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)

First, I responded to M.Boli's request last May by adding this paragraph, which @Ushistorygeek continues to delete:

"The acquisition was legally permitted according to language added into the 2017 Indiana State Budget in the closing days of the legislative session. The law allows Indiana's public universities to create affiliated institutions, like Purdue Global, and makes them exempt from the public records requests with which other state schools must comply."

Second, @Ushistorygeek continues to delete about 4,000 characters including citations without any explanation . For example, the user also deletes this entire paragraph and its many citations:

"Today, the university is led by an emeritus Purdue faculty member and administrator, and is overseen by the Purdue system's leadership, specifically the Purdue University President and five members of the systems's Board of Trustees. Under this new management, the school has focused on educating working adults who have life experience and often some college credits. The school's programs specialize in career-oriented fields of study at the credential, associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral levels. Purdue Global also operates an online law school known as Concord Law School."

Third, as explained exhaustively in the chat history, @Ushistorygeek continues to misconstrue in a way that is not backed up by the sources. I agree that the article (at least the intro) does not need to go into the nuances of that payment, but it should be factually correct and it simply is not correct to imply that each year 12.5% of Purdue Global's revenue goes to Kaplan when that has never occurred and parts or even all of the payment are removed from the books every year. Although I believe the 12.5% belongs in a separate section, I have compromised and kept it in the intro in a strong paragraph about Purdue's history with Kaplan but that compromise has not been reciprocated.

Fourth, @Ushistorygeek's edit also contains other inaccuracies not supported by citations such as the claim that its main campus for accreditation purposes is in Indianapolis. The version the user deletes includes a citation that shows this is not the case but others could be added to bolster that if desired. I will add those citations in case that helps.

I don't like engaging in anything that resembles an edit war but I don't know how to compromise any more than I have without just giving into something that is inaccurate and unhelpful to readers of the article. Therefore, I am going to restore the language that has been on this page for several months and ask that @Ushistorygeek either 1.) leave it as is. 2.) find a new way to represent the 12.5% that does not imply it's an entitlement and also keep the above citations and paragraphs that the the user keeps removing or 3.) leave them as is until we can enlist the help of a neutral party to help us find a consensus. JA1776 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with all your characterizations, and frankly it feels as if you are policing the article and its content. I've tried to productively collaborate in the past over months and initially you reverted those edits without explanation. I draw you back to the comments I made then:

The current lead section and the facts provided in the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global are essential for readers seeking accurate and comprehensive information about the institution. The current lead adheres to Wikipedia's core content policies, including verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and no original research.

The information presented in the lead is verifiable, as it is supported by reliable sources. The details about Purdue Global's creation, programs, locations, and affiliations with Purdue University and Graham Holdings Company are well-documented and are corroborated by multiple sources. For example, the university's status as a public-benefit corporation and its relationship with GHC are sourced from a reliable reference, while its programs and locations are supported by another authoritative source. The public-benefit status is a critical differentiator for the institution, and any change to this classification would require a change in a) Indiana state law, and/or b) accreditation from the HLC. Given that neither change has occurred, it should remain in the article and the lead, along with a complex relationship with current stakeholders (Graham/Kaplan).

The lead uses credible and authoritative sources to substantiate its claims. References are reputable sources that provides information on Purdue Global's corporate structure and relationship with GHC, while another reliable source offers details about the university's programs, locations, and Concord Law School. Other sources cited in the article lead also meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.

The article maintains a neutral point of view by presenting information about Purdue University Global without bias or undue weight. The lead section covers the university's history, programs, locations, and affiliations in a balanced and impartial manner. Additionally, it avoids promoting or endorsing the institution, focusing instead on providing factual, objective information without words like ‘backed’.

Finally, It is important to note that recent edits to the article originated from an account formerly named "Kaplan University," which may indicate a conflict of interest. In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies, edits made by users with a vested interest in the subject matter should be scrutinized and assessed for neutrality, verifiability, and adherence to other content policies. Such edits should be carefully evaluated by other editors in order to maintain the article's neutrality, verifiability, and adherence to content policies. By doing so, we can ensure that the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global remains a reliable, unbiased, and comprehensive source of information for all readers. Ushistorygeek (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Here I am again on the talk page writing to justify the continued inclusion of the following information in the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global, Inc. (PG), formerly known as Kaplan University. It would be incredibly helpful if other editors would engage prior to removing well sourced text as this information is crucial to providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the university's history, structure, and operations.

