "transfer agreements" which include the paying of referral/kickback/marketing fees in exchange for the referral of a transfer student are. Mysteryquest 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
We are talking about transfer students. Graduate-level students who took CEU (continuing education courses) at UCI. CEU credits are usually not transferable into graduate courses but Capella decided to accept those credits from those three UC schools. What Capella did was not illegal, immoral or unethical. In 2001 the US Federal Government said that doing something exactly liek this is legal and falls within the changes as constituted by the Presidential order. The information was public and could have been accessed at anytime. Students transfering to Capella knew about the agreement and were told up front because they received graduate-level credits for their CEU work. The controvercy weighs on UCI for not telling its students that is was receiving payment for anyone they referred to Capella and enrolled. Since UCI had no other finacial agreement with any other schools than it may be that employees (advisors, etc) were pushed to send students to Capella but nothing was in the control of Capella University. Remember, it was UCI that demanded payment from Capella because it saw Capella as having a bigger wallet since it was for-profit. This story puts more blame on UCI than Capella because Capella did nothing wrong. Maybe it treats students as a commodity but isn't that what they are? Students are recruited to attend certain schools, both non-profit and profit, to pay tuition and spend money. Isn't that what a commodity is. A source of production and income?

The US Department of Education said that not only is this type of agreement legal but it is also common. If they say that than shouldn't we assume that they know something not mentioned in the story? If the US DOE knows about these "controversial" agreements and they have no reason to investigate than why should we consider them unethical.

This agreement is not a scam or meant to intentionally decieve anyone but to give students who wouldn't normally gain graduate-level credits for CEU courses the chance to move on and obtain a Masters degree. Maybe UCI couldn't do this with any other schools because the other schools did not want to cover the adminsitrative costs that were associated with the programs?

The facts set forth should not be entered into thte Capella article. Capella did not wrong and was simply doing was was legal business.

Enron, Tyco, PG&E, and many other things were unethical as they KNEW they were operating outside the law. Has Capella and UCI did that than no argument could support not mentioning the agreement but becaus ethey didn't than it should be erased.Spellmanloves67 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well all that you state is your opinion which you of course are entitled to, however opinions should not enter into the article. Moreover, others feel that such practices raise a conflict of interest and are not ethical, your unilateral declarations to the contrary notwithstanding. Many more do not see students as commodities but as consumers of a very valuable and special service, to wit, education. Education is not your ordinary consumable product, like a car, or a sofa. My opinion which is shared by some but is still just my opinion -- and I am not trying to elevate it over yours -- is that access to education is on a par with access to medical care and legal services. There is a duty that is owed to a patient by a doctor and duty that is owed to client by a lawyer and a duty that is owed to a student by an adviser or school. I feel that they are morally equivalent. Of course money enters into the equation and there are conflicts of interest in the law and medical fields but it is frowned upon and when they are discovered they are news and controversial unlike what might happen in any other "business" where there is no particular duty owed to the "consumer". Education, like health care and legal services is a quality of life issue. It is the key to economic advancement which contributes much to the prosperity of society. When students are treated as "marks" or commodities or persons to profit from, I don't believe that's ethical. And I personally, again my opinion, shared by some, not all, just like your opinion, feel, that offering kickbacks, marketing fees, referrals or whatever you want call them, has a great potential to obscure the true role of advisers which is to advise the student for the student's sake, not for how much money or profit can be made from them. A 19% credit card rate is a legal business, is it ethical, I don't think so as too many. The focus on what is legal obscures any investigation into what is moral. I don't see students as commodities to be bartered over. Just my opinion. The article that we have simply reports what happens and references articles about it. It makes it quiet clear that the practice while legal is controversial. And again in the articles about the controversy all the onus was not put on University of Irvine. Paying money for referrals whether legal or not is certainly a potential conflict of interest and is, in my opinion, and others, a questionable practice because of that potential conflict of interest and the possibility that students are getting advice which is more dependent on how much money can be gained from them rather that what is truly in their best interest. What Enron, Tyco, PG&E, and other corporations do and do not do has no bearing on Capella. Are you equating Capella with any other business now? As if they were selling energy, or computers, or pumps or tires? Is that your position?
Your argument for deleting the article keeps centering on the fact that what Capella did was legal. This agreement, while legal, IS controversial which is a view shared by many professionals in the educational field including some in the Department of Education. If Capella was running some other kind of business, maybe it wouldn't be controversial, however, they are running a school which is funded by money from the federal government aka the tax payers, so they are going to suffer more scrutiny than a car lot dealership and rightly so. A good business practice for Mercedes Benz is not not necessarily a good business practice for a school!Mysteryquest 02:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not deleted bu tthe including that Capella has other agreements means nothing and has no need to be mentioned. These agreements may only be transfer agreements and because the citations do not give us the ability to see what they are, it shoudl be left up to the readers to decide.Spellmanloves67 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is time to remove this extremely irrelevant piece as it as held no level of news worthyness and is more a form of recentism than it is to an actual cause for support. ITs removal is necessary for the purity of the article and to keep it within the realm of Wikipedia. Mysteryquest claims that it must be kept in because "someone" thinks it may be controversial and tries to compare it to Enron or Tyco when only one or two individuals have even may a statement that it may look abnormal but they do so without a full disclosure of their knowledge or scope of understanding.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should no longer remain. I attempted to remove it but Mysteryquest reverted. We're not here to include information on controversies unless such controversies are notable. If it was a notable claim then it would still be covered in the media or would have had long-term repercussions on the school (neither of which have happened). As the practice is common among many OTHER universities, its obviously something that is acceptable in that field. Capella is being targeted, in my opinion, because it is a "for-profit" university and therefore any action it takes must be based solely upon "greed". Apparently making money is something that is bad...? Unless valid arguments for its remaining within the article are stated, I will remove its mention again. will381796 (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what other universities pay per-student referrals fees, for-profit or otherwise, to other schools? As far as I know Capella is the only one that has been revealed to do so. Could someone provide evidence that this is a practice that takes place at other universities? I am not talking about transfer or articulation agreements either that don't involve the exchange of money, I'm talking about kickbacks.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I was quoting from the paragraph within the article stating: "This practice is not uncommon and is legal according to the U.S. Department of Education." I assumed that since you had reverted the statement's removal you had done the research to verify the statement's accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will381796 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Who cares? The law states that these payments, whether a small group thinks they are or are not unethical, are in itself legal and within the scopes of the Bush Adminsitrations adaptations to the law. You can not expect anyone to spend the time and money to find how many other higher learning institutions participate in the practice as it does not have to be disclosed. An official with the D of Ed verified this. You continue to request information to strengthen the reasons why this should not be included in the article yet you provide NO research or information other than the opionions of one or two people that belong to organizations that neither school have any relationship with. To be labeled a controversial subject matter a larger minority or the majority must weigh in on the issue. The State of California has not investigated UCI nor have it held any hearings on the matter and no other government body has done so either.

