Talk:University Canada West

The problem with this discussion so far

I really have to ask this to the critics. I'm really asking a question, not making an accusation. Here is a fact: In real life, CDI, Kingston College, and Reeves College are openly accused of fraud, and there are even ongoing lawsuits and indictment against them, in addition to real testimonials from students describing horror stories, and yet their Wikipedia pages have no comment regarding them being scams; it's a few paragraphs at best. UCW has no lawsuits, accusations, or horror stories from graduates, yet this page has a very extensive accusation of it being a "scam." That's very striking, actually. My question would be: why didn't you criticize CDI, Kingston, and Reeves colleges? One of you said that you were interested in protecting prospective students, so why did you leave CDI, Kingston, and Reeves alone?

Also, those of you posting from 35.11.156.74, 35.11.156.175, 35.11.210.59, 99.225.160.205, and others, I'm just wondering; it's just that, can I please ask about who you are? Please understand that I'm just wondering and sincerely wishing to hear your view point. By "who you are," I mean, for example, did you graduate from UCW? Did you work at UCW? Which schools did you go to? What are your occupations?

Anyway those two questions are my main concerns. If you could address them, I would appreciate it.

These points are not important, but I do think about them:

• One thing I'm interested in is the thoughts of "scam" itself. I understand very well that this fits (or can fit) the definition "crappy" school, but shouldn't a scam actually involve a scheme of taking money and running away with it? Isn't there a difference between a crappy school and a scam?

I mean, why did you start with "scam," instead of starting with "the school doesn't work" initially and discussing "scam" issue afterward?

• There are some very interesting fact checks from this debate.

For example, Ingoman is accused of working there, despite that a "James Dahl" in Vancouver is not working in UCW; what is very interesting is that the critic miss an obvious fact that RaPatterson can be very easily searched in the net and reveals very obviously info that he does work in UCW, but the critics did not mention this. Why would a critic miss an important fact like that?

• I'm interested in what you meant by "clearly working there." My concern about this point is that there is no correlation between being a UCW employee and being biased in defending UCW, because of this: an employee can actually speaks very negatively about his workplace, while a non-employee can actually be very biased in supporting an organization. In fact, there is an actual forum posting in the internet of a former UCW employee speaking badly about it. How did the critic in this page miss that page? And, why did the critic in this page starts with "clearly working there," and did not start with "clearly biased in supporting UCW?"

Also, why did the posting here says that Ingoman to be "clearly working there," and not emphasizing it on RaPatterson?

• Also, there is a mention of UCW being located in an office building in Vancouver, yet it misses to mention that there is a location in Victoria which is not an office building, but instead is a campus, even if crummy. Was the poster not aware that there is a location in Victoria that isn't an office building? Why wasn't that mentioned? Why would a critic miss an important fact like that?
• For this point, I'm most confused with. Even if UCW cannot send transfer credits, why would that make it automatically a scam? Isn't it possible that an institution only accepts credits yet does not engage in illegal fraudulent operation? Why isn't that possible?

Let's say that there is a new public school that offers professional degrees, (defined in academics as degrees requiring undergraduate credits, yet does not transfer to graduate degrees.) Would that public school then automatically be illegal and fraudulent? If so, why would that be? This would be the logic: if an institution only accepts credits, then the institution is engaging in illegal fraudulent operation. An ice cream truck is a crummy operation; if I want quality ice cream, I'd go to a Gelato parlor. Is an ice cream truck a scam? Many cafes in downtown Vancouver are crummy; if I want quality dining, I'd go to bigger restaurants in the surrounding areas. Are those cafes scams? Grouse is a really inferior ski run in comparison to Whistler. Is Grouse a scam?

• Also, why would a mediocre institution be automatically termed diploma mill? There is a real definition of a diploma mill, which is an institution that offers unauthorized degrees without class attendance. UCW obviously has classes. Why did you call it a diploma mill?
• There are just so many interesting things in this discussion: CDI that has real lawsuits is not criticized, yet UCW who doesn't have any is given lengthy criticism in this page. The criticism starts with "scam" instead of "mediocre" or "doesn't work." I can track the real-life identity of RaPatterson and Ingoman, yet 35.11.156.74, 35.11.156.175, 35.11.210.59, 99.225.160.205 uses IP addresses and not mentioning their real identity, or even non-personal identity. Why? Why didn't those people mention who they are? (I'm also concerned that if they read this, will they post an imaginary identity.) Also, the critics seem to start with a scenario instead of synthesizing from facts.
• Here are some possibilities I can think of:

1. The critics are people with some form of personality disorders; they hold certain fantasy of playing the role of prosecutors, or they simply engage in accusations of everything being a scam. Given the anonymity of the internet, they utilize Wikipedia to feel better about their fantasy.
2. The critics are very young people or frivolous people who are not serious about their criticism and possibly embarrassed with their own postings afterward.
3. The critics are scammers, and that's how their first impression of everything is a scam, and they could not conceive the idea of something being honest-but-mediocre. Then, they possibly channel their guilt of scamming by readily accusing others of scamming.
4. Since the critics attack UCW and not others, the critics are actually employees of other private schools in BC, (who possibly engage in scams.) Hence, they don't attack the other schools. This make even more sense that they critics do not thoroughly track UCW. This also makes sense, since they don't give out their real identities.
5. A benevolent possibility is that the critics are Vancouver residents who are wary of private schools and readily accuse the schools of frauds, instead of mediocrity. However, this does not fit the fact that they left CDI, Kingston, and Reeves alone.
6. The critics are just simply irrational people.
7. Any combination of the above.

If UCW engages in illegal and intentional fraud, I'd like to know about that. However, the way the accusations are drawn here (so irrational, holes in the research, missing too many obvious and important info, etc,) will only weaken any possible proof, by proving that the critics can't be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudes-seriously (talk • contribs) 06:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Article problems

I think the article is full of POV and factual problems, such as the C- average issue. Ardenn 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the rest of the article's factuality, but the C- average "citation" is here: http://www.universitycanadawest.ca/aboutucw/ The list of their 6 majors are here http://www.universitycanadawest.ca/academics/degreesug.html where you can also see that they are distinctly vocational trainig-type programs, not academic ones. If those are the only "POV and factual problems" you have with the article, you must admit you were exaggerating when you said it was "full" of them. Just being honest. Veritasophia 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit it was a bit exaggirated, but C- sounds bad, and there are international differences on what that may mean. I'll try to rephrase it. Ardenn 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A 65% is a C- in Canada. I actually went with the letter grade as opposed to the percentage, becasue a 65% in the states is a D. But to be honest, the fact that a C- GPA is all that is required to attend a university does not speak very highly of its academic standards. This is descriptive information about the university that people may be interested to know. It is the factual way of saying "it is not very competitive". Make sense? Veritasophia 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Wikipedia is a international, and the University itself uses 65%, so that's what should be in the article. If Americans inteript it to be a D, so be it. That's factual, C- is not. Ardenn 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, they do use letter grades, so C- would be factual, but I am okay with saying 65%. The way you wrote it, "admissions average of 65%" however, makes it sound like they admit 65% of applicants, which is not true. If you want, you can think of a way to say it, but that way is misleading. "admissions requirement of 65%" might work? Something to make it clear we are talking about grades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasophia (talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 May 2006

This article is clearly written by the University Canada West. I am making changes to point out that there have been criticisms in the past, and that it is a for profit university with a grossly expensive tuition in relation to Canada's public universities. I have also noted they do not conduct research, and I have referenced that. This school is a scam, and wikipedia users should be warned against enrolling in it, after being deceived that it is a legitimate institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why you feel the school is a "scam"? I am a graduate from the University and don't understand your point of view. Yes the school is more expensive, but if you can afford it and want to finish your degree faster, why wouldn't you choose this option? I am not pointing fingers or calling names I am simply asking why you feel it is a scam? Private universities are abundant all over the world, Canada is simply behind the times. Harvard and Yale are both private universities, are these schools a scam as well because they charge more than their public counterparts? --RaPatterson (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because... I want to warn students not to attend this clown college. If you are a student with poor high school grades and need to study online why not pick Athabsca or TRU, not this for profit office building college that will make employers laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to see that you have no evidence to back up your claims, and that it is purely your opinion. My profs were the same as when I was attending another post secondary institution, so I find your clown college analogy entertaining. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but baseless name calling is uncalled for. Have a great day.--RaPatterson (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a for profit university, and the poster right below my post deleted the criticisms section it leads me to believe that you are an employee of this school, so your neutrality is not legitimate. This school has its criticisms, and also there seems to be apologies written in the article.... very sketcy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.139 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are an alumni of this school I feel very, very sorry for you. How could you spend 40 thousand on a degree not even on par to Athabasca, which would have cost you half that, and made you look more legitimate to employers. Also I checked up on the legitimacy of for profit education in Canada; and guess what if you wanted to you could never attend law school or any masters programs with a degree from there because public universities dont recognize it. Basically this school is an incognito everest college. - What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything from the article or the discussion. I have not added anything to the article itself, I have simply stated my own opinion on my experience at the school in the discussion. And as an alumni I do not see a problem with that. --RaPatterson (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way RAApatterson schools like Harvard and Yale which you mentioned in a post below are private, yes, but ARE NOT FOR PROFIT. Comparing a sister school of everest TTTT college to Harvard makes your argument insane, and anyone reading this will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngmann (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 July 2009

Fair use rationale for Image:Ucw logo.gif

Image:Ucw logo.gif 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) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation

I've added "unaccredited" to the lead, there is no sign of accreditation for this school, and no university in Canada accepts transfer credits from this school. The school's webpage says they are accredited, because they have permission from the province to call themselves a "university", but this is not at all the same thing as accreditation. For example New Brunswick, at least at one time, had no regulations at all about what sort of institution could call itself a university. But there are still accredited institutions in New Brunswick; governments are not in charge of accreditation. Hairhorn (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm trying to make sense of accreditation in Canada. Looks like there is a professional accreditation system, but no national university accreditation system (See http://www.schoolsincanada.com/University-Accreditation-In-Canada.cfm). --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Educational accreditation#Canada states, "membership in the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada along with the provincial charter is considered de facto accreditation." The reference there has more information. --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not a simple issue. Editors need to be careful that they're not doing original research. I'd guess that this issue has been addressed in articles on other Canadian universities. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The more that I read, the more I'm concerned that this is original research. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There are universities that accept transfer credits from University Canada West, but the relationships are all bilateral in Canada and some do and some don't. My wife couldn't use her credits from the University of Western Australia when she transferred to UBC this year, does that mean UWA is unacreditted? They're good enough for DQAB, and that's good enough for me. To be honest, Canada could use a better system for transferring credits as the current system is a patchwork of credit transfer agreements. Ingoman (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The references states no university in Canada accepts transfer from this diploma mill. Wikipedia is not an advertising source for private for profit career colleges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.138.205 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW- what makes this more laughable is that the refrence states you can transfer in credits (that would be good for their for profit business model) but outside schools will not allow credits from this school to be applied to them.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and thus a neutral point of view must be maintained. This means advertising AND pushing an agenda are to be avoided. Without articulation agreements you can still transfer from provincially approved programs on a case by case basis. That sucks if your case by case basis is "no", but I'm tired of the overzealous on both sides here. Ingoman (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly an employee. YOU CANNOT TRANSFER TO ANY OTHER SCHOOL FROM HERE - THE REFERENCE STATES THIS. There is no case by case basis. It is not accredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.138.205 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Anf you should stop making unfounded/unproven accusations and refrain from YELLING at other people. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of you people in my Wikipedia, you give the encyclopaedia a bad name. If you want to turn my copyedit and fact checking into an edit war that's fine. Ingoman (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the NPOV tag and added an WP:OR tag as well. I suggest getting help at WP:NPOVN. If this edit-warring continues, you could be both be blocked per WP:3RR. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ta-da