The information about PG's creation in April 2018 through Purdue University's acquisition and rebranding of Kaplan University is important to the article. This information provides readers with a contextual understanding of how the university came into existence, its organizational structure, and its affiliations.

Furthermore, the information about PG's former for-profit owner Graham Holdings Company (GHC) and the fact that it returns 12.5% of operating revenue to GHC is critical to understanding PG's financial structure and relationships. This information highlights the unique nature of PG's public-benefit corporation status and distinguishes it from other universities. I would point you another similar page for an example of how this is presented -> University of Arizona Global Campus.

Finally, the information about Kaplan Higher Education continuing to offer non-academic support services to PG under the supervision of Purdue University, and most academic staff being former Kaplan employees, adds to the article's comprehensiveness. This information provides readers with an insight into how PG operates, and how it is still connected to its former owner. In conclusion, the information about PG's creation, its financial structure, and its relationship with its former owner, as well as its organizational structure and operations, are critical to understanding the university. The inclusion of this information in the Wikipedia article on Purdue University Global is essential for readers to get a comprehensive understanding of the university. Ushistorygeek (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing to provide additional clarity to my previous messages, I want to reiterate the importance of including the information about PG's contractual relationship with Kaplan Higher Education, Inc. in the Wikipedia article and lead. This information provides valuable context for readers seeking to understand the university's operations and its relationships with external entities. The contractual arrangement between Purdue Global and Kaplan may be of interest to readers as it raises questions about the independence of Purdue Global and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise from this relationship. These are important issues that garnered unusually outsized media coverage during and after the acquisition, and it is our responsibility as editors to ensure that this information is accurately and objectively presented.

It is important to note that the 30-year revenue share agreement between Purdue Global and Kaplan accurately described in the article was a critical part of the purchase of Kaplan University from Graham Holdings for $1. As such, it is a significant aspect of Purdue Global's financial structure and relationship with its former owner. Given this context, it is important that we provide accurate and comprehensive information about this arrangement to readers who may be interested in understanding the university's operations and financial structure.

Furthermore, given the potential COI of Special:Contributions/Ahawk37, who appears to be a paid employee of Kaplan, it is even more crucial that we maintain transparency and neutrality in our content. Any edits made by users with a vested interest in the subject matter should be scrutinized and assessed for neutrality, verifiability, and adherence to other content policies. I hope that this message provides further clarity on my position and the importance of maintaining the information about Purdue Global's relationship with Kaplan in the Wikipedia article. I urge other editors to join in this discussion and to carefully evaluate any proposed edits to ensure that the article remains accurate, impartial, and reliable. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ushistorygeek response avoided the issues at dispute. I'm not a COI user and I'm not trying to insert anyone's past edits, at least intentionally. I don't even recall what those are and that charge is irrelevant and a distraction. Likewise, I also am not trying to remove anything about Kaplan or its relationship to Purdue Global. All that is a straw man argument.

This dispute is about the fact that @Ushistorygeek has persisted in deleting both citations and content backed by citations and insists on putting in the first sentence a statement that is neither accurate nor is it backed by a citation. To summarize my above comments:

1.) @Ushistorygeek continues to delete about 4,000 characters including citations without a legitimate explanation. For example, among others, the user also deletes the following entire paragraph and its many citations:

"Today, the university is led by an emeritus Purdue faculty member and administrator, and is overseen by the Purdue system's leadership, specifically the Purdue University President and five members of the systems's Board of Trustees. Under this new management, the school has focused on educating working adults who have life experience and often some college credits. The school's programs specialize in career-oriented fields of study at the credential, associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral levels. Purdue Global also operates an online law school known as Concord Law School."

2.) @Ushistorygeek's edit also contains other inaccuracies not supported by citations such as the claim that its main campus for accreditation purposes is in Indianapolis. The version the user deletes includes citations that shows this is not the case.

