Talk:University of Phoenix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Phoenix article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

	Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
	This article was a Collaboration of the Fortnight from Feb 15-February 28, 2008.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Contents 1 Image of Shaq 2 Article overhaul 3 In The Chronicle 4 Controversy Section Deletions 5 Withdrawal notice 5.1 Criticism and controversies 6 Editing after lock 6.1 Criticism and controversies 7 uopexperience.com link 8 Criticism section & Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business 9 Going for the silver!! 10 UoP Stadium

[edit] Image of Shaq

I believe as I stated in my edit summary placing a picture of an athletic celebrity only because he happens to have graduated from UofP cheapens the article. He is not notable because he attended University of Phoenix, he doesn't make his living of his degree. I do not think it adds anything to the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can prove he doesn't make his living off his degree—between his contracts for athletics, advertisements, music recordings, and philanthropic efforts, I think an MBA would be helpful. And nobody listed on other university FAs are notable just because they attended the university. Anyway, the picture has every right to stay and I think it adds a lot of value to the article. You could look for another picture if you wish, but the fact that multi-millionaire Shaq went to UoP doesn't cheapen the article at all. --Eustress (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, putting a picture of Spelling makes sense or a professor but a ballplayer simply doesn't belong there. It turns into some kind of celebrity driven, People's article, not an encyclopedia. His MBA might be helpful, however, it hardly defines him. He's basketball player not an academician or a business man, his MBA is not what made him famous. So he is placed in the article for reasons that have nothing to do with his degree or his attendance at UofP.Mysteryquest (talk)

I have looked at numerous school articles and there are no pictures celebrity alumni. The one article that is cited is [[1]]. That article has a picture of the CEO of Pepsi, who is an important business person whose success is derived from his attendance at the school. So that's hardly an apt comparison. As I pointed out Shaq has only an incidental relationship with University of Phoenix. He obviously doesn't make his living of his MBA degree. His endorsements, philanthropy, advertisements and basketball contracts and everything else come from him being a famous basketball player and personality, not because he has an MBA from UofP. An image of him might be appropriate and relevant in the athletic section of the university he attended. I can see putting a picture of Spellman in the article. I could see putting a picture of Einstein in the article of whatever school he went to. It just strikes me as turning an encyclopedia article into People's magazine. If Jerry Seinfeld got a degree from UofP I suppose his picture should be included also.Mysteryquest (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I still think the picture adds value to the article (maybe a better picture of him could be used), especially since there aren't any other pictures in the article other than the UoP seal, but if more than Mysteryquest and TallMagic feel the same way, then let's remove it. --Eustress (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also think the picture should be removed. Like MysteryQuest said, it cheapens the article - it gives a tabloid texture to it. Additionally, I feel that adding pictures of notable alumni to any university article is in poor style - a text mention in the article is sufficient. Tan | 39 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the need to remove the image. It adds no informational value that I can see. Also, it looks huge, especially for users with large default settings for thumbnails. If it is retained, the "upright" specification should be added so that it is less large. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is to remove it especially since the one editor who inserted it and argued for its continued inclusion is no longer editing the article. When protection is lifted it will be also. Alternatively, someone can request an admin remove it.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that it should be removed, but I also think that it is difficult to judge how an individual uses his degree (or not) from afar.17reasons (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

shaq is not relevant to the article. With thousands and thousands of alumni, is it that notable to single out one of them, particularly when their notariaty is in a completely unrelated field? Shaq is not known as being a scholar. If you want to make a notable alumni section and list some names, I'd be OK with that, but I don't think this is important. --Azmojo (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scholarly" is not a reason to not include him. He's extremely notable, was even at one of their press conferences. He should be included. GreenJoe 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not including him in the article, the issue is including a photograph of him in the article. The overwhelming consensus is no.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A "Notamble Alumni Section" would be good. --Alt175 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. GreenJoe 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps like this: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas#Notable_people] PeregrineV (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article overhaul