I reworded the whole deal a bit. I fail to see hhow *this* current version could possibly be POV. Where there any other issues? Seb az86556 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "unaccredited" is missing again is troublesome. This is not a diploma mill listing service. Hairhorn (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I'm assuming anyone who's considering enrollment at a university (or whatever you want to call it) is literate enough to get this out of the prose, without having to rely on the keyword "unaccredited"... but ok, since we're in the age of illiteracy, let's try again. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Better? Seb az86556 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright I think we've got a pretty neutral tone but all the information, I'm going to see if we can keep it that way. Ingoman (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ingroman - Its clear you work at this diploma mill. Lets face it, this school is preying on teh weak. They adverstise very heavily, and unsuspecting young people may thinik this is a legit school. It is not..... imagine spending over 100,000$ and working for 3 years and not being able to get into graduate schools after graduating from this office building career college. Its unique in that you cannot transfer credits out, it is fro profit, and the parent company has a terrible history of scamming the unemployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My nickname is Ingoman, it's not very difficult to spell. My issue is mainly twofold: 1) you are slandering acquaintances of mine and distorting the truth, and 2) you obviously have an agenda. Wikipedia is not an arena in which to pursue your agenda, and attacking me is not going to help you. I have tried to work with you to resolve this, something you have no interest in, and you have taken the 'my way or the highway' approach. I am beginning to suspect you of nefarious motives. Ingoman (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL you do work there - what a joke. No agenda, I just want the weak you people prey on to be informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

copy and paste any reference that states other Canadian universities take credits from this diploma mill, and I will stop deleting your contribs on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The programs are provincially approved for credit transfer, and you made the claim that you cannot transfer credits, you are asking me to prove a negative. Show me an article that says you can't. Ingoman (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On the bc trasnfer credit guide none of the real universities list you as a school you can transfer credits from. Why would a university like UBC allow this diploma mill credit? The website for UCAN even says they give credit for life experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You can complain and degrade the school all you like, but you are posting deliberately misleading information in the article. I don't know why you are, but you are. Ingoman (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please copy and paste a single source that says you can transfer credits out to other universities. AS soon as that is done the edit war will stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof

As I am tired of seeing ridiculous edit-summaries and a bizarre history of changes, at this point it is the requirement to provide PROOF from reliable sources outside of the "university" that other post-secondary institution do, in fact, transfer credits from this school. Failure to do so will ensure that the information is immediately removed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of original research and NPOV problems

From what I've been able to make out, as I discussed above, any mention of "accreditation" in the article is original research and should be removed.

Any mention of whether or not credits can be transferred needs to be sourced, otherwise the information should be removed per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. I don't see any such sources currently in the article. Am I missing something? Did used to have such sources and they were removed?

Likewise, the entire "Lack of Research" section appears to be original research.

The "Criticism" section, based only on a single reference at this point, needs to be trimmed down per WP:UNDUE. It needs to be rewritten as well to fit this article. Basically, it should just summarize the single reference with the appropriate context so that it fits in the article.

The lede section should summarize the entire article per WP:LEDE. Until we can come to an agreement on the article as a whole, I don't think it's worth our time to change it other than remove any disputed information.

I'm unable to find a source for the school motto, but the Latin word is "tentanda" not "tenttanda".

I don't understand what the dispute is over the information in the "Purchase by the Eminata Group" section. However, if the information cannot be verified with a reliable source, then it's probably not worth mentioning. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Diploma Mill?

There needs to be something that states this university is unique in Canada in that all the other universities do not recognize it. The company runs a similar diploma mill called everest college. This school is in a office building, and the only reason why it exists in British Columbia is because that is the only province that is liberal with the word "university" - I would hate for students from Asia (who this school advertised heavily too) to pay the big bucks and study for a year and only after paying find out the school is a scam. Thats why when future students ponder this school, and look it up on wiki, wiki should mention something that the school borders on a scam, and is seemingly a diploma mill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources? If not, then the information is probably not suitable for this article per WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Everest College is not owned by the Eminata Group, nor has UCW ever been owned by Corinthian Colleges, there is no connection between these schools at all. Ingoman (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

The article will become unprotected shortly now. Hopefully we can work together without edit-warring. Otherwise blocks and page protection will be longer next time.

If we can all follow WP:DR, with an eye to WP:BRD and WP:ROWN, then we should be able to make some good progress. The inline tags ({{fact}}, {{syn}}, {{or}}, {{fv}}, {{dubious}}, and {{rs}} might be helpful with this. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is once again protected from editing. Please discuss the problems and provide reliable sources to support any changes.

It may be helpful to reference the tagged version of 35.11.156.74's last edits that I made here. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Purchase by the Eminata Group

I've removed this section [1] because the only source is a press-release. If there are no secondary sources available, then I don't think it's worth mentioning. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oversight vs Accreditation

I've restored [2] Ingoman's rewrite of the Accreditation section. It avoids the WP:SYN and WP:NPOV problems caused by not having any references specifically about accreditation other than that by UCW itself. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

school status

University Canada West appears to not be accredited under the uniform association of Canadian universities (AUCC) and it is for profit, which is unique. Also British Columbia is the only province that allows the term "university" to be labeled to non research, for profit institutions. The "university" is housed in an office building, and costs significantly more than other schools. It smells like a ITT tech or Everst college type school to me. This school seems like a scam. Wiki users need to know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"This school seems like a scam." We don't write articles based upon editors' opinions. If this cannot be referenced, it will be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

" approved by the Degree Quality Assessment Board."

... This is a rather empty and possibly misleading claim; this board does little more than permit an institution to use the word "University". Hairhorn (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, especially when sourced by UCW's website. I think we need to include the fact of their status with DQAB in the article and in the lede section. However, we need to present the information neutrally.

Likewise, I think it would be helpful to include information in the article about UCW not being member of Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and why that is important. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the reference that states UCAN participates in the BC transfer system only states you can transfer in, but not out (look deeper into whole refeence). Basically another piece of evidence pointing to this school as a scam.

Im from Canada, and this school is the only for profit "university" in the country. It has no campus (other than an office building) and conducts zero research. You cant apply to, for example a law school in Canada with a degree from this school because LSAC wont recognize because it is not in teh AUCC. The degree quality assessment board is a joke. As of now, the wiki page is an advertismsent for the school. This school will prey on the weak, and only after they gave graduated will they realize they wasted a considerable amount of money. Please research more, the wiki page needs to say something about other universities not recognizing this diploma mill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

UCW is hardly unique, there are several 'for profit' Universities in Canada. All degree granting rights are issued by the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development, via recommendations from the Degree Quality Assessment Board or through similar agencies and associations such as the AUCC. Neither has the right to determine accreditation, only the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development does, though he usually follows their recommendations. The fellow attacking the school has implied that AUCC membership is required to transfer credits from one school to the next, this is not only not the case but incorrect even between AUCC members, who do not automatically have articulation agreements with each other for all or even any programs, and a case-by-case basis for transferral of credits is no different than from UCW. As for the DQAB being a 'joke', everyone instituting a new degree in British Columbia makes an application to them, from UBC and SFU all the way down to lowly UCW. Ingoman (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a handful of for-profit institutions in Canada calling themselves "universities", but they are generally well outside of the usual definition of university, in that they have no grad programs and do no research. ("Lansbridge University" doesn't even have a campus, UCW only has an office building.) None of the main Canadian universities are for-profit. The public university/private university distinction is not at all like that in the United States. Hairhorn (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is precisely why institutions like UBC or Toronto do not accept credits from these mills. Their education standards are light years away. The wiki page should state this so un informed students dont accidentally enroll there. Basically the school is a career college that is alowed to use the word "university." For example, grad, medical, business, and law schools do not recognize degrees from this school. The school is thus a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I've added "unaccredited" to the lead of this article more times than I care to count... Hairhorn (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And without proper sourcing, it doesn't belong in the lede per WP:LEDE. Without better sources, it probably doesn't belong anywhere in the article per WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, the current lead doens't pass WP:RS... 16:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be called unacredited because there are no sources that say it accredited . Again, the AUCC does not recognize it. When foreighn schools look at transcripts from Canada they ask if it is AUCC recognized, not Degree Quality Assesment board recognized.

Also, the BC transfer guide says you cannot transfer credits out of this mill. That needs to be changed on this site. Geee I hope a student does not read this locked wiki page and think this school is legit. It is such a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.74 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"It should be called unacredited" Sorry, no. Sources must be provided for the information we add. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what's a more neutral and descriptive word we can use to replace "approved"? --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Researching further, "approved" isn't too far from the mark. "The The Degree Quality Assessment Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development on applications for use of the word “university” submitted by private and out-of-province public post-secondary institutions." [3] Still, I think we should avoid making it sound like its anything more than that. Additionally, the lack of AUCC membership is a more important issue. I wish we had more refs on AUCC and UCW so it would be easier to work through the WP:SYN and WP:NPOV issues. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect on all counts, the AUCC is an association of universities, not a board of accreditation. From the AUCC's website: The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is the voice of Canada's universities. We represent 94 Canadian public and private not-for-profit universities and university-degree level colleges. Since 1911, we have provided strong and effective representation for our members, in Canada and abroad. Our mandate is to facilitate the development of public policy on higher education and to encourage cooperation among universities and governments, industry, communities, and institutions in other countries. We provide services to member universities in three main areas: public policy and advocacy, communications, research and information-sharing, scholarships and international programs. Not all public universities are members of the AUCC and many private universities are. UCW has a small graduate school program as well. All these facts are publicly available information, so I can only determine a deliberate agenda in attacking the school. Ingoman (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Incorrect on all counts" I don't understand. What is incorrect?