In the past (based on readings here) you like to bring up Enron or the like. Major differences in that people involved with Enron actually went to prison. It needs to stay out. 207.250.199.126 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't bring up Enron, someone else did, I was merely responding to them, and the issue wasn't what was legal it was what was controversial or unethical, if you are going to attribute things to me then please pay attention to what I actually said.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student Demographics

"I may not be the one to do it, but I think there needs to be something to the effect of serving underserved populations as clearly the statistics represent." If the statistics "clearly represent" this fact, then the reader will draw that conclusion. However, putting it in strikes me as a violation of Neutral Point of View as it appears to be a "plug" for the school. If you can find a non-Capella reliable and independent source for that proposition, let's see it.Mysteryquest 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US News and World Report Ranking

So some have added a link stating that Capella was listed as a US News & World Report "Best Colleges of 2008." I believe that this is incorrect and is simply a misinterpretation of a confusing aspect of the website. When you go to the "Best Colleges of 2008" part of the section, EVERY page you click on will have that header. So, if you do a school search from the "Best Colleges of 2008" and search for ANY university, the college's profile will be displayed along with the "Best Colleges of 2008" header. (For example, UTSA: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_10115_brief.php). This does not mean that it was listed as a Best College and the fact that the quick profile for Capella lists it as "unranked" proves the point. To see the "real" list of the Best Colleges you need to go to http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex_brief.php and scroll down to "USNEWS RANKINGS" and click the category you want to see. I couldn't find Capella in any of those groups. will381796 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tekne Award

I'm not sure that this award of enough import to include it in this article. It appears to be basically a local award without any national import. I'm inclined to remove it.Mysteryquest (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capella Audit

Somewhere in here Spellman states that there is a statement stating that there were no irregularities in the years after 2004-2005:

"March 12, 2008 Capella University Overcharged Student Lenders $588,000, Audit Finds

Washington — Capella University, an online, for-profit institution based in Minneapolis, could be asked by the U.S. Education Department to repay more than a half-million dollars in student-aid money.

The department’s inspector general has issued an audit in which it contends that the university overcharged lenders participating in the federal guaranteed-student-loan program, and the department itself, by a total of $588,000.

The inspector general says Capella made a series of mistakes in how it calculates student eligibility for government-subsidized loans, including failing to return all funds disbursed on behalf of students who dropped out before their first day of class.

The university, in a written response to the audit, says it recognizes some past shortcomings in its methods, and suggests it overcharged lenders by a total of $278,883. Capella also says it has made changes to prevent such problems in the future.

The inspector general disagrees with some of the university’s assertions, suggesting in a report to the department that Capella be asked to make further changes, including conducting eligibility checks on its students before it requests federal funds, not afterward. —Paul Basken"

If anyone person can pick this out, please assist.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the statement that the OIG found no irregularities after 2004-2005 is curious at best and rather foolish at worse. Inasmuch as the audit period was for 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, no years after 2004-2005 were audited. If no irregularities were found that might well be attributed to the fact that none were sought!Mysteryquest (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capella Tower

I have added some info to the timeline regarding the renaming of 225 South Sixth as Capella Tower and have changed the note under the corresponding image as well.

--Beneaththeradar (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Controversy Section

I reversed the renaming of the controversy section, it appears to me that it is an attempt to deemphasize or "hide" the section. This is not done in any other University article that I have seen. If it is not going to be called Controversy then it should be called "Failure to Comply with Department of Education Regulations" or something similar instead of an innocuous title that "shields" what the section is about.Mysteryquest (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)