3.) I agree that the 12.5% issue belongs in this article and I am not attempting to remove it or anything about Purdue Global's history with Kaplan. The question is, where should that appear and how should it be described. The citation, which @Ushistorygeek continues to remove, says that if certain financial benchmarks are met, 12.5% of Purdue Global's revenue goes to Kaplan. @Ushistorygeek deletes that citation and distorts it to imply that Kaplan get's 12.5% of the revenue no matter what. I agree we don't need to go into the details of the situations in which such payments are made but they rarely reach 12.5% so the modifier that's being deleted is crucial. The user also puts this issue, which is a relatively small point when it comes to what Purdue Global is, in the first sentence rather rather than the introduction or its own section and that gives it undue weight in my view, likely to attempt to paint a biased viewpoint that exaggerates the role of Kaplan in the current makeup of the university.

I attempted to sort these issues out through a dispute resolution process several months ago but when @Ushistorygeek failed to participate or respond, I was told to by the moderator toncorporate the version that the user is now again trying to remove. JA1776 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@JA1776,

Let's delve into your concerns:

1.) During the period of my unavoidable absence, several edits which had been under dispute were incorporated. Several fellow editors noted that these edits carried a promotional undertone and I agreed. For Wikipedia, the emphasis should always be on providing unbiased information derived from nationally recognized sources. These sources unambiguously highlight Purdue Global's unique ongoing financial commitments to its former for-profit owner — an aspect that stands out and merits emphasis.

2.) My assertion regarding the primary accreditation location is based on multiple reliable sources. If there are contrasting reputable sources available, I encourage you to present them for consideration. It's pivotal that our edits be rooted in accurate and verifiable data.

3.) The 12.5% Issue: On this point, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Wikipedia's primary goal is to present verifiable and factual information. The agreement's details, available through reliable sources, clearly state that Purdue Global owes Kaplan 12.5%, eventually increasing to 13%, of gross revenue. This was widely reported at time of the Kaplan University acquisition, and continues to be noted in present-day media due to the unusual relationship.

User @M.Boli encapsulated this well writing:

“The controversy and criticisms refer to the broad outline not the details … 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”

And

“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.”

Further, GHC’s (Kaplan’s parent organization) August 2023 SEC filings further solidify this point, highlighting that as of June 30, 2023, Kaplan had a total outstanding accounts receivable of $113.3 million from Purdue Global. This balance is primarily made up of the deferred contributor fee, also known as, 12.5%. (When the cash is transferred does not negate the point). The continued financial agreement with Kaplan is intrinsically tied to the organizational structure and functioning of Purdue Global. While we can delve deeper into the cash flow details later in the article if you deem it significant, it's vital that the introductory sections reflect the foundational financial arrangements accurately as described by multiple reliable sources.

4.) While I acknowledge and respect the contributions you've made to this page, JA1776, it's essential to remember that no single editor "owns" a Wikipedia article. Articles are the collaborative effort of many, built on consensus and mutual respect. The frequency or volume of one's edits does not entitle them to a sense of ownership or priority over the content. Let's ensure that our collective focus remains on maintaining the page's accuracy and neutrality, rather than personal interpretations or preferences. Your active involvement is appreciated, but it's equally important to respect the contributions and viewpoints of the broader community of editors. Ushistorygeek (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2023

I urge us to move beyond individual interpretations and focus on the primary goal of curating a factual, well-referenced, and unbiased Wikipedia entry. Ushistorygeek (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

1. I reject the characterization made by @Ushistorygeek that "several fellow editors noted that these edits carried a promotional undertone." One editor M.Boli suggested we add more prominently some of the controversies of the acquisition and I quickly complied but ironically, this is one of the sections that @Ushistorygeek continues to remove (see the last paragraph in my latest version.) Moreover, Indyguy argued that there was no need to include the origin information in the first paragraph as desired by Ushistorygeek. Finally, as further evidence that the above edit is not in dispute, the Dispute Resolution moderator authorized me to make the above edit and there has not been any objection to it since @Ushistorygeek returned.
2. @Ushistorygeek continues to argue that multiple citations prove the only language that can be accepted is that "Kaplan is entitled" to 12.5% but the user still has not offered a single citation to back up that point and the user continues to remove the citations I provide. I found one opinion piece that uses the phrase "entitled", but many more that use language like "may", "could" or "if certain financial benchmarks are met".
3. The reason careful sources hedge and don't use phrases like entitled is because it's not simply an issue of when the cash is transferred as @Ushistorygeek argues. It's complex and we will never simply explain the nuances but in some situations, no money may be owed and in others, it may go on the books for a short period of time but then be forgiven after two years. In fact, skimming the financial statements, I do not believe Kaplan has ever been paid 12.5%. I know we can't use original research and it's all complex so we have to go by the sources and the best sources and a majority of the sources don't make blanket statements like "entitled to 12.5%" especially as the opening sentence. I believe we should follow suit.