As I previously mentioned, I think AUCC membership, or the lack of it, is important per Educational_accreditation#Canada. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't referring specifically to you, but rather the broad claim that AUCC membership signifies anything. UCW programs have been approved by the provincial government, and their degrees have been determined to meet all quality requirements by all regulatory agencies and oversight boards and committees, the same oversight that UBC is subject to. The AUCC is an advocacy association and has nothing to do with degree granting or credit transfer or any of the other issues discussed above. If you don't believe me go to their website : http://www.aucc.ca/. Ingoman (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a source stating otherwise in Educational_accreditation#Canada. It's not the best source by any means, but I don't see anything at aucc.ca that is contradictory. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read the article cited, and while it poses a nuanced interpretation of accreditation, IE that the AUCC's self-regulation equates to a 'de-facto' accreditation system, this ignores the fact that there are unofficial and official tiers in regards to 'diploma value', especially in British Columbia. For instance, there are the 4 Universities that in British Columbia are considered "traditional" universities, which in British Columbia are on the highest "tier", these are UBC, SFU, UVic and UNBC. In the middle tier are schools that are not honored thus as "traditional" in law, but are AUCC members, such as Kwantlen College (after 2008), University of the Fraser Valley, etc. UCW is in this tier as far as the provincial government is concerned, or else they would be "University College Canada West" (Kwantlen was only upgraded from University College to University last year). The issues barring UCW from AUCC membership have to do with governance, not degree quality or 'accreditation', and the criticisms listed at the bottom of the article are the primary issue. The biggest issue of all however is the simple fact that UCW passed the requisite requirements to be a University without assistance from AUCC, which is somewhat unheard of. There are many University Colleges and Colleges that are private and for-profit, but UCW is the first to achieve University status. AUCC membership is considered a requirement for some nursing programs and a few universities will only accept credits from AUCC institutions, but for a long time there was no such thing as a non-AUCC university, so we shall see how things develop as UCW grows. Ingoman (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, it is impossible for UCW for instance to become a member of AUCC regardless of their academic credentials, as AUCC membership requires an institution to be run on a not-for-profit basis. No matter how good UCW is as a university it cannot be an AUCC member. AUCC membership as a yardstick for degree accreditation has several such flaws. Ingoman (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. AUCC shouldn't be mentioned then. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue, to distill it down to the root, is that many in the academic community refuse to believe that a for-profit university that is corporately-governed could possibly have the same quality of degrees as a not-for-profit university that has more traditional governance. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but British Columbia's regulatory oversight is comprehensive, to the extent that UCW is something of an abberation as very few for-profit institutions (and none in BC until UCW) have ever achieved this level of degree granting. Obviously, many of the aforementioned academics do not appreciate the challenge to the existing order. Ingoman (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that Ingroman works for this diploma mill

Also note no universities in Canada accept credits from the school. The AUCC distinguishes this.

Looks like this will be interesting where this will go, I for one will make sure this page does not turn into an ad for this clown college. Students need to know how sketchy this "school" is.

Also note that no university in Canada will accept students into their respective graduate programs from this diploma mill. Ingroman clearly has an agenda.

Also the page needs a section stating it conducts no research. The lack of AUCC accredit should also be mentioned, with an emphasis on teh fact you cant transfer credits out or apply to graduate school from this school. - Basically the page should warn students that this diploma mill carries none of the partnership all other schools in canada do. This is not on a "case by case" (as UCW employee has stated) basis. The AUCC is the body that controls this, and it does not allow diploma mills in "on a case by case basis" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.175 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 August 2009

Actually no, the dean of every university has the right to determine which degrees, courses and programs can transfer credits from one program to the next or to qualify for graduate school, not the AUCC. Kwantlen University is a member of the AUCC, and it was a University College only last year, and I recall many similar statements about Kwantlen and University Colleges about being BS and not worth the paper they're written on, though I suppose now that Kwantlen finally passed the DQAB certification for University status now their degrees are plated in gold. Give me a break. Ingoman (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Above was written by an employee of UCW. BTW post a copy of reference here that says ONE university in Canada will take credits from this clown college. Also post one refrence that a university in Canada will recognize it as a degree approved fro grad school. Post one refrence and Ill never come here and change anything again. One reference... thats it. One reference. The company you work for is a scam. This school is scam. It gives out Bachelors degrees but they are useless. They are not recognized, and they cost double. What person would go here? Athabasca for example has the same entrance requirements, yet is a member of all appropriate associations and costs much less. Your school is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.156.175 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well here is a list of every school that University of Waterloo considers a university in Canada, and links to other international lists, though even if you're transferring from an institution not even on the list you could probably work something out with the dean, UCW is on the list. U of Waterloo list. U of Waterloo accepts transfer of credits from Colleges and even Bible Colleges and is a AUCC member. Ingoman (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

U of Winnipeg also lists UCW on it's listing of graduate schools. U of Winnipeg. Ingoman (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's from a 20 minute google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoman (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 August 2009

HA. This prooves the schools dont accept credits from this clown college. The waterloo site lists all colleges and universities in canada, and even posts asterixes beside ones who can transfer credits out of, and colleges with university credits. UCW is not on teh list. No body wants credits from your clown college. The lack of AUCC credit will thus appear on this wiki, and it will also spell out the implications for not being a member; which basically is that credits from this school are not transferable like all other AUCC school credits. Also the LSAC site does not list your dimploma mill as a school apporved fro entry into law school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.210.59 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The asterisks at the Waterloo site indicate AUCC membership, and has absolutely nothing to do with transfer credits. A lack of understanding of what it means to be a AUCC member and why UCW cannot be one will never justify anything like what is being proposed by this ip. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he understands quite well what being an AUCC member university entails, nor is he particularily interested in debating the facts. Ingoman (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If he continues to disrupt this talk page, or starts disrupting the article again once it's unprotected, he'll be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Find sources if you want to change the article

I hope that's plain enough. See WP:V for the details. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a part of BC Transfer System

http://www.bccat.bc.ca/transfer/index.cfm

Scam, scam, scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.210.59 (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to that page just now, and it literally lists Canada West there. http://www.bccat.bc.ca/transfer/ucan.cfm You know, I really appreciate accurate and insightful criticism, especially on an issue that needs weighed considerations like Canada West, but your post has been a tad too passionate. Normally, people look at all the facts, then state their conclusions on the facts, but you seem to start from the conclusion and makes effort to find proof to support it. You clearly have emotional investment as opposed to drawing conclusions from the fact. Look, this is an issue that needs deliberations. It's not about whether CanWest is good or bad, but it's about getting the details accurate, so the readers will benefit from it. It's not about whether this institution is absolutely fine or absolutely a scam, but about where EXACTLY it is in the scam-fine continuum. User from 35.11.210.59, you're too interested in one extreme, and because of that, you're just as helpful as a supposed CanWest employee in this issue. Also, note that there is a big difference between a scam and crap. It's pretty reasonable to say that Canada West is crap, but a scam is a different matter. There is also a difference between a diploma mill and a crappy school. CanWest seems to be a crappy school (due to age, size, etc,) but since it has classes to attend, it's not technically a diploma mill. Just stop acting like that. Talk and post what you have to say, but don't act like that; typing "scam, scam, scam." (Worse yet, when your own source contradicts your point.) Just type and post well; we all want to hear what you have to say anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudes-seriously (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertising? (Recent edit-warring)

Please explain the claim of "advertising" brought up in the latest round of edit-warring. Yes, the article is poorly sourced, and relies too heavily upon UCW's own publications. Still, the article is small and no one is claiming that the information is not verifiable. I'm happy to help if someone wants to argue that there should be further editing to meet WP:NPOV or WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Throughout this entire talk section, I cannot help but see opinions and arguments with inadequate sourcing and context. I am new to being a Wikipedia member and editor, but it is easy for an educated person to identify solid research. Because there is so much controversy surrounding this small university's status and motives, I want to make it my personal goal to help get to the roots of these problems. It does not seem as though it should really be this difficult to provide accurate and neutral information regarding the existence and offerings (or lack thereof) of such a small university. I would like to begin by rigorously tackling the very apparent issues of legitimacy. I believe this would be a great beginning to my Wikipedia editing career.

Ronz, or anyone else able and serious, I would be happy to take advantage of the help and experience you offer because you have consistently been a voice of reason on these issues. I am able to dedicate my time mainly to research. If you could help with editing my work, I would be grateful. I will submit some of my efforts over the next few days, but it seems this page is semi-locked, so I suppose someone can inform me if I would actually have to make 10 edits on other pages first. Signed, questforneutrality Questforneutrality (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You will need to become autoconfirmed to edit this article - you certainly would not want to be considered an WP:SPA :-) You are always welcome to suggest changes on this talkpage first, in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS. If it has not already been done, I'll drop a set of rules, policies and tips on your own talkpage - one of them might include "don't reply to 8 month old talkpage posts" :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is approved by the Degree Quality Assessment Board

See discussion above. If you think this is incorrect, please explain. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not an accreditation body, as has been pointed out. The only accreditation I see is from a non-university body, and applies only to "University Canada West Academies", which does not include any university degree programs, only diploma programs for training in health, business and IT. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See discussion above. As far as anyone has shown, to label it "unaccredited" is original research, if not simply inaccurate. --Ronz (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the link above, I started that thread. There is no evidence that any degree program here is accredited, and there is evidence against it. Calling this school what is it hardly counts as "original research". Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. You never responded to any of the discussion there. Will you now?

There is no national university accreditation system in Canada, correct? That means any unqualified statements like "(UCW) is a private unaccredited for-profit educational institution" are inaccurate, correct? --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

UCW is not accredited by any of the bodies accrediting universities in Canada. It's moot whether there is one body or a dozen. Hairhorn (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, neither are any other universities in Canada. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No universities are accredited? Eh? University programs are accredited, UCW has no university level programs with accreditation. Hairhorn (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go. That qualification has fewer problems. As I understand it, though, they don't offer any programs that could be accredited. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

They quite clearly claim to offer degree programs, none are accredited. Hairhorn (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If none could be accredited, if the UCW doesn't have programs in areas that are accredited in Canada, then it's irrelevant if not misleading. It would violate WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV to add such a statement. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Its relevant because it would be misleading not to have it. This is because it is called a "university" and yet it it is not accredited (check the original reference I posted). This should be very important for people looking for info on the school. In Canada a university is a prestigious thing, this thing is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 August 2010

Thanks for participating in this discussion.

The reference does not say it is unaccredited. Do you understand the discussions above on accreditation in Canada? --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference is the body that accredits universitys In Canada, UCW is not listed; therefore . . .

"The reference is the body that accredits universitys In Canada" No, it is not. Again, do you understand the accreditation system in Canada? --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. Find me something that is if you think it isnt. Or just google "university accreditation in Canada" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on you to prove it. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be best to get some other editors involved at this point via a WP:DR option? I'm thinking and RfC given that this has been discussed for over a year now. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

NOT a member of AUCC therefore grad schools and other universities do not recognize this "university". It engages in no research and is not subsidized. UCAN chose BC to put this school here because BC allows private career colleges to be called "university". Essentially the school is in a small office in the slums of Victoria. It should not mislead poor immigrants from South Asia who this school targets to come here an spend 100k on a school that is not accredited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe we've made it clear that it is not a AUCC member. This is not the same as not being accredited, as discussed in detail above. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be misleading to leave out the term "unaccredited" because people may think it is because it is called a "university" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just the opposite. It's misleading and factually incorrect to say it's unaccredited given the PCTIA accreditation. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no accreditation in Canada. Instead the province of BC, by way of the Degree Quality Assessment Board has given them permission to use the word "University" and approved each degree. As well, most (if not all) of the former University Colleges, while members of the AUCC, also do not do any research. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Authorization

I'm disputing the factual accuracy of this section because of "he BC Education Quality Assurance is Canada's first and only provincial brand of quality for post secondary education, it is a government's brand of quality education for public and private post secondary institutions." --Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The information is verified and the source is by definition reliable for such information. I noted that it might not be clear. As I mentioned twice in edit summaries, the information is a quote that should be rewritten.

