Talk:Walden University (Minnesota)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV?

This seems like an ad more than anything else. What about Doonesbury comics criticism?

A lot of these for-profit college articles are written by company shills. I've de-advertised it and brushed up its history as a part of my mission to create a solid category of for-profit colleges and universities. -- Bobak 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not a "company shills". I am a student at Walden. This is a 'real' university and even though you can get a PhD in two years (8 to 10 quarters min) it takes an average of 3 1/2 just like every other PhD in the world. You also have to already have a Masters degree to even apply for the PhD program. Volney 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you would say, "I am not a "company shill", not plural. Sorry, couldn't help it. -nyak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.100.118 (talk) 08:39, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
You would also say "Phoenix", not "Pheonix", and "know" instead of "now" as per your response below. You may want to search your own responses for spelling and grammatical errors before flaming others for theirs.61.23.191.40 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I also am wondering why they don't sue Doonesbury for defamation! Surely it can't be that weird! And Ph.Ds & Ed.Ds in 2 years--that seems a bit dodgy!/Theo Smythe

Who cares? Volney 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we add a Controversy section to detail these for-profit university and 2-year Phd concerns?

Why....?! There is no controversy. You can get a PhD at Harvard in 2 years and I do not see anyone making a fuss about that! Volney 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is significant controversy over Walden's practice that comes from a reliable source that can be referenced, it should be added. Obviously, references are important in any article on Wikipedia. However, concerns about for-profit universities in general should be placed in an article about for-profit universities, unless there is something specific about Walden that merits mention in the article. 61.23.191.82 23:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Volney 07:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd really doubt the quality of an online Ph.D. program. For example, is there really a rigorous set of qualifying exams? A preliminary exam? A defense of one's dissertation in front of real academic peers? A determination that the individual has really contributed a piece of new academic work? Publishing of articles to further review the work? Even the daily interaction with graduate students within and outside of your studies? I mean, saying "You also have to already have a Masters degree to even apply for the PhD program" -- oh gee, golly, really?!? Even talking about number of years so much, makes me doubt you are in a truly rigorous academic program; sorry to break it to ya. But I'm sure all the Walden graduates proudly put Dr. in front of their name anyhow. You now, somehow I can't remember ever seeing a professor or researcher at a top institution coming from these dodgy places like Walden, University of Pheonix, etc. Well, I'm sure it is just bias and jealousy... hah. -nyak
If you have any references that back up your claims, please share them. Arguing over hearsay and opinion is pointless. I myself would be interested to know how distance education stacks up against traditional face-to-face education, and factual comparisons would make a greater contribution to the discussion than nay-saying.61.23.191.40 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What shill wrote this article? They started granting diplomas a decade before they were accredited, ran their so-called school out of a hotel, and are now trying to pass themselves off as a school with a good historical history. How about a Controversy section devoted to their spam advertising, use of misleading ads on websites, or the fact that they refuse to release any information on their graduation rate, post-graduation employment rate, school GPA.... ...this article offers no fair POV and reeks of corporate influence. brythonic 11:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --ElKevbo (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The antidote for a POV is not to take on a POV in the opposite direction. The antidote for a POV is a well-written argument punctuated with references that clearly support the arguments being made. Unfortunately, the current revision is just another POV, with citations that are unclear at best, erroneous and misleading at worst.60.62.204.62 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First a disclaimer: I am currently a student at Walden University so you are getting an inside viewpoint. Despite the fact that more and more universities are offering distance learning opportunities, there still exists a prejudice against “on-line” programs. Like traditional colleges, there are good ones and bad ones. Distance learning institutions are no different. Not all distant learning institutions are good; but neither are they all bad. If you only consider the “bad” ones you will have a misconception of the program options.

Similar to traditional colleges, it is up to the student to choose wisely. Only time will correct this misconception. College programs are accredited just to forestall these preconceptions.

As to my specific program, the term “online” is only partially correct. My core classes are all held online and take about two years to complete. However I will also have to take a minimum of 160 hours of in-classroom study. This will be followed up by three separate independent study projects (each with its own thesis) and will end with a separate traditional dissertation which will be defended in front of an academic review panel. Other than the initial core classes being held on-line, there are relatively few differences between the Walden doctorate program and a more traditional doctorate program.