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

It would have been proper and appreciated if you had made your case for your overhaul before you made it. You can make it now, however, I'm going to revert it since there is no way to even discuss what can no longer be seen.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be seen in the history. My edits are much more concise and well-documented (citations). Just talk here about what you don't like...you can post an older version on your sandbox if you want, but I'll just have to undo your reverts, and I'll have to report you if you break the three-revert rule. --Eustress (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not threaten to me, you should have discussed any revisions to the article before you made them. You cannot make unilateral changes to and article and then and simply declare them better than any other version. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. I will continue to revert your changes until I seem some detailed justification for them. Report me if you wish to. This article arrived at the state it was after a long arbitration. If you have problems with it you can air them in the discussion page like very other editor has.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you stop whining and start talking about what you have problems with. I think the article has been improved significantly; there were too many little changes to hammer them out one-by-one. You see the changes now, so let's just address the issues you have—inline with WP:Consensus. --Eustress (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You call me a whiner? You rewrite the article without seeking any consensus in talk, then scream when someone disagrees with your rewrite and reverts a section, demand they explain it in talk when you don't do that, threaten to report them while you are playing 3revert roulette yourself and then run and have the page protected like you're in 1st grade. Who is whining now?Mysteryquest (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to simmer down and stop the personal attacks. Mysteryquest, for the record, Eustress was not the editor who requested page protection. Horologium (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

K, sorry I accused him of that. I just don't like being threatened and called a whiner because I revert one section of a completely overhauled article. So yeah, I got a little riled up and for that I apologize. That said there are some improvements to the article, and also some issues, like putting Shaq's picture up and using a blog to support UofP's population, using a great deal of information from UofP's website which is hardly independent, maybe that balances the article somewhat, I'm not sure.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. There are situations where self published material can be used in an article. I'm referring to UofP's website. A blog can rarly ever be used as a reference. Let's discuss the self published material (UofP's website). I looked at many of the uses of self published material in the article. Nothing really jumped out at me as unreasonable. I didn't look at all of the UofP links though. Can you please point out any that particularly have caused you concern? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Mysteryquest, it appears to me that the Eustress edits are improvements. Eustress is just following the wp:bold guideline. Consensus is required when the edits are controversal. If the edits are controversal in your opinion then I would be very encouraging, interested, and supportive in you making your opinions known. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TallMagic. I read over the article, and I think it is really well-written. I owe Eustress my sincerest thanks for his hard work. GreenJoe 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there are some improvements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 May 2008

I have fully protected the page (under the wrong version) for a week to allow the editors to work this out. Horologium (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So instead of blocking or speaking with the one editor disrupting this article no one can edit it? Thanks. Good job! --ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded to a RFPP, saw that there was a dispute, beyond the confines of Bold, Revert, Discuss, and protected the page to ensure that discussion *did* occur. Horologium (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there's some ownership problems here. Tan | 39 16:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who requested page protection. I honestly didn't think blocking either Eustress or Mysteryquest would do us any good. I'd rather discussion occur, and they can't do that if they're blocked. GreenJoe 17:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why blocking anyone would be necessary or appropriate. There was a threat and a response to it, but after that the controversy section of the article and the image of the Shaq was reverted twice, nothing else occurred. Now nothing will happen until the page protection is lifted.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The point to the page protection is to get the involved editors to discuss the matter and come to an agreement, not to simply postpone the edit war for a week. It's not difficult for an admin to step in and extend the page protection if there is no discussion; please use the time constructively and come to an agreement. Once there is a consensus on changes, I will have no problem unprotecting the page. Horologium (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Like the discussion that was occurring before you protected the article? Bad call, Horologium. Those who edit this and similar articles know where to find admins when we need admin action. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and one of them went to WP:RFPP to find an admin, and requested protection when an edit-war broke out on this page. That editor was not involved in the back-and-forth. Neither editor in the edit war appeared to be likely to back down (and one flat-out stated that he would continue reverting), so rather than block the two of them, I locked the page and encouraged them to arrive at a consensus first. You are welcome to criticize my protection, but I am unlikely to be persuaded by your argument. Horologium (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a mild aside - Eustress, you might want to think about using "show preview" more and not saving every few minutes... almost 50 tiny edits over the space of 3-4 hours really mucks up the page history. Just advice, take it or leave it :-) Tan | 39 18:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken, Tan. Regarding the page protection, I'm very grateful that an admin was asked to step in because the fact that issues regarding the changes have still not been addressed here is evidence that "reverts" (a euphemism for vandalism, in this case) would have continued to occur. I feel we have a lot of good editors here now who can help ensure that the article progresses henceforth, but I again emphasize that no issues (other than very minor ones regarding the Shaq picture and the possible need for additional, third-party sources) have been presented. --Eustress (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm continually astounded by the depth of your apparent arrogance in calling reverts vandalism when you don't agree with them. You might consider choosing your words more carefully. Please check the definition of vandalism and note that a content dispute is not vandalism.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In The Chronicle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Controversy Section Deletions