So, could you clarify what exactly are you disputing and why? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me before the summaries that this was a quote, and if a user didn't read the summary I'd guess they would think the same thing. So put it in quotation marks. I don't recall the exact template for that after all, or re-phrase it as otherwise it's a copyright violation. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I've changed the tags to something appropriate, and placed quotation marks around the quote. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The information has been blanked. [4] Looks like simple edit-warring to me. Anyone have any rationale for it's removal? --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it and place the BC Education Quality Assurance infor first if there are no further objections, in light of the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Something needs to be said

Its only a university by name, and that name may mislead folks to think this is a legit university. It is not legit for a handful of reasons, but most importantly, when you apply for jobs, lets say with the Canadian government, you will not be hired or promoted because the school is not recognized. Another reason, law schools and medical schools in Canada do not recognize a degree from thus "University." Basically, I am just saying the fact that the school has the name university in it is very misleading. It is not like University of Phoenix or anything like that, it is unaccredited. You can go to medical school, or get promoted in the army from a degree from University of Phoenix, but not here. Something needs to be said about this. The school preys on the weak and will take them for alot of money and time with nothing to show at the end. I am not a student or a past student at this school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 August 2010

If you cannot find sources, then it does not belong per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Source #1 - NOT a member of the AUCC or whatever its called —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That fact is included in the article. It doesn't verify anything that you've stated above. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't really say it is unaccrediteed because there is no accreditation in Canada. We'd have to say that for every University, even places like U of T or McGill. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily true ... Athabasca University is apparently US-accredited ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no government-approved accreditation system for all of Canada. Schools can always seek accreditation from organizations that provide it. Saying it is unaccredited is false and misleading. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Ronz - reword it to say this, but make sure to point out that other Canadian Universities and international accreditation bodies do not recognize this school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What sources can we find and what do they verify? I doubt if we're going find documentation on which universities and accreditation bodies that don't recognize UCW. More than likely we'll only find sources for those that do. We'll also have to be careful to avoid original research in any comparisons or expectations we make. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

AACU

What justifies the removal of "UCAN is a member of Association of American Colleges and Universities."? --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The AACU does not look into schools to verify their credibility. Its simply just a business organizion where you can sign up and pay to get some benefits. It may mislead people to think US schools recognize this school.

Btw, if you wonder why I edit these pages and dont attack pages like devry or everst college, its because this school is masquerading as a University in Canada; which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Have any sources to verify any of this? How about a source that simply describes AACU? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I concur with its membership, claiming it to be a de facto accreditation body is false, and misleading. The constitution is clear (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's AUCC, not AACU. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to cut down on the alphabet soup so everyone can participate in the discussion. Thanks. :-) Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to AACU and AUCC, AACU is Association of American Colleges and Universities, as mentioned in the first sentence of this section. AUCC is The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the organization Bwilkins was referring to above. Maybe we need a separate discussion on AUCC, since the comment above and the edit summaries to related edits are getting complicated. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it, since no sources have been offered. We can tag it to indicate the ongoing dispute, though it's unclear why it's being disputed. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada

So this is the official discussion thread for the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada related to University Canada West. So let's have at it. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins wrote above (20:30, 31 August 2010), "Although I concur with its membership, claiming it to be a de facto accreditation body is false, and misleading. The constitution is clear"

In an edit summary, Bwilkins wrote, "It is correct; there is no de facto accreditation board nationally - understand the constitution please. AUCC is a voluntary membership" [5]

What constitution?

If it is voluntary, they why are we presenting it so prominently? --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Any accreditation is also voluntary in many cases, depending on the relevant laws. I think we're presenting it prominently here because other articles do it as well. However, we need to remember other stuff exists. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems then that the British Columbia Education Quality Assurance should be discussed first and with some explanation such as that which was removed here. BCEQA is the body that approved the school and allowed them to be designated a university, right? --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They would have made a recommendation to the Minister who would have made a final decision. He usually rubber stamps their decisions, but not always. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not quite accurate. As I described and referenced in the "Program's Offered" section, the Degree Quality Assessment Board has a specific structure and specific responsibilities that are performed by that board, which then makes recommendations to the Ministry. The Educational Quality Assurance (EQU) program on the other hand, is a government program, according to their website http://www.bceqa.ca/about/eqa-bccie, run primarily by BCCIE: "EQA is a Government of British Columbia brand of quality for private and public post-secondary education in British Columbia, and will be administered on Government’s behalf by BCCIE [British Columbia Council for International Education]. The Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development sets all EQA policies, including eligibility requirements for EQA." Thus, the government bodies are not all really the same (the EQU is not the Degree Quality Assessment Board though they both do work under the guidelines of the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Degree Authorization Act). Signed, Questforneutrality (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have attached a journal article as a reference on the AUCC. It is the De Facto organization in Canada. It is voluntary only in so much as UCW knows they would be rejected. Nonetheless, international bodies dont recognizes degrees in Canada not affiliated with. Read the journal that I put as a reference to verify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.84 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What do others think? --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The journal article is not from a true specialist, although my last edit (blindly reverted by the above editor) properly clarified the combination of two para's from that are key to the discussion, and even fixed the ref to a direct link to the paper that was delivered...right now the statement is useless. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Two questions then to move the discussion along:

• Is it expected that a Canadian university would be a part of Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada? In other words, are we positive that mention of AUCC is relevant?
• If so, then can we find at least one reliable, independent sources to describe AUCC and the importance of AUCC membership for Canadian universities? --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP put in a good source to a report on the importance of the AUCC. I read it all. It was an interesting report. Irrelevant to what he was trying to cite, but about the AUCC top notch. Here is the link. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a paper presented to an international forum on education by the VP-Academic of a college. You're considering that an WP:RS? Consider the audience. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is and now it is Mount Royal University. But yes, I do consider that a reliable source. It certainly meets the criteria for a reliable source. Although displayed in the Google viewer, it comes from their website. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

of course, one of the blind reverts to the article the IP did was me correcting that reference away from Google. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the “Degree Accreditation In Canada” paper by Dave Marshall, PhD, was of considerable interest to this part of the issue. The paper concluded on page 20 that “there is a schism between these [long standing] standards of practice and provincial policies that bring into question the usefulness of the default accreditation processes that have existed in Canada for many years.” AUCC does mention on its website that it represents “95 Canadian public and private not-for-profit universities and university-degree level colleges.” This would automatically exclude this university since it is for-profit. http://www.aucc.ca/about_us/index_e.html

It seems the issue here becomes quite political. The Dave Marshall paper, if we have consensus that it is a worthy and un-biased source, warns that new forms of Canadian accreditation will need to surface to accommodate a growingly diverse university landscape. If AUCC only represents the interests of not-for-profit universities, then can we expect the for-profit University Canada West to be a member, and therefore, accredited? The EQA states plainly: "EQA and BCCIE do not replace existing quality assurance processes or create new regulatory structures or processes. EQA Designation is based on an institution having met established quality assurance standards that exist under government recognized frameworks, and on being in good standing with both the Ministry and the applicable quality assurance body." http://www.bceqa.ca/students/faq#5

So while the EQA is not an effective accreditation mechanism on its own, being recognized by it does represent a good standing with the Ministry. The Ministry, I have found, logically appears to be an accreditation mechanism on some level because the Minister has the power to revoke consent to use the word "university;" and therefore, revoke the right to grant degrees under B.C.'s Degree Authorization Act. This has actually occurred in British Columbia and more recently in New Brunswick in the case of Lansbridge University. Lansbridge was a for-profit university; and in 2007, the B.C. Minister of Advanced Education withdrew consent for after he, Murray Coell, hired an investigator. The university was found to be in breach of the standards set by the Degree Quality Assessment Board and was forced to cease awarding degrees. Lansbridge University remained open in New Brunswick until that office, on August 20, 2010, also received notification to cease granting degrees because the university failed to uphold the standards set by the Degree Granting Act of New Brunswick and the province's board that reviews all universities. The official Lansbridge University website outlining this situation is here: http://www.lansbridge.edu/ Wikipedia's page concerning this topic is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansbridge_University A link to the hired investigator's report to the B.C.'s Minister is here: http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/degree-authorization/documents/Lansbridge_Report.PDF A link to the Degree Authorization Act of British Columbia is here: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_02024_01 Signed, Questforneutrality (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Questforneutrality (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Page protection?

I've started a discussion on the edit-warring here, but would it be best just to protect the page until we've better decided what should be on this page? --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I have some consensus as to which version to protect ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The version that will allow for the most discussion, but in this case semi-protection may be all that is needed. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection is necessary in this case. It's basically fine aside from that one IP. I'd suggest blocking the IP for a few weeks and unprotecting the page. Enigma^msg 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

He has been using a number of IP's in the past apparently ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The other IPs mentioned have not edited since July or August 2009. So I don't think that's really a concern. Enigma^msg 03:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Programs Offered: Degree Quality Assessment Board does the leg work--Ministry of Advanced Education the authority.

My research does not suggest that this university offers 7 courses anymore. According to the UCAN website the current degree offerings are the following: 1. Bachelor of Arts in Media and Communications, 2. Bachelor of Commerce, and 3. Masters of Business Administration. From what I can see the two undergraduate degrees have completion options, and all of the degree programs have online options. http://www.ucan.ca/View/University_Programs/Bachelors_Degrees

I know the Degree Quality Assessment Board of British Columbia has been referenced on the main page and throughout this "Talk Page," but upon researching I have come to understand that its legitimacy as a government institution is quite relevant here. I also noticed there is no Wikipedia page dedicated to it. I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I want to describe my research and logic methods here rather than just putting it on the page. I ask that someone let me know if I am being properly thorough.

The Degree Quality Assessment Board, to quote from the Ministry of Advanced Education's website http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/degree-authorization/board/welcome.htm, is the board that "reviews and makes recommendations to the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development on applications for:

•New degree programs and exempt status submitted by B.C. public post-secondary institutions and all degree programs submitted by private and out-of-province public post-secondary institutions. •Use of the word “university” submitted by private and out-of-province public post-secondary institutions. The board also recommends to the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development policies, criteria and guidelines that will apply for the purposes of giving, renewing or refusing consent/approval or attaching terms and conditions to consent."

Furthermore, according to the Degree Quality Assessment Board's 2008-2009 report http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/degree-authorization/board/documents/DQAB_Annual_Report_2008-09.pdf, it is also the responsibility of the board to make recommendations to the Minister of Advanced Education regarding "renewal of consent for existing degree programs and consents for use of “university” under the Degree Authorization Act." Under the "Expert Reviewers" section of the report, to achieve its duties and measure an educational institution's quality, the Board hires external experts to review each institution in question and help advise the board, which is made up of 9 voting members and 3 non-voting members. In addition to this section of the report, the Degree Quality Assessment board "members and the external experts engaged by the board adhere to a Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy which ensures that board members and external experts avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest including that which might impair or impugn the independence, integrity or impartiality of the board."

Finally, this same 2008-2009 report, the most recent one posted on the Ministry's website, states that the Bachelor of Fine Arts degree program was withdrawn, and the Bachelor of Economics, Bachelor of Geography, and Bachelor of Heritage, Culture, and Tourism were revoked. Thus, this leaves only 3 distinct degree programs by my count: BA of Media and Communications, Bachelor of Commerce, and the MBA program. Suggesting more than 3 programs seems misleading. http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/degree-authorization/board/documents/DQAB_Annual_Report_2008-09.pdf Signed, Questforneutrality (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a Wikipedia page for Degree Quality Assessment Board: The articles on the Canadian and British Columbian education systems are a bit hard to find. Some of them should be linked within this article. I'll track them down again and list them here if no one does first. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Education in Canada
• Universities in Canada
• Higher education in British Columbia

  I vaguely recall finding another at one point. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First Step Towards Consensus?

I have made some substantial changes to the “Authorization” section. Hopefully, this brings some consensus. Experienced Wikipedians: If there are any wording issues please feel free to edit them. I suspect the research aspect is correct but perhaps incomplete or needlessly long (I don’t know I’m still learning).