I too laugh at the claims that someone can complete the doctorate program at Walden in two years. I have not heard of any of my classmates being able to accomplish this. Honestly I doubt it is realistically possible. My doctorate program will take between 3-4 years including the dissertation. This interval matches up with many other institutions.

Will my doctorate from Walden be the same as doctorate from CalTech, MIT, or Harvard? Probably not. However, I do not have an opportunity to attend these colleges nor could I afford to be a full time traditional student. Like many of today’s students, I have a full time job and need an academic program that has flexibility around my work schedule. With a distance learning program, I have the flexibility to do my school work at 0200 if necessary.

So to all the posters who feel superior about attending a traditional college, I wish you only the best. There is no need to denigrate distance learning programs. If you do not feel they are appropriate for you, then don’t enroll in a distance learning program. There are still plenty of traditional colleges out there. But more and more of the traditional colleges are recognizing the value of distance learning. In the future more and more students will be graduating from accredited distance learning programs. And there is nothing wrong with that. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Walden University is no longer a for-profit institution. Laureate Education, Inc. is now Laureate Foundation, Inc... a 501(c)(3) corporation. We are NON-PROFIT... which allows us to receive more research funding and strengthens our mission of student centeredness.... on top of that... more full time faculty... and an opportunity to get tenured faculty. We're definitely moving in the right direction! Please update this. You can go to foundationcenters.org and find the recent tax filings for Laureate Foundation, Inc.... also, we have 3 peer reviewed journals... not two. We have one through the College of Behavorial, Health, and Social Sciences. Grizzell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.238.72 (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It recently appeared in The Chronicle that Walden University's College of Education is now the Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership. ( http://chronicle.com/news/article/?id=3793 or http://www.waldenu.edu/c/About/About_13305.htm ). In addition to Walden's bachelor completion program, Walden University now offers a fully only earned BS in Business Administration program. The program targets working adults who are at least 24 years of age. The program has an expected completion of 4.5 years and is about 181 credit hours. ( http://www.waldenu.edu/c/About/About_12748.htm ). Please update these on the page. Grizz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.238.72 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a verifiable source for the proposition that Walden University is non-profit?Mysteryquest 11:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Laureate Education is traded on the Berlin and Munic stock exchanges as well as the NASDAQ under the symbol LAUR. Spellmanloves67 03:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Walden u.jpg

Image:Walden u.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walden University, Tennessee

There was a Walden University (now defunct) operating out of Nashville, Tennessee (1868-1925). I have written an article on this: Walden University (Tennessee) & suggest that as there are now 2 Walden University articles on Wikipedia, that this one be moved to a page titled Walden University (Minnesota) or similar. JCrocombe (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the other institution is no longer in existence and thus it's exceedingly unlikely that someone will search for "Walden University" and expect to read about it, I don't think it's necessary to change this into a dab page and move this article. I will, however, move this article to Walden University (Minnesota) and make Walden University a redirect to that new article. Thanks for creating the other article and letting us know about it! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

The references to the alleged controversies in Walden are a little thin. I'm not sure that they support the text. For example, the reference supporting the proposition that Walden conferred degrees 20 years before they were accredited is not supported by the reference, perhaps there needs to be some elaboration. Also, the U.S. World Report reference goes to a blank page, is that the intention? If so there needs to be elaboration, by saying, for example, that they are not listed. The reference that purports to state that they refuse to report their graduation rates, etc. does not indicate that. Again, the text needs to be more specific as to how sources support the allegations.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are certain weasel-words that require fixing as well, such as the phrase "They refuse", which indicates intention to conceal, and that is not clear from the reference given. The same criticism can be held for, "it has led some to claim that ..." without any reference to who is making the claims. 60.62.204.62 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The fixes in the controversy section improve the article somewhat, but I am not sure that a controversy section is even necessary. There does not seem to be any strong criticism of Walden from any reputable sources outside the article itself, and none of the references link to to anything "controversial". Instead, what is happening is advancing an opinion by referring to sources that do not directly make the same conclusions made in the article. This is the case with both the criticisms and the rebuttals. My suggestion is to remove the controversies section entirely until a credible controversy of Walden University actually arises outside the domain of the Wikipedia article. After all, no original research. 60.62.204.62 (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed the entire section. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)