"The main points of criticism include:

• The coursework is perceived by some as lacking meat and that the stripped-down schedule rushes students through the academic schedule too fast.^[1][2]

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

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

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

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

• That UoP's tuition cost is greater than most public schools and is seen by some as disproportionate to the educational value it gives to its students, as compared with community colleges and other public schools.^[3]

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

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

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

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

• That a degree from UoP is seen by employers as inferior, and that students graduate only to find that their degree doesn't get them the jobs they hoped it would.^[2] According to the Online University Consortium, a 2003 study of HR professionals indicated that "the majority of the HR professionals surveyed would select a job candidate with an online degree from a traditional school such as USC or University of Michigan over a job candidate with a degree from an organization such as the University of Phoenix."^[4]

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

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

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

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

• The UoP's perceived balance between value to students and profits to shareholders is a major element of criticism. Critics cite that the recent success UoP has seen on Wall Street has come directly at the expense of a declining quality of education to students.^[3][5] They note that they believe people don't have a problem with a university making a profit as long as it is delivering a good value to its customers.

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

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

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

• That UoP accepts enrollment from anyone, such as first-time college students whom UoP caters to, even if UoP is not suitable for them.^[3][5] This is seen as favoring profits over education."

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

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

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

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

^{[unreliable source?]} - original source needed

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

I find myself in general agreement with Mysteryquest's concerns as expressed above. I suggest that all of the above be added back into the article. Although I'm open to arguments targeted at specific points not being added back in. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting some concerns. I have addressed each bullet and invite others to do likewise. More broadly speaking, I overhauled this entire section as the bullet points were not parallel in structure and very poorly worded. Moreover, lists of this nature are discouraged as prose can more clearly, impartially, and concisely convey the topics. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't add the blog citation (footnote #17). It was there before I started editing, so it must have been inserted under your watch. --Eustress (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what footnote #17 means, I expect it refers to the UOPSucks site. The UOPSucks website is not a blog reference although I do agree that it is probably not a reliable source. On the hand, that argument seems irrelevant to me when discussing the above points because the two references to UOPSucks also reference the Yung article which is a reliable source. Also, please keep in mind that this is Wikipedia and we enjoy open editting and no one has been assigned responsibility for watching articles. I edit Wikipedia out of general respect for knowledge, the sense of community, a sense of accomplishment, and gratitude for the valuable Wikipedia resource. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You assumed incorrectly (see the main article). Footnote #17 refers to http://phoenix.about.com/b/2003/07/17/university-of-phoenix-has-largest-graduation-ever.htm.