If this section and the sections before are agreed upon, I suggest the "Criticism" section be tackled. It is poorly written. I have encountered that there are strong critics out there, but their views are currently not being expressed very well. While the reference to the Vancouver Sun is a good enough source, the 2004 Cautbulletin reference is where the Criticisms section gets its bulk. Is this a solid source? Also, quotes like, “The B.C. government's emphasis on allowing the expansion of private universities is a failed vision,” are in there, and they are inaccurate because the statement was made before a private university existed in B.C., and in the case of UCW, it has survived for the last 5 years. How can the appropriate and accurate criticisms be expressed? What are they exactly? I would say it is a political issue at heart: Public versus Private motives in advanced education. Is there more to this issue? Signed, Questforneutrality (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No GMAT

I think something needs to be said about the lack of a GMAT requirement at a business school and the red flags it raises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.196.36 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's more than one school that doesn't require the GMAT, particularly in Quebec. It's not a red flag. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. Would you go to a school that did not require it? Name the schools in Qc. Also UCAN is clearly a scam. I feel very sorry for the poor south Asian immigrants (99% of their student popultaion) who actualy think they will get a job from this diploma mill. What a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.196.36 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if I accept your argument, you need a reliable source to back up their not using the GMAT. Otherwise it is original research. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Heck, there are high end US schools that don't require those types of exams for entry either. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the University of Guelph, Athlabasca University, Royal Roads University, Vancouver Island University, and Laurentian University are all Canadian universities that do not require a GMAT according to this site http://www.canadian-universities.net/MBA/MBA_GMAT_Scores.html, but I could not determine if this is a reliable source. Questforneutrality (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

New info

Our IP friend has added in a bunch of stuff, some of it is referenced, the AUCC stuff however, is not mentioned in the reference, so I removed it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Private Career Training Agency

Please see here http://www.pctia.bc.ca/contact.htm it is an agency of the BC government, so I think the legitimacy question can be put to rest. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Internet message boards as sources

Message boards and similar comments are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for scandal mongering. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Typically, no. However, the concept being sourced is that there is discontent. As such, it works. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Only as an unreliable, primary source... Hairhorn (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. Yes, this is a controversial institution, but the only way we have a chance of making this a neutral article is to insist upon reliable sources, and take great care when and how we use primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for some of the issues involved, for example that the school announced the campus closure the day after the deadline for withdrawal without financial penalty. That could probably go in. Hairhorn (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Biased against the University

It is so biased against the university and I don't know why. Check out the page of Yorkville University. It is more professional in details. There are no comments or anything bad about the university. Wikipedia supposed to be pure details about what the subject is and NOT what someone thinks about the subject.Matrix 0003 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Previous unsigned comment by Matrix 0003 (talk · contribs).

Removing sourced, unflattering facts about the school (your only edits so far) isn't really the way to eliminate a perceived bias in the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is considered Vandalism towards the school

The page is supposed to be an informative page for readers not forum where negative comments are constantly thrown out. I have checked the "Location" and said that the Victoria campus had closed, that is true it had closed so why put it there in the location section. "You gotta be kidding me right"? This page have been vandalized please make it right and make the site more informative not sort of a forum.Matrix 0003 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Previous unsigned comment by Matrix 0003 (talk · contribs).

It's there because of the effect it had on "students", and is sourced. The article is neutrallly presenting the issues the "school" has had. Note, the word vandalism is probably a poor choice of words (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

CMA accreditation

Cmabc.com has not been working the various times I've tried, begging 11 Oct. Please provide a copy of the information here so that we figure out how to use it properly and cite it properly. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Authorization - again

Regarding the repeated deletion of this information:

I see no problem removing the mention of the other UCW Academies, but the rest appears properly sourced.

If someone can provide sources showing that the information or sources are wrong or misleading, we should rewrite the relevant paragraphs. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Information Regarding The Eminata Group and Peter Chung

Technically this information is inaccurate. LearningWise Inc. is still the owner of the University, as stated in it's application with the Ministry of Advanced Education. All reference to the Eminata Group and Peter Chung should be removed.

The first paragraph should be edited to read: "University Canada West (UCW) is a private for-profit educational institution in British Columbia, Canada. University Canada West was established by David Strong, a former president of University of Victoria. Dr. Arthur Coren, is currently the president of the university. It is operated by LearningWise Inc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.109.215 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 November 2012‎

The link you provided doesnt work.

There are many sources that make it clear that the connection is important, including:

• http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/gopublic/story/2011/03/14/bc-universityclosure.html
• http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Bogus-varsities-prey-on-Indian-students/Article1-944634.aspx
• http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Headhunters-feed-on-students-ambition/Article1-945098.aspx
• http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/117282543.html
• http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/b-c-minister-resigns-from-cabinet-over-leaked-email/

--Ronz (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The link I was referencing was here: https://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/psips/public/report/document.jsp Third page in states who is authorized to operate University Canada West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.109.215 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It still doesn't work. Perhaps you're accessing it behind a firewall or with a password? Can you give a detailed description of what it is you're trying to link so others can find it in another manner? --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. It was working earlier this morning when I tested it. On this page (http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/psips/public/report/recommendationsDecisions.faces), under University Canada West, it is the link that reads "Application to use the word "University"". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.109.215 (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

LearningWise Inc. is part of Eminata Group. From some quick research, it comes across that the sale of the university was made initially, and later LearningWise (or at least the name) was later bought Eminata bought LearningWise with the purchase of the university. I'm not sure how we should clear this up in the article though, but the Eminata information is correct. --Ronz (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I believe the last sentence in the intro paragraph "The Eminata group also owns CDI College. Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran.[6] [7]" should be removed because 1) it is irrelevant to the information about UCW and 2) it was explained by Mr. Chung himself that "In 1991, a computer school in California which I voluntarily closed became insolvent and was assessed default damages of $12 million. Though I never acknowledged wrongdoing personally or regarding any staff, all of my business and personal assets (including my home) were applied to the judgment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modifier miller (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources suggest otherwise. I think it's time to look at what sources are available on this. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

From above, we have:

• http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Bogus-varsities-prey-on-Indian-students/Article1-944634.aspx
• http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/b-c-minister-resigns-from-cabinet-over-leaked-email/

--Ronz (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Others mentioning Chung in the context of UCW:

• http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=9965cfa1-3967-40e1-a487-0487007d2599&k=51502

That's all I can find with quick searches. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the info about the purchase by Eminata, including the years of founding and purchase. Does that resolve the concerns about the mention of Eminata and LearningWise? --Ronz (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Skip Triplett

Without an independent source, I'm not sure why this deserves mention, much less in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think mentioning his name is good, but not sure about the 'extensive experience' stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That was my inclination as well. If only there were a more appropriate place to put it. What about just putting it in the infobox? --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the infobox is a good place for it. I think in fact we do that with other Universities. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Extensive experience" should go, given that the source is a press release. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about outdated information

1) The Eminata Group is no longer a company and does not own University Canada West please review www.eminata.com

2) University Canada West is a member of the BC Transfer System; British Columbia council on admissions & transfer (BCCAT)Private Institutions in the BC Transfer System. BC has a well-developed transfer system which involves all public post-secondary institutions and some private ones (see bctransferguide.ca). This system allows students to move from one institution to another and to get credit for previous coursework. All the public institutions listed above are part of the BC Transfer System as well as Yukon College. Private institutions that have been through a provincial degree quality assessment process can also be part of the BC Transfer System. These institutions are: •Acsenda School of Management •Alexander College •Art Institute of Vancouver •Columbia College •Coquitlam College •Corpus Christi College •Fairleigh Dickinson University •Fraser International College •Quest University •Trinity Western University •University Canada WestItalic text

Please, have a look at the bctransferguide.ca or http://www.bctransferguide.ca/search/by-sender/ to review University Canada West as a "Sending Institution" or as a "Receiving Institution" at http://www.bctransferguide.ca/search/by-receiver/.

3) In response to whether or not this is a "real" university. The British Columbia Education Quality Assurance (EQA) designation has since 2009 provided "one standard provincial seal that can be recognized globally as a symbol of quality education and consumer protection." The Education Quality Assurance (EQA) designation identifies BC public and private post-secondary institutions that have met or exceeded provincial government-recognized quality assurance standards and other consumer protection. University Canada West has received permission from EQA to use their seal on all of its materials. For reference please review http://www.bceqa.ca/designated-schools/interactive-map.

4) University Canada West also is authorized to use the Imagine Education au/in Canada brand on all documentation. The Imagine Education au/in Canada is a joint initiative of the provinces and territories through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) and Canada's federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT), the Imagine Education au/in Canada brand establishes Canada and its provinces and territories as a preferred world class destination for international students looking to pursue their education abroad.

The Imagine Education au/in Canada brand signals that its holder consistently provides high quality education programs, deals with international students in accordance with recognized codes of practice, and is subject to quality assurance mechanisms that monitor adherence to set standards. For more information please review http://www.cicic.ca/687/postsec.canada?id_postsec=496

5) University Canada West has been approved to enter Candidacy for Accreditation with the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). University Canada West will be awarded a Certificate of Candidacy for Accreditation at an Accreditation Banquet held June 23, 2013 during the 2013 ACBSP Annual Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. Please, review http://www.acbsp.org

6)University Canada West does accept GMAT and GRE scores. For more information on University Canada West GMAT go to www.mba.com/the-gmat and use GMAT Code: 5HW. For more information on University Canada West GRE go to www.ets.org/gre/. and use GRE Code: 7570.

7) University Canada West is fully recognized and operates under the authority of the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and technology, on recommendation of the Degree Quality Assessment Board. The University's programs are offered under written consent of the Minister of Advanced Education, Government of British Columbia, Canada having undergone a quality assessment process been found to meet the criteria established by the minister.

The term "university" is used under the written consent of the Minister of Advanced Education, Government of British Columbia, Canada, effective August 9, 2004, having undergone a quality assessment process and been found to meet the criteria established by the minister.

Please, feel free to contact the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and technology to verify the above mentioned at toll free 1-800-663-7867. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.170.66 (talk • contribs)

What changes are you suggesting? --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes

My suggestions are bolded below:

Please, remove comments regarding the following as they no longer pertain to University Canada West

1) The Eminata Group is no longer a company and does not own University Canada West please review www.eminata.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.170.66 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No sources have been offered that demonstrate any change in ownership, nor am I able to find any. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, add the BC Transfer System; British Columbia council on admissions & transfer (BCCAT) to the affiliations section and edit the "Programs" section stating; University Canada West is listed in the British Columbia Credit Transfer system,[14] but it is only listed as a "recipient," and not as a "sender," of transferable university credits. When the Victoria campus went out of business in 2011, students reported that UCW credits would be not be transferred or transferred on a case by case basis. The correct information follows:

2) University Canada West is a member of the BC Transfer System; British Columbia council on admissions & transfer (BCCAT)Private Institutions in the BC Transfer System. BC has a well-developed transfer system which involves all public post-secondary institutions and some private ones (see bctransferguide.ca). This system allows students to move from one institution to another and to get credit for previous coursework. All the public institutions listed above are part of the BC Transfer System as well as Yukon College. Private institutions that have been through a provincial degree quality assessment process can also be part of the BC Transfer System. These institutions are: •Acsenda School of Management •Alexander College •Art Institute of Vancouver •Columbia College •Coquitlam College •Corpus Christi College •Fairleigh Dickinson University •Fraser International College •Quest University •Trinity Western University •University Canada West

Please, have a look at the bctransferguide.ca or http://www.bctransferguide.ca/search/by-sender/ to review University Canada West as a "Sending Institution" or as a "Receiving Institution" at http://www.bctransferguide.ca/search/by-receiver/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.170.66 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about being only a receiver. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Please, explain your reasoning behind a removal of information vs. updating the document to reflect applicable and useful knowledge?

