Talk:Purdue University Global

Logo Needs Updating

Purdue Global undwent a rebrand. We would like to update this page with our new logo. The new logo can be seen on our website. I will need to ask a colleague with access to the required credentials to make this update. We plan to make the update in the coming week. Ahawk37 (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This issue was discussed months ago on the talk page, see Archive 3. Although at the time I was unaware of this comment from @Ahawk37, I recently made such an edit because I thought the update made sense and there was no objection to my proposal to make the change in the discussion which is now found in Archive 3. However, the recent change was reverted by editor @Ushistorygeek without explanation. I see no reason for this revert and request that @Ushistorygeek offer a justification for the revert on this page or to please restore the edit. JA1776 (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like most Wikipedia pages use new logos but indicate how long the logo has been in use. I am going to restore the logo but add the explanation that this logo has been used since 2023. This isn't my expertise so I welcome other options if anyone has thoughts. JA1776 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution and the 12.5% issue

Editor Ushistorygeek has restored language that has been rejected by other users and discussed on the talk page ad nauseam (See archive 4 and 5). In response to the inability to reach an agreement, I requested the matter be sorted out on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard last April or May.. Ushistorygeek agreed to participate and user @RobertMcClenon agreed to moderate. However, in the end, @UShistorygeek ultimately did not participate and ushistorygeek's language was rejected without objection until this weekend when @ushistorygeek returned to the page to restore the user's previously disputed edits. Given the degree to which this issue has already been discussed, I suggest either the language that has been in place for several months be restored or that we once again return to the dispute resolution noticeboard. This is new territory for me so if RobertMcClenon or any other editors have advice, I welcome their thoughts. JA1776 (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As I look at this again this morning, there is some important and properly sourced info about the leadership of Purdue Global that has been removed by recent edits that I am going to restore. I also am going to restore the 12.5% compromise language that has been accepted on here for several months and is already a compromise. If any users disagree, I invite them to initiate a dispute resolution process because this is an issue that has been excessively discussed in the talk archives. JA1776 (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued dedication to the article and the issues at hand. Upon reviewing the discussions in Archives 4 and Thank you for your continued dedication to the article and the issues at hand. Upon reviewing the discussions in Archives 4 and 5, I want to acknowledge the depth of deliberation that has occurred, and the outstanding comments that were never addressed. While I recognize the extensive dialogues that have transpired, I genuinely believe that my recent edits are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. After careful consideration of the discussions in the archives, it's my perspective that a definitive consensus on these specific changes was never fully reached. Wikipedia thrives on a variety of viewpoints, and even on topics that have seen substantial debate, it remains vital to be receptive to new insights.

I owe an apology for my absence during the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussions. An unforeseen medical illness emerged demanding my immediate attention. I hold the discussions on the Noticeboard in high regard, and I regret that I couldn't participate. However, it's essential to remember that, while the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard serves as a useful tool for editors to reach consensus, its outcomes are advisory in nature and not mandatory.

Given our discussion, and in an effort to move forward collaboratively, I'll proceed to restore the lead. I appreciate your commitment, and I look forward to ensuring the article's accuracy and neutrality together. I want to acknowledge the depth of deliberation that has occurred. While I recognize the extensive dialogues that have transpired, I genuinely believe that my recent edits are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I would point other editors reviewing this to achieve 5, as the discussion there does not reflect JA1776 assertion that "ushistorygeek's language was rejected without objection", in fact, it's quite the opposite:

From user M.boli:

The lede doesn't adequately reflect the shadiness of the deal

Speaking as an Indiana resident who watched this deal go down: the lede doesn't adequately reflect the shadiness of the transaction.

• The legislature passed special enabling legislation that, among other provisions, protects this "public" university from the public scrutiny available for rest of the public universities and the other quasi-independent branches of state government. This was introduced into the budget bill just before passage in 2017.
• Only after the mysterious enabling legislation was passed, without debate, was the secret deal announced -- as a done-deal.
• The deal forced the state to adopt a host of policies from the Kaplan era which are different from Purdue's policies. For example requiring disaffected students to agree to arbitration was a business policy, not a public university practice. (Which fortunately was corrected after a big outcry.)
• The official price for a university with 30,000 enrolled students was $1. But Indiana paid $20 million of the $50 million cash purchase price immediately, with the rest to be paid in a couple of years. (Edit: I was wrong, see responses.)
• Contracts with Graham Holdings to run the thing for the next 30 years, including the famous 12.5% - 13.5%. Breaking that contract would be extremely expensive, something like 3/4 of one-year.

Most of this is in the article, some of it pretty well buried. There are plenty of contemporaneous references which say the deal looks shady. I think a sentence or two in the lede section flat out mentioning that could warranted. -- User:M.boli 14:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

and ...

In my opinion: PG is a functioning institution, educating students, and a main purpose of the lede is to describe what it is. Also I think PG's main claim to fame, the thing that gets it into the news, is the deal that created the current structure, so that belongs in the lede section also.

Back to the "12.5%" question. We have the broad outline of the financial and contractual arrangement from secondary sources. I think that trying to parse the financial arrangement from the primary documents is a mistake.

1. too much detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia article.
2. there is a likelihood of getting it wrong in any case. There are a lot of contingencies and if-statements and jargon terms.
3. The controversy and criticisms refer to the broad outline not the details. The controversy isn't over the exact percentages of revenue owed to Graham in year 3 dependent on blah blah. The controversy is PG outsourcing more duties and more control than most OPM contracts, 30 year contract with huge penalty to cancel it, PG paying a percentage of revenues to Kaplan/Graham, PG adopting the academic regulations of the former school, etc.

We can get what we need on the controversial arrangement from the higher-ed press, the general press, and other reportage. And much of the controversial items are in a 30 year contract, we can't legitimately push it all out of the lede into a history section. -- User:M.boli|M.boli] 20:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Ushistorygeek (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)