It appears to me that footnote#17 in the current article has nothing to do eith this section of the talk page. It seems to be a reference for a non-controversial statement. Why did you mention it above? Did my "watch" statement answer/address/relevant to your watch statement? Who was your "watch" statement directed at? What is the point of your "watch" statement? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mysteryquest brought it up again in the paragraph in this section starting "The above are some of the valid...." My comment was directed to him because I was erroneously blamed for including that citation. --Eustress (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense now. Thanks TallMagic (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I have not had access to the internet. If I erroneously implied that Eustress put in Footnote #17 (not #7) I apologize, however, I do not recall it being there before. I have reviewed the talk page in my absence and see no reason for the deletions of well referenced criticisms which were deleted without cause or consensus. The fact that one editor has a "problem" with them is not enough to delete them from the article and I intend to put them back in when the "cooling off" period has subsided.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit dumbfounded at your responses, but that's how it goes. (Note: bullet #4 has not been refuted.) I really don't feel you've done anything to rebuttal any of my reasoning for exclusion of these bullets other than say that the sources are reliable—in most cases, my argument isn't that the source is unreliable but that the sourced information has been misinterpreted, already covered more concisely, or is irrelevant. Anyway, it appears from above that TallMagic has a COI-vendetta against UoP and is determined to oust the institution; I, however, just want to see this article improved—this section was especially a mess with all of the bullets and superfluous info—half the article is controversy and law suits already...not much balance, not broad in coverage. Will the two of you at least please modify the current text below to how you would like it to appear when the protection is lifted? I feel we need to do it here first or we'll just be back-and-forth again later. Also, be sure to bring up any serious issues you may have about the other sections. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no conflict of interest on my part regarding UoP. I have never attended the school, I have never worked at the school, I'm only interested in the quality of the Wikipedia article. On this very talk page I've expressed concerns in the past that this article needed better balance in that more positive information needed to be added. I searched general news sources and really didn't find anything. My next idea was searching self published material. The generally wrong way to balance the article is to delete the well sourced and notable negative information. This is commonly referred to as censorship and is incorrect. Eustress, I appreciate your improvements to the article. Please assume good faith and believe that my only interest in the article is improving the article. My firm belief is that everyone here shares that same interest. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the accusation. I was confused by your comment above "Not that personal experience means much..." and jumped to conclusions. --Eustress (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the history of the talk page the following was done by Eustress. I assume that it is a proposal for a new section to be added to the article. As such, I consider it a fine improvment to the article. TallMagic (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't think we're on the same page. My proposition is that you and whomever add to what is currently on the article (what I posted below). It's not an addition to all the bullets that were discussed above. If this is unacceptable, we may need to request mediation. --Eustress (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused at your contention that TallMagic has a conflict of interest and am bewildered at the specific foundation for it other than he believes the deleted controversy information is relevant. Presumably I must have a conflict of interest as well since I believe that as well. So, you are an altruist who wants to see the article improved and because we disagree with you, we are ... anarchists? Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. I believe that your reasoning that the sourced information has been misinterpreted, already covered concisely or irrelevant is flawed and is and has been easily rebutted per my earlier comments. I'm also amused at your request that we reconstruct the page in talk so you can vet them, when you did not see fit to do that. However, when I have an opportunity I will endeavor to oblige.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this comment is needed since I already apologized. (P.S. Please keep comments in chronological order.) --Eustress (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My comment was composed before TallMagic responded to your accusation and you apologized, however a series of edit conflicts stopped it from being entered. I placed it where it would have been had edit conflicts not preempted it and where it made sense to place it.17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal notice

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

[edit] Criticism and controversies

The University has been criticized for various reasons. One is that a conflict of interest may exist when a for-profit company administers education—perhaps fostering a "stripped-down" academic schedules that rushes students through their studies. Moreover, the university's business program is also not accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.^[6] UoP has also been criticized for not having qualified professors or teachers, but rather facilitators that encourage students to teach each other.^[1] Additionally, UoP's overall graduation rate is 16% while the national average is 55%.^[1] The federal standard measures graduation rates as "the percentage of first-time undergraduates who obtain a degree within six years".^[1] Supporters say that the comparison is not a fair one since UoP follows a significantly different educational model than traditional universities, but critics find the statistic troubling.

UoP has also been the subject of several lawsuits in recent years. A federal whistle blower lawsuit accusing the university of fraudulently obtaining hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid was filed in 2003 and is currently pending—^[1][7][8]the university receiving more federal student financial aid than any other university in the United States in 2004.^[1] In September 2004, the university paid a settlement of $9.8 million to the United States Department of Education for alleged violations of Higher Education Act provisions that prohibit distributing financial incentives to admission representatives.^{[9][10][11][12][13]}

The University also paid $3.5 million in back wages to 1,700 workers related to overtime pay and exemption status given to its recruitment advisers, under a settlement reached in July 2004 with the United States Department of Labor.^[14][15] Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a sexual harassment claim filed against the university by a former employee for $225,000 in August 2007.^[16] Currently, the University is also being sued by the EEOC for alleged religious discrimination favoring Mormon enrollment counselors.^[17]