To quote wikipedia: "but it is only listed as a "recipient," and not as a "sender," of transferable university credits. When the Victoria campus went out of business in 2011, students reported that UCW credits would be not be transferred or transferred on a case by case basis..."

If Wikipedia felt it necessary to inform readers University Canada West is just a receiving university. Why would it not now be necessary to inform readers University Canada West is both a sending and receiving university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.212.151 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Goburst (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there no discussion or response to the above comment?Goburst (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It would only make sense to do so if we included that at one time it did not, but without secondary sources it seems undue. Having their standards up to acceptable levels isn't noteworthy. Getting them to that level might be. Not having them at that level definitely is, as the sources show. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not noteworthy to inform the reader about a Universities standards? Why do the following Wikipedia Universities get to inform the reader of their affiliations but, University Canada West is not allowed to post: Please, view Kwantlen Polytechnic University Affiliations: Kwantlen Polytechnic University, view University of British Columbia Affiliations: University of British Columbia, view Royal Roads University Affiliations: Royal Roads University.

The above BC Post secondary Universities can inform the reader of their distinct affiliations the university is a member or part of but, it is not noteworthy for University Canada West? Goburst (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, add the British Columbia Education Quality Assurance (EQA)to the affiliations section and update the Authorization section to clearly define the EQA and its role as a symbol of quality education and consumer protection

3) In response to whether or not this is a "real" university. The British Columbia Education Quality Assurance (EQA) designation has since 2009 provided "one standard provincial seal that can be recognized globally as a symbol of quality education and consumer protection." The Education Quality Assurance (EQA) designation identifies BC public and private post-secondary institutions that have met or exceeded provincial government-recognized quality assurance standards and other consumer protection. University Canada West has received permission from EQA to use their seal on all of its materials. For reference please review http://www.bceqa.ca/designated-schools/interactive-map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.170.66 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the request, nor what sources verify them. --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, add the Imagine Education au/in Canada to the affiliations section and update the Authorization section to reflect the following:

4) University Canada West also is authorized to use the Imagine Education au/in Canada brand on all documentation. The Imagine Education au/in Canada is a joint initiative of the provinces and territories through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) and Canada's federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT), the Imagine Education au/in Canada brand establishes Canada and its provinces and territories as a preferred world class destination for international students looking to pursue their education abroad.

The Imagine Education au/in Canada brand signals that its holder consistently provides high quality education programs, deals with international students in accordance with recognized codes of practice, and is subject to quality assurance mechanisms that monitor adherence to set standards. For more information please review http://www.cicic.ca/687/postsec.canada?id_postsec=496 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.170.66 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how the link provided verifies this. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, under the Authorization section add the fact University Canada West has been approved to enter Candidacy for Accreditation with the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP)

5) University Canada West has been approved to enter Candidacy for Accreditation with the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). University Canada West will be awarded a Certificate of Candidacy for Accreditation at an Accreditation Banquet held June 23, 2013 during the 2013 ACBSP Annual Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. Please, review http://www.acbsp.org

I'm not sure that it deserves mention without an independent and reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, correct and add the fact University Canada West does look at GMAT/GRE scores

6)University Canada West does accept GMAT and GRE scores. For more information on University Canada West GMAT go to www.mba.com/the-gmat and use GMAT Code: 5HW. For more information on University Canada West GRE go to www.ets.org/gre/. and use GRE Code: 7570. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.170.66 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is supposed to correct, nor why it deserves mention. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please. write an unbiased Wikipedia page that reflects journalism ethics and standards; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Codes_of_practice

7) University Canada West is fully recognized and operates under the authority of the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and technology, on recommendation of the Degree Quality Assessment Board. The University's programs are offered under written consent of the Minister of Advanced Education, Government of British Columbia, Canada having undergone a quality assessment process been found to meet the criteria established by the minister.

The term "university" is used under the written consent of the Minister of Advanced Education, Government of British Columbia, Canada, effective August 9, 2004, having undergone a quality assessment process and been found to meet the criteria established by the minister.

Please, feel free to contact the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and technology to verify the above mentioned at toll free 1-800-663-7867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.170.66 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't contact people, we need sources, and, frankly, yes, it is a university. I don't see the issue on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerns sent via email

Wikipedia has been notified to intervene on the inaccurate information posted about University Canada West:

If you can't or don't want to fix an error, your best approach depends on what kind of problem it is: if it's clear vandalism and you can't fix it, please email info-en-v@wikimedia.org and include the address or title of the article and a description of the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Readers

Email Sent 31/03/2014: Hello Wikipedia, First, thank-you for your services! I understand what Wikipedia hopes to accomplish and I support the learning platform. However, the Wikipedia page titled University Canada West is an example of how inaccurate Wikipedia information can be. Please, review the "Talk" section of the University Canada West Wikipedia page; in the table of contents review item number 34 in comparison to the actual University Canada West Wikipedia page. You will immediately understand how fraudulent, and libel this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.170.66 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you contend this is vandalism you are fixing. It is not. Things don't happen immediately, let the system work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities to take a look at the section above (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities) -- Moxy (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Moxy did you get any response form Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities I'd really appreciate any updates. Goburst (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you

Clarification questions

In what reference does Wikipedia retrieve the quote "University Canada West is a for-profit university?"

According to the Wikipedia page "List of universities in Canada"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Canada#British_Columbia

Wikipedia classifies University Canada West correctly as a Private University.

To quote wikipedia "List of universities in Canada" British Columbia

See also: Higher education in British Columbia and List of colleges in British Columbia The University of British Columbia has the largest number of students enrolled in western Canada There are eleven public universities and four private universities in British Columbia. Seven of these universities – Capilano University, Emily Carr University of Art and Design, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Trinity Western University, Simon Fraser University, and the University of British Columbia – are in the Metro Vancouver region, the most populated region of British Columbia, and four of them – Vancouver Island University, Royal Roads University, the University of Victoria, and the University Canada West – are on Vancouver Island. The University of Northern British Columbia houses a main campus in Prince George, with regional campuses in Quesnel, Terrace and Fort St. John. Two public universities, Capilano University and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and one private university, Quest University, are primarily undergraduate institutions....

Also, after reviewing the British Columbia of Canada Post-Secondary System on BC Council on Admissions & Transfer (BCCAT) http://bccat.ca/system/psec/ they also refer to University Canada West by its official university category of Private.

To quote the Post-Secondary System on BC Council on Admissions & Transfer (BCCAT) http://bccat.ca/system/psec/ :

Private Institutions in the BC Transfer System BC has a well-developed transfer system which involves all public post-secondary institutions and some private ones (see bctransferguide.ca). This system allows students to move from one institution to another and to get credit for previous coursework. All the public institutions listed above are part of the BC Transfer System as well as Yukon College. Private institutions that have been through a provincial degree quality assessment process can also be part of the BC Transfer System. These institutions are: Acsenda School of Management Alexander College Art Institute of Vancouver Columbia College Coquitlam College Corpus Christi College Fairleigh Dickinson University Fraser International College Quest University Trinity Western University University Canada West

Please, update University Canada West Wikipedia page to address University Canada West by its official university category.Goburst (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia cite from these references when the links are dead or don't retrieve the article referenced? How can we source or validate quotes without a proper reference list? The following links are dead on the Wikipedia site University Canada West:

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Canada_West#cite_ref-2

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Canada_West#cite_ref-3

4. ^ "University Division". Eminata.com. Retrieved 2011-03-29.

9. ^ "University Canada West Undergraduate Admission Requirements". Ucan.ca. Retrieved 2012-03-24.

13. ^ "UCW Academic Programs on its website". Universitycanadawest.ca. Retrieved 2011-03-29.

14. ^ UCW Page on the BC Transfer Guide[dead link]

27. By JSteffenhagen (2008-11-23). "Private B.C. university sold – Report Card". Communities.canada.com. Retrieved 2011-03-29.

Where is the content referenced in this link? How is it relevant?

30. "Global News | Latest & Current News – Weather, Sports & Health News". Globaltvbc.com. Retrieved 2013-09-08.

"For-profit university": CBC news. As for your question re dead links: see WP:DEADLINK ("Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer") and WP:SOURCEACCESS. The fact that a convenient internet link might no longer be available does not mean that the publication never happened. You might get further here if you create an account, sign your posts, and in other respects learn more about how Wikipedia works. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the links thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.212.151 (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited and referenced changes deleted from University Canada west Wikipedia pg.

NOTE: This is the original heading and post; a print screen was taken 1/4/2014, prior to page save.

I am reaching out to the real editors of the University Canada West Wikipedia page for your help. I sourced, cited, and edited the University Canada West Wikipedia page only to have credible information removed and the site returned to its original form. If this is a community please support my learning by informing me why the editing was deleted.

I would also like to know how I can report an editor.

ThanksGoburst (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You made some changes. They were reverted. Your requirement as per WP:BRD is to try and make a case for the addition of those changes right here, and try and gain WP:CONSENSUS for them. There's no need to report anyone - the discussion process is SOP on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if they were sourced or not. Also, you don't need to take a printscreen - the history of the article (and your changes) are forever on Wikipedia DP 23:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DP I will review and begin on the talk page. I'll sum it up to practice. CheersGoburst (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll give a good example - in one of your additions you went on at-length about CDI College. This is an article about UCW, not Eminata nor CDI. As such, there's no way that CDI should be heavily mentioned, if even at all. DP 23:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

DP where can I see my reverted changes? I agree CDI College is not relevant to UCW. However, I did want to honor the original edit by keeping it in. What is the consensus on removing CDI College from the UCW page? Goburst (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the mention of CDI. It was added here in case someone wants to try to find if there might be context that we're missing that explains its inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the rest of the information that was removed, as I mentioned on my talk, the information was grossly undue and promotional, sourced with a profile from a pr website: http://www.aosaschool.com/management_team/ds.php

Whatever is going on with CDW, it's clear that they're trying to clean up their image. Without third-party press to draw upon, we should take care what, if anything, we change in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's keep this a Consensus trust the process remember our Wikipedia:Etiquetteand not so quick to assume

Ronz can you please be more specific? The entire document you claim was "sourced with a profile from a pr website:

":As for the rest of the information that was removed, as I mentioned on my talk, the information was grossly undue and promotional, sourced with a profile from a pr website: http://www.aosaschool.com/management_team/ds.php

Whatever is going on with CDW, it's clear that they're trying to clean up their image. Without third-party press to draw upon, we should take care what, if anything, we change in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC

Lastly, to clear up my submission of the supposed "PR website source" here is a link to the University of Victoria Past Presidents this should resolve the credibility of Dr. David F Strong's Biography as founder of University Canada West.

Onwards & Upwards

Goburst (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll note it says, "Strong went on to become founding president and vice-chancellor of University Canada West, Canada’s first private for-profit university."

If you believe Strong is notable on his own, start an article about him. This article is about UCW. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

the credentials and background of university Canada west's founding president and vice chancellor are not related to University Canada West? You don't believe this history should be recorded?

