Talk:Collins College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't have any objective information, so I can't expand on the article, but I would like to know more about the college from sources other than its representatives/administration. --Mistermustard 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently someone has decided to go on a campaign against this college and entered in quite a bit of out date information about its parent corporation, and slant the overall tone of the article against career colleges. The assumption is that only state universities, with their low placement and graduation rates are capable of educating college students, despite rarely caring whether they pass fail or even come to class. It would be helpful if someone with the up to date information about completed investigations and no axe to grind completed this. --StevenBradford 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. It's unclear as to how the parent company relates to the college, save for guilt by association (which is an argumentative fallacy). Perhaps an alumni could be conscripted into giving a better analysis of the college? Ideally, I would hope it would be on par with University of Arizona. I'm sorry to say, though, that Mr. Bradford should probably not partake in the construction as his bias may be skewed as unscholarly - and I believe part of wikipedia's inherent mission is to be as scholarly as possible. --Mistermustard 10:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints on recent edits

The people who are obssesively re editing this entry believe wikipedia is a blog, and entries shouldn't follow the standard templates. The standard is apparently to have a short entry that doesn't list any information that is accesible elsewhere on the web or in print. So I've referred to the web link to get this information. StevenBradford 06:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't help achieve anything when you virtually blank an article. I previously removed negative comments without any sources; I removed the empty headers (its pointless to have them when there hasn't been any text yet, as I noted in my edit comment: please feel free to re-add them when there's at least some information under them); the previous infobox was very oddly organized, so I did a quick-replace with the standard template and moved all the information from the old one to the new one without changing anything; Wikipedia articles on universities (of which I have created nearly 70ish and made substantial edits on the same number) generally shouldn't have the degrees listed out all the way --it looks tacky in an encyclopedic article, there's a policy that Wikipedia is not a list, and it appears to toe the line of making the article an advertisement. Listing seperate schools is fine, because they are large components of understanding how the university is structured (something an encyclopedia should be concerned by). For an example of a solid university article (that I haven't worked on), please see the feature article on Michigan State University. From my experience in the trenches of college articles, the pages far most likely to use degree lists are DeVry (a real mess), ITT Tech and similar for-profits --which have spurred some real arguments on those pages. I am restoring the article to the previous edit, please work with us (and by "us" we're all separate individuals, but there is an inherent collective mindset). --Bobak 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick follow-up: I read over Utahredrock's edits, and the removals he made on the facilities and other brochure-like material is appropriate --if someone added some of those comments to any other university, like USC (which I also monitor), it would be struck down as "POV", etc... Does it make things a little dry? Sadly, yes. Is an encyclopedia dry? Sadly, yes. --Bobak 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You win. I realize it's easier to delete then it is to write or to carefully edit. I certainly wasted a lot of time looking up the right templates and formats to use, and also looked at some other colleges and universities listings, specifically my own schools, USC and the UofA, for ideas. But your heavy handed delete and run approach taught me a lesson; it's not really a collaborative endeavour here is it?

I can't believe the time I wasted trying to update the portion I renamed "Controversies" without it seeming like I was trying to erase valid information. There was a lot more to be done, including boiling down my verbiage, filling out the rest of the standard template but you seem to be the expert, I leave you to turning this into a full entry. I guess you've used my words to make a stump now instead of a stub, good luck with making it grow.StevenBradford 05:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry mate

Hey, sure didn't mean to upset you!

If you want to re-upload the school logo use the following tag to insure it doesn't get deleted:

PS--you may need to go to "edit this page" to see the tag it is: { {Promotl } }

Take the spaces out between the two brackets (front and back) and spell out Promotional and the image will be safe from the bots . . .

{{Non-free promotional}}

Cheers, --Utahredrock 06:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to find a logo and upload. I used the correct tags the first time around when it first became visible in the correct section of the infobox. I won't be uploading any more images that I have. You, or someone else, can expand the entry from primary source materials. Why it needs expansion though is beyond me, since all the info is available through the link or easily accesible catalogs and brochures etc. The history section should be interesting.StevenBradford 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the correct license for a university logo is {{Univ-logo}}, which I've added (I've personally uploaded nearly 100). I don't really understand why you're respond to my comments as though I've been the one making the specific edits that displease you, without paying any attention to who's making what edits. Besides, you need to work under the assuption that others are acting in good faith. --Bobak 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with the rest of it, guys, I'm sure you'll have a fully fleshed out entry here in no time. Though I don't understand why the programs listing belongs at the top instead of lower down in an academics or organisation heading. Or why the logo goes in the image area at the top of the info box, instead of in the logo area of the university info box. I thought that was where school seals went, at the top. Oh well, you two seem to know best. StevenBradford 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Thx for the info on the univ logo tag. Those tags were tormenting me the other day. --Utahredrock 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixes to accredidation

I cleaned up the section on accredidation, it was too general and not specific to anything about Collins, added another link about accredidation, so that someone can explore that topic there. The entry on the school isn't the place to go into a consumer guide about differences between accredidation, or grind an ax about it, it's obviously a contentious issue, and the wikipedia entries cover it, if not perfectly.

Also added a reference for the studios expansion, and the names of the president and provost, which I got from news reports, but didn't think I really needed a reference cite for that. What's really needed is a reference to the college catalog, in addition to the web site. --StevenBradford (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the accreditation information back it is specific to all nationally accredited schools, including Collins and it is not a consumer guide, I put in the references to back up the information, if you wish to remove that's fine, however, the proviso should stay. Mysteryquest (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're basically pursuing an agenda here, one would get the impression that accreditation is only about transfer credits. You've worded it in such a way that to make it appear that Nationally accredited schools are bad, and Regional accreditation is an unqualified good. Anyone who has attended and or taught at both knows that this is not true. It's a complicated issue, and it should simply be noted in an accreditation entry, and explained further, in an accreditation article. Admittedly the accreditation articles are not that great, but that's wikipedia. Maybe someone who has a good background there will fix them.--StevenBradford (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply stating facts which are well supported by sources. Many regionally accredited schools do not accept nationally accredited schools, that's a fact. The most prominent reason, that THEY give, is that the courses at nationally accredited schools are more vocational or career in nature and thus are not suitable to more academically inclined institutions. Whether that is true or not, that's the way it is, a fact. The article does not state that regional accreditation is better than national accreditation though one can imply that it is different. Whether or not accreditation is complicated or not does not change the fact, as stated, that many regionally accredited schools will not accept nationally accredited credits which is all the passage states. The text does not state that regional accreditation is better than national accreditation, nor does it pursue an agenda or go into the complexities of accreditation. It states a simple fact, which is well sourced, and it is important that readers be made aware of this fact.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)