[edit] Editing after lock

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

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

The citations were put in there to firm up the allegations. Didn't realize that you could have too many citations. Yes, it was indeed a bulleted list but the editor who overhauled the article had a problem with the bullets. I have no problem consolidating it into one paragraph. UopSucks was "given legitimacy" by its mention in the New York Times article, however, it can be deleted. There is nothing in it that isn't supported by several reliable sources.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to use the undo button if necessary. GreenJoe 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't have too many references, but I agree with Horologium, their site (UoPSucks) probably isn't a reliable source... except if you're citing one of the news articles (like the New York Times), that is on their site. GreenJoe 22:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. UOPSucks.com is a reliable source, as they are dedicated to the subject at hand. While the site contains a lot of opinions, it also has collected lots of facts and reliable information and is 100% focused on this subject. I think anyone who runs a website dedictated to a subject with as much info as UOPSucks.com does has is indeed an expert on the subject and worth listening to. --72.222.243.48 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A website completely without credit. This should not be used as a source. Like GreenJoe said, perhaps you can use it to find more reliable sources. Tan | 39 01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I took out UOPexperience.com from the reference links and it was replaced today by Azmojo and Reswobslc. The site is a mirror to UOPsucks. Horologium had stated above that he didn't view it a reliable source (and I agree). I believed and stated that this user is an admin. I may have been incorrect about this (Reswobslc corrected me).17reasons (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and controversies

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

The problem with the pre=lock state was that it excluded a lot of criticism which was legitimate and reliably sourced. Per the talk page there was consensus for including it, thus I do not see that as a legitimate option. Why don't you just make the edits you feel are warranted to what is in there and we can discuss it or explain what specific problems you have, either way.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus up there. GreenJoe 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Look again under controversy section deletions. After the "overhaul", I placed a list of the items which had been deleted and we weighed on whether they should be kept or not. TallMagic and I agreed that they should. The vote against was cast by the editor who withdrew from editing. That is one of the reasons I put a lot of the criticisms back in. I trimmed them way back which is why they look like a list of grievances. If the problem is just style they can be consolidated into one paragraph. It is not clear exactly what the problem is, whether its the criticism or the style. There is more than enough reliable sources to support their inclusion. So what exactly are the problems you have?Mysteryquest (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic and you don't make a consensus, and even if it did, he only agreed to one part, not the entire thing. I think your reading glasses need to be replaced. And IT'S NOT A VOTE but a discussion, so you could have 5 - 1 in favour and still not have it carried out. GreenJoe 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Eustress wrote the proposed criticism and controveries section above. He was the one editor that seemed to have a problem with the old version. No one said they had a problem with Eustress's proposed version. That seems close enough to a consensus to me to at least avoid insults and accusations needing reading glasses. TallMagic (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Just wanted to note how criticism is presented in another article : [2] PeregrineV (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] uopexperience.com link

I thought I'd start a discussion about the link, as there seems to be some minor revert warring over it. While it may not be a reliable source for references, it being included in the links section is another ballpark alltogether. As for me, I'm undecided on this. GreenJoe 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a mirror of UOPSucks.com. This should most definitely NOT be included in the external links. There's no way this meets WP:EL - it's all unverifiable, bloggy, and completely POV. Tan | 39 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but it doesn't have to be verifiable to meet WP:EL. In fact, it specifically meets this one guideline... Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. GreenJoe 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect - and I do respect your opinion - I don't think it meets that guideline. While the material might be "relevant" to people choosing whether to attend the UoP or not, it's not relevant to and not appropriate for this article. It's akin to adding "Americasucks.net" or something similar to the United States article. Linking to a negative NY Times article is one thing; this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I suppose that I'm not going to fight this tooth and nail - and if this link is added, it should be in the main article with a paragraph explaining that there are different views on the quality of the university. "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially." Adding this site to the external links section gives this view undue weight, especially without a counter "UOPRules.com". Tan | 39 15:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See, I have no issue with both a pro and a con site, though I generally think of the "official" site as the UOPRules.com. However, if you know of such a site, I see no reason we cannot discuss its merits and inclusion in the EL section. As for "Americansucks.net" I'd generally refer you to Other Stuff Exists, that said, maybe that link should be in that article. Not everything for every company/entity is all daises and roses. In fact, when I visited UOPSucks.com they had a link to a site that has all kind of similar sits for all kinds of companies. Should they be included in the articles here? If the links still work, I generally think they should. That said, sometimes everyone has a site like that, and there can be more than one, when you only require one in the article. Then you have to discern which one to include. GreenJoe 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that UOPSucks.com, UOPRules.com (I like GreenJoe's argument that the UOP site is like a UOPrules.com site), and Americansucks.net should all be included as an external link in their respectful articles, assuming that the POV page is meaty enough, especially if the POV page is referenced in a reliable source somewhere. A Wikipedia external link is not intended to be an endorsement of any particular point of view. Including material from such a POV site in Wikipedia based on the POV site alone is another matter. An important service of Wikipedia is providing references to information, in this case it means just an external link instead of including material in the Wikipedia article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