Goburst (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Motion to update

University Canada West (UCW) is a private for-profit educational institution. in British Columbia, Canada.

• Canadian Provincial and Federal Government bodies don't recognize University Canada West (UCW) as a "for-profit educational institution:

British Columbia, Ministry of Advanced Education, British Columbia Education Quality Assurance,British Columbia Council on Admissions and Transfer.

• Reviewing University Canada West's Academic calendar University Canada West Academic Calendarit also did not align with the current description.

• Can we provide a reference to prove University Canada West is making a profit? The University Canada West Wikipedia pg. notes:

"In 2009, Vancouver Sun reported that University Canada West has been losing $300,000 per month and was sold by David Strong to Eminata Group, who owns small colleges in Vancouver."

Thoughts Goburst (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It is notable for being one of the first for-profit schools, and the first in BC. Should we make this clearer? --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You suggest the reader should not be informed of the governments involvement with University Canada West a BC Provincial Post-Secondary university BC Ministry of Advanced Education and how University Canada West is regulated bclaws.ca

Please, clarifyGoburst (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what needs clarifying, It is a for profit school, that is a rare thing in BC, and in Canada generally, which makes it notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right the statement is valid. However, have all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources been incorporated? Goburst (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

2nd Motion to update

"University Canada West was established by David Strong, a former president of University of Victoria."

• Is this a detailed description of University Canada West's founding present and Vice Chancellor Dr. David F. Strong?
• Is it important to educate the reader on the founder of University Canada West? Should the reader be educated on his credentials etc.?

University Canada West founder David F. Strong references:

Dr. David F. Strong reference 1 Dr. David F. Strong reference 2 [of Victoria overview]

Onwards & Upwards, Goburst (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there no thoughts on this? --Goburst (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Report Editor

(Note that my comments below prior to 15:12, 2 April 2014 were all copied by from previous discussions by Goburst --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

This is correct23.16.212.151 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Goburst (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How do you report an editor whose contributions could be viewed as restrictive, manipulative, and undue?

How is the following a consensus:

I've gone ahead and removed the mention of CDI. It was added here in case someone wants to try to find if there might be context that we're missing that explains its inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As for the rest of the information that was removed, as I mentioned on my talk, the information was grossly undue and promotional, sourced with a profile from a pr website: http://www.aosaschool.com/management_team/ds.php

Whatever is going on with CDW, it's clear that they're trying to clean up their image. Without third-party press to draw upon, we should take care what, if anything, we change in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's keep this a Consensus trust the process remember our Wikipedia:Etiquetteand not so quick to assume

Ronz can you please be more specific? The entire document you claim was "sourced with a profile from a pr website:

":As for the rest of the information that was removed, as I mentioned on my talk, the information was grossly undue and promotional, sourced with a profile from a pr website: http://www.aosaschool.com/management_team/ds.php

Whatever is going on with CDW, it's clear that they're trying to clean up their image. Without third-party press to draw upon, we should take care what, if anything, we change in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC

Lastly, to clear up my submission of the supposed "PR website source" here is a link to the University of Victoria Past Presidents this should resolve the credibility of Dr. David F Strong's Biography as founder of University Canada West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goburst (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll note it says, "Strong went on to become founding president and vice-chancellor of University Canada West, Canada’s first private for-profit university."

If you believe Strong is notable on his own, start an article about him. This article is about UCW. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goburst (talk • contribs)

Again, the credentials and background of university Canada west's founding president and vice chancellor are not related to University Canada West? You don't believe this history should be recorded? Goburst (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Goburst, you have no need to report an editor, yet. First, Ronz is actually following the editing processes here ... this article has been a magnet for promotion, whitewashing, and pure unadulterated crap. Second, I'm an administrator here on the English Wikipedia, and was originally drawn to this page because of the stuff mentioned above, and have paid close attention to all edits to this page since I arrived. I've questionned Ronz once or twice over the years, but generally they're on the ball.

Now, I do not believe that you're trying to insert the wrong things on this article - you appear to be trying to do the right thing, and that's good. There's a heck of a lot of stuff that does not belong in this article, and as you're new here, you might be having challenges recognizing what is and what is not relevant - don't worry, after time (and after reviewing similar articles on Wikipedia) you'll definitely get the hang of it.

Please follow the process. We don't do "motions" to change ... we start a section, we suggest the exact wording, we relate DIRECTLY to reliable sources, and after a week or so of discussion, SOMEONE can determine consensus. It's easy, and it's how Wikipedia works. Please don't get snarky because someone removed something that shouldn't have been there - perhaps you should not edit the article directly while you learn, and only discuss? Perhaps someone can formally mentor you? DP 09:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

DP, I appreciate your guidance and patience while I learn the process, thank you. In my first reading of the University Canada West Wikipedia pg. I thought; what a joke of a university--the pg. essentially paints a bad image of a university. In my research I have spoken directly with the Consulate General of Indian , Ministry of Advanced Education, and several other reliable government sources. My conclusion is this; the Wikipedia page is Bogus, and I believe an editor or group of editors intentionally or unintentionally are not abiding the WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE.

My truth is (based on the above mentioned from "talks" 34 to 40) is University Canada West was founded by an extremely credible Canadian educator Dr. David F. StrongNRC Research Press,University of Victoria. Why doesn't the University Canada West page recognize David Strong (UCW Founding President) as a PHD, speak to his background, education, integrity etc? As Dbrodbeck stated:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what needs clarifying, It is a for profit school, that is a rare thing in BC, and in Canada generally, which makes it notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck I agree with you University Canada West is extremely rare! How did this happen? Where is the history on a rare event in Canadian post-secondary education?

Please don't EVER mess with another editor's comments. I have removed the bolding you did to my comment. The 'it' that is rare is that it is a for profit school so that should be noted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

University Canada West (UCW) is a private educational institution in British Columbia, Canada. University Canada West was established by David Strong, a former president of University of Victoria, as Canada's first for-profit univeristy. Dr. Arthur Coren is currently the president of the university. Founded in 2005, it was purchased in 2008 by the Eminata Group, which is based in Vancouver. Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran..

To clarify, the above could not be viewed as an example of undue journalism?

In reviewing University Canada West's "Academic Calendar the official guide to all programs, courses and services available at University Canada West. It also serves as a record of UCW policies and procedures." I found the Wikipedia claims to be absolutely false, inaccurate, and again undue.

Is the University Canada West Wikipedia article undue? I need clarification on this individual Dr. Peter Chung; the guy allegedly convicted in California over 21 years ago. To clarify; if we are going to mention Dr. Peter Chung then should we not discuss the following in order to ensure we have an equal proportion of due and undue content?: Peter Chung, Peter Chung article 2, Peter Chung? or is this not noteworthy because it's not a part of what I'm calling "the University Canada West Smear Campaign?"

It is my opinion, Wikipedia is one of the most referenced sources in the world. I believe the information referenced on its pages should be accurate and tell the complete story the good, the bad, and the ugly; the truth.

Is there a governing body who regulates the "over-arching themes" the Wikipedia categories naturally create to ensure all pages are equally allowed to promote their accurate due and undue weight to form consistency in the age of information.

Here is an example of an inconsistency: Vancouver Island University Wikipedia page, it is BC university recognized by the same Ministry of Advanced Education the same governing body who recognizes University Canada West but, does not have a Controversy and Criticisms section? Although, I was able to reference the following:

VIU Strike,18, 000 VIU students.

My goal is to learn Wikipedia and help solve a misrepresentation. I will continue to research with the support of the BC Ministry of Advanced Education the University Canada West Wikipedia page to clarify bias,undue weight.

23.16.212.151 (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Goburst (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Sorry keep forgetting to sign;) Please review WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

please clarify how I have not interacted with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. how have I insulted, harassed, or intimidated those with whom I disagree? 23.16.212.151 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Goburst (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOC I agree 100% with the document and will adjust where needed. Goburst (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have updated my comments in accordance with the WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE. Respectfully, Goburst (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take some time to learn Wikipedia. You removed others' comments [6] after being notified not to touch others' comments. Removing editors comments in this way is highly inappropriate. See WP:TALK.

You might find Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure helpful. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it, I will review, thanks! --Goburst (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Spelling & Grammar Edits

Goburst (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is spelling and grammar issues:

University Canada West (UCW) is a private educational institution in British Columbia, Canada. University Canada West was established by David Strong, a former president of University of Victoria, as Canada's first for-profit univeristy. Dr. Arthur Coren is currently the president of the university. Founded in 2005, it was purchased in 2008 by the Eminata Group, which is based in Vancouver.

To:

University Canada West (UCW) is a private educational institution in British Columbia, Canada. University Canada West was established by Dr. David F. Strong, a former president of the University of Victoria, as Canada's first for-profit univeristy. University Canada West officially installed its new President and Vice Chancellor, Dr. Arthur Coren at its Fall Convocation on November 17, 2012. Founded in 2005, it was purchased in 2008 by the Eminata Group, which is based in Vancouver,British Columbia.

Thoughts --Goburst (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Titles such as Dr. are not usually used in articles in this manner per WP:HONORIFIC. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the WP:HONORIFIC exempts the usage of DR. or corrects the grammar and word flow of the section in reference? I referenced the following BC Canadian universities; Titles such as Dr. are regularly used:

University of British Columbia Simon Fraser University Vancouver Island University University of Victoria --Goburst (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the above mentioned I have gone ahead and made the above Minor edit--Goburst (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above mentioned point and references; According to the Degree Authorization Act (DAA) bclaws.ca and the Degree Quality Assessment Board gov.bc appointed by the Minister of Advanced Education, Honourable Amrik Virk; a Canadian "University" can only be operated by a president & vice-chancellor who has achieved a recognized Doctoratedegree. --Goburst (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Honorifics

Ronz can we discuss the use of Dr. I believe the above mentioned validates/warrants its use?--Goburst (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I rarely encounter WP:HONORIFIC discussions, and the guidelines are focused on articles that discuss persons in some details, so let's see if we can get some help.

To clarify for others, we're discussing these titles for two people who don't have their own Wikipedia articles and are only mentioned because of their positions/relationships with UCW.

Do we include "Dr." at all, once for each, as the diff suggests, or in some other manner? --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on University Canada West and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

In the case of academic titles, including Dr., the relevant guideline is not WP:HONORIFIC but WP:CREDENTIAL, which states that the credential should be omitted. This is independent of what any external references give, since it is a matter of Wikipedia's own internal style guide. Kind regards, Stfg (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs ACBSP)

The University Canada West MBA is not accredited by any of the three biggest business school accreditation bodies. The three major accrediting bodies in there are the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), which accredits research universities, the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), which accredits universities and colleges, and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE),all of which also accredit schools outside the US.

The above mentioned is not correct please review the links:

ACBSP University Canada West

UCW ACBSP

University Canada West has been approved to enter Candidacy for Accreditation with the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). University Canada West will be awarded a Certificate of Candidacy for Accreditation at an Accreditation Banquet held June 23, 2013 during the 2013 ACBSP Annual Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah

The following is not relevant; this is not an article on the three major accrediting bodies--Goburst (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC): The three major accrediting bodies in there are the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), which accredits research universities, the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), which accredits universities and colleges, and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE :do we have a consensus on the above mentioned?--Goburst (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

--Goburst (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We've lengthy discussions above on accreditation in Canada.

