Jump to content

Talk:University of Arizona Global Campus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,492,917 edits
m Substing templates: {{WikiProject Iowa}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.
m EdiTHORial moved page Talk:Ashford University to Talk:The University of Arizona Global Campus: The acquisition of Ashford University by The University of Arizona was completed on December 1, 2020: https://news.arizona.edu/story/university-arizona-global-campus-officially-opens-about-35000-students
(No difference)

Revision as of 17:34, 11 January 2021

Article to incorporate

Huffington post had a nice article here. Seems that the headquarters is now (or may soon be) in Vagina California. JamaUtil (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another good one [1], thanks DegreeInfo! JamaUtil (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article from today's hearing [2]. JamaUtil (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article material

It's nice to see this article get some fresh blood! 76.21.250.12 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

university not school

Ashford should be referred to as a university not a school. As in "Although the university is regionally accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools,[4] it has begun the process of seeking regional accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges." instead of 'Although the school..." A university is a school but using the word school takes away from the fact that Ashford is a place of higher education. Articles about other universities such as Pepperdine and Argosy properly refer to the institutions as universities but the Ashford University article repeatedly refers to Ashford as a school. The article should reflect the same respect for this institution as it does for other institutions with the same type of accreditation regardless of non-profit or for profit status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I too hope one day to walk amongst the giants of Higher Education Universities, such as Pepperdine and Argosy. Non cogitum, ergo nihil summum. JamaUtil (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enrollment

I changed the on campus enrollment number to accurately reflect the schools growth. I also changed the link so that the article it connected to reported the new number. Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:]]) 15:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawal rates

In this report it is written that "As for-profit colleges have come under increasing scrutiny, a U.S. Senate report in 2011 revealed that Ashford has one of the highest withdrawal rates of any publicly traded school in the industry" and then it links to an article that says "Bridgepoint has among the highest withdrawal rates of any publicly traded school in the industry, according to a Senate report last year". Bridgepoint is Ashford's parent company and also operates another school, the article does not specify if the withdrawal rates are from Ashford alone or being counted with University of the Rockies the other university owned by Bridgepoint. The statement that Ashford has one of the highest withdrawal rates is too vague especially when the article that it links to does not specifically point to Ashford but to it's parent company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that information to be inaccurate at least as far as the citation. In the citation it says that Bridgepoint has one of the highest withdrawal rates not specifically Ashford University. Bridgepoint does not only own Ashford University alone but another school as well. I would like to remove the portion that says Ashford University has one of the "highest" withdrawal rates seeing as the citation does not support that assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writewithpaper (talk • contribs)

Academics

Seeing as this is a university I find it strange that there is no section for academics. I will add one over the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.232.52 (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that whatever you add will be referenced to reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations

I move that one single section be created called Investigations. As of now there is are separate sections for the US Department of Education Audit, 2011 Senate Hearings and Iowa Attorney General investigation and arguably the section Iowa Department of Education belongs under a single section with the the previous three sections. With three separate sections for investigations and not even one for academics the article seems very unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writewithpaper (talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of investigations I think all of the audits and such should go under the single heading of controversies. Is there any objection to unifying the separate sections into one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writewithpaper (talk • contribs) 06:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4,5,6 and 7

These sections should all be under one heading; controversy. I see that on the Capella University page as well as the ITT Technical Institute page these types of things are under the heading controversy. Instead of having four sections of controversial items, they should all be under the same heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writewithpaper (talk • contribs) 05:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little confused. What exactly is controversial about sections 4, 5, 6, and 7? They happened, they appear to be major events in the schools history, no one disputes their happening or that (for example) Ashford improperly paid recruiters. Can you think of a better heading that incorporates all these sections besides "Controversy"? JamaUtil (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think controversies is a good heading. It is used in this article about Argosy University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argosy_University Fraud Allegations, Attorney General Investigation and Enrollment Adviser Controversy all appear in the controversies section. Writewithpaper (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashford University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ashford University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford University (2005-present) has lots of trivia

If there is no debate, I would like to heavily edit the section titled Ashford University (2005-present). Lots of information for such a short amount of timeCollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashford University enrollment numbers show a discrepancy in reporting

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the enrollment numbers in SEC reports, which are higher, and the numbers provided to the US Department of Education.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, NCES currently reports total enrollment of 36,453. [1] During the same time, SEC reports have total enrollment of between 40,730 and 45,087. [2]CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reasons why there might be legitimate discrepancies when looking at different documents. Does one report use FTE and another use headcount? Are there different definitions of who is included in the two reports (e.g., IPEDS may only be interested in first-time full-time credit-seeking students but the other report might include transfer students, part-time students, and non-credit-seeking students)? Were the counts done at different times? Are there additional locations included in only one report (e.g., branch campuses reported to IPEDS separately)? ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The SEC reports are vague.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC) NCES also reports 12-month enrollment was 92,383, which would indicate a lot of churn in the system. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ College Navigator https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=ashford+university&s=all&id=154022. Retrieved 18 July 2019. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Form 10-K". www.sec.gov. Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved 18 July 2019.

Still classified as "for-profit" by U.S. Department of Education

The U.S. Department of Education still classifies this university as "for-profit" so it's misleading to simply state that it's non-profit because some other entities have allowed the university to transition to that new classification. At best, the statement needs explanation and qualification. ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: CONSENSUS NOT TO MOVE. As noted by the other participant, this move would be much more suited once the University is actually renamed.(non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ashford University → University of Arizona Global Campus – Ashford was acquired and renamed, per article here: https://www.ashford.edu/announcing-university-arizona-global-campus 5minutes (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This request is premature as the cited source is clear (e.g., "Upon completion of the transaction...", "Launching 2021.") that the acquisition and renaming are still in process and not yet concluded. ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Arizona_Global_Campus&oldid=999729237"