External links are meant to enhance the article, give the reader something more to read if they wish. POV sites are specifically allowed because that's stuff you can't put in the article. External links are allowed to be POV. GreenJoe 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The link definitely should be included. UOPSucks.com has compiled tons of information (much of it from other reliable sources) completely dedicated to UOP. It is a valuable resource for anyone seeking information about UOP for any purpose. If UOPRules.com existed and had good substance I would approve of its inclusion as well. The fact that such a site doesn't exist does not mean that UOPSucks.com can't be mentioned. --Azmojo (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section & Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

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

Hi GreenJoe, CHEA is responsible for recognizing the legitimate accreditation agencies in the USA. Here's the CHEA link showing that AACSB is recognized. Regarding the prestige of AACSB, IIRC there is text in the article that I thought attested to that? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on that. Yes, AACSB is recognized, so it their competition, the accreditation that Phoenix does have. I don't agree that the article attests to the "prestige." It simply says that Intel dropped anyone not using AACSB, but that only shows they have "better" standards, or higher standards, it doesn't say anything to support the peacock term of "prestigious". GreenJoe 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a clear distinction between "prestigious" and a higher standard. Look at Harvard University for example. Even I'll admit they're "prestigious", of course that comes with a UoP-style tuition. However, no where have I seen that Harvard has a "higher standard." Of course the Harvard article is probably very-carefully watched, and probably doesn't use many peacock terms. (God, I sound like a Bank of America commercial now, LOL.) GreenJoe 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi GreenJoe, how about?

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

TallMagic (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG, someone's using a talk page!!! Let me check the temperature in Hell.... all kidding aside, I have a proposed re-word too....

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

00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC) GreenJoe

The blockquote I made above is from the New York Times article that I linked to. If you're not familar with AACSB, it is a very safe statement to say that AACSB is in fact the most prestigious accrediting agency for business schools. I would consider regional accreditation more recognized than AACSB, although I guess it could be argued that RA does not specialize business schools. TallMagic (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) TallMagic (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh, ok. Well I was bold and simply re-worded the statement. If it doesn't meet your satisfaction, I can give it some more thought. GreenJoe 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just learned that the UoP Associate & Baccalaureate/Graduate programs (including its MBA program) are now all accredited by the AACSB (as of earlier this year); see AACSB UoP and UoP Accreditation. I will be bold and remove this bullet, as it is no longer valid. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be nitpicky, but AACSB accreditation, and ACBSP are different organizations. AACSB is the more prestegious of the two, thus the point does still stand. GreenJoe 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Man...those acronyms are so similar. I reverted...thanks! --Eustress (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Your total bill for this issue comes to $139.95 plus tax. Please pay the cashier on your way out. GreenJoe 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Going for the silver!!

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

The criteria that we need to aim for:

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

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

3. Broad in coverage

4. It's neutral

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

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

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

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

[edit] UoP Stadium

I think something about University of Phoenix Stadium should be mentioned in this article, but not sure where. Any ideas? --Eustress (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the "see also" section? :) GreenJoe 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How about the sentence, "The University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona is a municipal sports arena, best known as the home of the NFL's Arizona Cardinals and the site of the NCAA's Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The University paid $154.5 million for 20 year naming rights for advertising purposes."? Which the last sentence of the History section? Perhaps the sentence should be moved? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe there should be a dedicated page just for the stadium to focus on the stadium. A line or two about the sponsorship on that page would be appropriate. --Azmojo (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree on this point. The stadium is related to UoP in sponsorship only. It should have it's own page. Chances are, like many of these stadiums -- it will change name in the future. Mike (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys, the stadium already does have its own article (see the University of Phoenix Stadium internal link above?). Anyway, TallMagic pointed out previously that the article already mentions it, so this case should be closed. --Eustress (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)