So their status changed in 2013? What does "candidacy" mean in this context? --Ronz (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed and will help provide clarity--Goburst (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The following publication references the status change in 2013; University Canada West officially recognized as Candidate for acbsp accreditation. Here is information on acbsp member candidacy. --Goburst (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"ACBSP Members with candidacy status are working toward accreditation, but are not yet accredited." I interpret that to mean they are not accredited. Adding any mention of this would require an explanation and clearly identify that they are not accredited by ACBSP yet. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

How does this sound? University Canada West has been officially recognized as a candidate for accreditation with theAccreditation Council for Business Schools & Programs (ACBSP). To receive accreditation, University Canada West is required to submit a self-study report, participate in a site visit of their peers, and be approved for accreditation by the Associate Degree Board of Commissioners or Baccalaureate/Graduate Degree Board of Commissioners. --Goburst (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The concerns are:

1. Do we mention this at all?

You are suggesting the first for-profit university in Canada's 147 year old history becoming recognized as a candidate with the Accreditation Council for Business Schools & Programs (ACBSP) is not noteworthy?--Goburst (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1. If so, why and with what sources?

You are suggesting University Canada West officially recognized as Candidate for acbsp accreditation and acbsp member candidacy would not be considered sources? please explain using referenced material, discrediting the above mentioned sources--Goburst (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1. In what context should the information be added?

In the same context the original author intended; to inform the reader of University Canada West's standing with the three biggest business school accreditation bodies. You are suggesting not to inform the reader University Canada West is now recognized and has officially received ACBSP candidacy University Canada West officially recognized as Candidate for acbsp accreditation acbsp member candidacybut, it's relevant to mention ACBSP and the other two business school accrediting bodies when University Canada West did not have accreditation or candidacy? Is what you are suggesting not classified as undue.--Goburst (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

With only the sources provided, I'm not sure it should be mentioned at all, because they are primary sources that don't establish that the information is noteworthy. In review of the original sources used to generate the content we are referring to I found the sources to also be primary sources. --Goburst (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If it is indeed noteworthy, it seems only so in that it has taken them so long to get to this point.

Please provide references as to the average time it takes a Canadian Post-Secondary institution to receive one of these 3 business accreditations.--Goburst (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've given a try at adding it in a way that might not be undue: [7] --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see where your going I'm going to jump in edit further, let me know your opinion.--Goburst (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Entrance requirements & Program Overview(s)

Entrance requirements & Program Overview(s) are too vague and the information is outdated in the University Canada West Wikipedia page. According to the Degree Authorization Act (DAA) bclaws.ca and the Degree Quality Assessment Board gov.bc appointed by the Minister of Advanced Education, Honourable Amrik Virk; a "University" must complete an annual review; a requirement in the review; submit all yearly program updates; each year a universities program(s) must evolve to keep the program academically sound. My suggestion; we update university canada west program and entrance overiew and requirements by referencing University Canada West's Ministry of Advanced Education reviewed Academic Calendar to ensure accuracy and government compliance University Canada West Academic Calendar.--Goburst (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the consensus on updating the following:

UCW offers Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Arts and MBA degrees. University Canada West offers entrance requirements for students with a GPA of 65% or higher, and can accept credit for previous studies and work experience in the Degree Completion and MBA programs.(In comparison, major BC universities' GPA requirements are: low 80s and higher for UBC Vancouver and mid-70s for UBC Okanagan, 70%–80% for UVic, and 80–90% for SFU.)This is irrelevant; this is not a page on comparing entrance requirments --Goburst (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC). The academic year was originally organized into four ten-week terms, but changed to five eight-week terms in September 2009. Students are able to complete four courses of 40 contact hours each in a term. Degree Completion and MBA programs can be completed on campus or online. University Canada West is listed in the British Columbia Credit Transfer system. When the Victoria campus went out of business in 2011, students reported that UCW credits would be not be transferred or transferred on a case by case basis. This was controversial because allegedly students were told when they paid for classes that credits were transferable even though the BC transfer website says they are not. This is not applicable; as per the Ministry of Advanced Education; the university Canada West located at 950 Kings Rd Victoria, BC V8T 1W6 and the university Canada west currently located at 1111 Melville St Vancouver, BC are officialy recognized as two institutions, not one. This is not a wikipedia page about university Canada West located at 950 Kings Rd Victoria, BC V8T 1W6. --Goburst (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Undergraduate

• Bachelor of Commerce, General Studies (BCom)
• Bachelor of Arts Media and Communications (B.A.)

The university follows a system of five terms in a year, by which students can finish their degree in as little as two years.

The UCW Academic Calendar notes: there are four terms; January, April, June, September. --Goburst (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Graduate

• Master of Business Administration (MBA)

Thoughts --Goburst (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is and is not worth noting. We should, of course, remove outdated information that is not relevant for historical or other reasons.

The comparison with other institutions is original research to further a point of view, and should be removed.

I'll look at it further when I have more time if someone doesn't take care of it first. --Ronz (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll draft a proposed program/requirement section then post on "Talk" for review.--Goburst (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the below edit will suffice, it removes all ability to promote unique attributes and keeps the information general and specific to UCW programs:--Goburst (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Programs

Undergraduate

Bachelor of Arts (BA), Media and Communications

Concentrations:

• Public Relations
• Communications Management

Bachelor of Commerce (BComm), General Studies

Concentrations:

• Accounting
• Public Relations
• Business Communications

Graduate

Master of Business Administration (MBA)

There's probably a standard for this. WP:UNI would be the place to look, otherwise in good and WP:FA:featured articles. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything on WP:UNI--Goburst (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tuition

I believed it necessary to remove the Tuition section. UCW fees and Tuition have been lowered giving UCW an opportunity to potentially use Wikipedia as an advertisement by putting the new tuition/fees in the page --Goburst (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've restored it. Removing sourced information can be very problematic, especially when there are no sources to support the rationale for their removal.

It should be placed in a historical context and trimmed. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it--Goburst (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the tuition fees to create clarity for the reader and a reference point. I removed the comparison between UVIC and UBC; this is not a page comparing default rates and I cleaned up the overall sentence structure.--Goburst (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The default rates aren't sitting well with me. How is this relevant to the page? In researching Student aid BC; default rates are based on the number of students who actually take out a loan. So if school A) has 60,000 students and a default rate of 3% (like the university of BC) that means 1800 students defaulted. Now, if school B) Has between 300-600 students with a default rate of 30% (like UCW) that means 135 students defaulted. Lastly, if I have a school with 2 students and one takes a student loan and defaults I have a 50% default rate.--Goburst (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Fees (prices, etc) are inappropriate per WP:NOPRICES (and WP:NPOV):

An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

As I pointed out, it should be placed in a historical context and trimmed. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

History

In researching other BC Post-Secondary universities a "History" section reviews the universities establishment for the reader. Here are a few for reference; University_of_British_Columbia, University_Of_Victoria, Vancouver_Island_University etc.--Goburst (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

2004 University Canada West (UCW) was established under the Degree Authorization Act as an independent university in Victoria, B.C. The provincial Ministry of Advanced Education provided written consent authorizing Bachelor of Arts (Media and Communications), Bachelor of Commerce, and Masters of Business Administration degree programs.

2008 UCW's first graduates received degrees. UCW's first Honorary Doctorate awarded. LearningWise Incorporated (LINC), dba University Canada West, became part of The Eminata Group of post-secondary education institutions.

2009 New members formed the senior management team. Process re-engineering was initiated and investments were made across the academic and service areas of the University.

2010 All on-line and campus activities centralized in Vancouver. Self-studies and external reviews of all programs completed. The University's second President and Vice Chancellor, Dr. Verna Magee-Shepherd, was installed, succeeding Dr. David Strong, the University's Founder and first President. With the conclusion of Dr. Myer Horowitz's term as Founding Chancellor, the University's second Chancellor, Mr. John Winter, was installed. Education Quality Assurance (EQA) designation conferred.

2011 International student population expansion representing over 30 different countries. EQA designation renewed.

2012 The University’s third President and Vice Chancellor, Dr. Arthur Coren was installed, succeeding Dr. Verna Magee-Shepherd.

I'm going to go ahead and insert this into the article, let me know if we need to adjust or add to.--Goburst (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz you around???--Goburst (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A history section needs to be written from independent sources. Otherwise it's just a venue for self-promotion. --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks--Goburst (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Authorization 2014

I'm very concerned with changing the authorization section in any way that changes the pov. Information sourced only with primary sources is especially difficult to present in a neutral manner when the only sources are not independent of the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, links that are not references do not belong in the article body, such as [8]. We don't hyperlink to external websites in this way. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerning:

University Canada West is listed on the BC Transfer Guide .

Why is this worth mentioning and what does it have to do with authorization? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The BC transfer guide was originally in the tuition section please look at the history. If you must lets remove it simply because I just don't care to get into semantics. --Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Another aside: When moving content from one area of an article to another, it is best not to do any other editing. Otherwise it is very hard for other editors to see what you've done. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to improve here but I need you further clarify, I don't fully understand.--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking over this talk page and the CICIC information, I'm not sure why we're mentioning it at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Ronz the article can't be undue if we want to talk about the AUCC a non-governmental, not-for-profit membership organization who directly impacts the view of the international community at large then we need to talk about the CICIC a unit of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), an intergovernmental body who collects and shares information related to the recognition and portability of academic and occupational qualifications. This article cannot be undue. If you would like lets remove them both or keep them both.--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In the authorization section; paragraphs need to be put together in a logical order. The BC Ministry of Advanced Education, and the AUCC are both authorities on the University at large. But, then we jump into the MBA and a program specific authority only to then jump into the CICIC another authority on the University at large; this is choppy and out of sequence.--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, our transitions are riddled with; that, and, because. . . This is not academically sound; transition sentences (and words) are necessary for making connections between the claims, views, and statements we make. For example:

Canada has no national Educational accreditation system. The should change to Therefore British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, oversees University Canada West.--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The University Canada West MBA is not accredited by the three largest business school accreditation bodies. The three major accrediting bodies are the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), which accredits research universities, the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), which accredits universities and colleges, and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE), all of which also accredit schools outside the US. University Canada West is working towards accreditation through ACBSP.

In the above sentence; The three major accrediting bodies are the is not grammatically correct or an academically sound transition. A simple (;) and then the governing bodies ties the article together removing the filler and allowing the page to flow.--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have put back "University Canada West is listed on the B.C. transfer guide." This was originally in the tuition section and belongs in the authorization section; again transition issues.--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Postsecondary should read post-secondary.--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The following are my "minor" edits and changes:

Canada has no national Educational accreditation system. Therefore British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, oversees University Canada West.

In addition to fulfilling the provincial charter, a university's membership with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) can be considered the de facto accreditation for Canadian universities, but University Canada West is a private for-profit university; and does not qualify for AUCC membership.

The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC), a unit of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada (CMEC), identifies University Canada West on their "list of recognized and authorized post-secondary institutions". The CICIC regards itself as “the only authoritative list of all post-secondary institutions (including the AUCC and ACCC) in one web site recognized by the competent jurisdictional authorities.”

The University Canada West MBA is not accredited by any of the three biggest business school accreditation bodies;Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), which accredits research universities, the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), which accredits universities and colleges, and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE), all of which also accredit schools outside the US. University Canada West is working towards accreditation through ACBSP.

University Canada West has been approved by the British Columbia Education Quality Assurance program as well as the Degree Quality Assessment Board of British Columbia. University Canada West is listed on the B.C. transfer guide.

--Goburst (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)