JA1776 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Editors can confirm themselves by reviewing the talk page archives and edit histories. They may be interested in your prior claim "I have never objected to including the 12.5% in the lede and am not attempting to remove it.", despite doing so on multiple occasions:

• You removed it from the lead on April 7.
• You removed it again on April 8.
• You removed it again here on April 10.
• And here on April 11 you removed it yet again while seemingly ignoring two comments on the talk page.
• And here on April 14 you added "as payment for these services", which was incorrect as Graham/Kaplan is reimbursed for direct costs first, and the 12.5% contributor fee is in addition to the reimbursement.

2. Multiple sources have been cited to support the assertion, including the transaction documents that created the public-benefit corporation that is PG, it is user JA1776 who refuses to acknowledge them. For the benefit of you and other editors, here are sources that support the current language.

“Kaplan will essentially run the new university, providing the administrative backbone, and will be entitled to a fee equal to 12.5 percent of the new institution’s revenue”

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/purdue-u-is-expected-to-buy-mega-for-profit-kaplan-u-turn-it-into-a-public-university

“After that payment, Kaplan is entitled to reimbursement for its own cost of providing services, plus a fee equal to 12.5 percent of the Purdue affiliate’s revenues.”

https://www.ibj.com/articles/63625-kaplan-paying-50m-to-partner-with-purdue-on-new-university

“In return for those services, Purdue will pay Kaplan 12.5 percent of the new institution’s total revenue a year.”

https://www.chronicle.com/article/purdues-purchase-of-kaplan-is-a-big-bet-and-a-sign-of-the-times/

“Kaplan will continue to run the university, collecting 12.5% of the new school’s revenue for 30 years.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/27/purdue-buys-kaplan-university/100990102/

“After Purdue covers operating costs and collects $50 million in tuition, Kaplan is entitled to 12.5% of Purdue Global’s revenue.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2018/09/11/mitch-daniels-is-making-purdue-more-affordable-and-upping-enrollment-higher-ed-purists-are-aghast/?sh=1dac5a726eee

“Eventually, Kaplan will receive reimbursement for its costs of providing support to the school, as well as a fee equal to 12.5% of New University’s revenue”

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/28/purdue-university-buys-for-profit-kaplan-university-but-is-it-a-good-idea/ Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, 12.5% has always been in the article and I to my knowledge I have never tried to remove it from the body of the article. The debate has been where it should be. At first I thought it should be in it's own section only where we could provide the nuances behind it but I have compromised on that point and am fine keeping it in the introduction as long as it's described in the same terms it is in the body and isn't given undue weight.

Looking at your sources, you are correct that there are a number of sources that shorthand the agreement by saying Purdue pays 12.5%. It was interesting to me that a number of them were in the early days of this when understanding of the deal was low.

For our purposes, it's simply a question of, is it more accurate to say "Kaplan is entitled to" or "Kaplan may" or "could" receive 12.5% and the fact that language appears in multiple places makes the answer clear.

For example:

"Also note that the agreement for the fee is for Purdue Global to pay KHE 12.5% of revenue as the calculated fee, as long as the school has met certain financial metrics." From the nation's expert on the deal https://onedtech.philhillaa.com/p/purdue-global-fy20-financials-show-online-school-getting-closer-to-break-even/

"If there are sufficient revenues, Kaplan may also receive a fee equal to 12.5% of Purdue Global’s revenue."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104889/000010488921000018/R10.htm

"What happens if Purdue University Global grows enrollment and makes enough operating income to fund the 12.5-percent revenue-sharing payments to Kaplan Higher Education...?"https://www.chronicle.com/article/beware-the-instant-global-campus-movement?cid=gen_sign_in

"In return for those services, Purdue will pay Kaplan 12.5 percent of the new institution’s total revenue a year. But Kaplan will get its money only if there are funds remaining once Purdue and Kaplan have both recovered their direct costs. For the first five years of what could be a 30-year deal, Purdue is to be paid a guaranteed minimum of $10 million annually by Kaplan before Kaplan can be reimbursed for its direct costs or gets its 12.5 percent of revenue. After six years, Purdue has an option: It can buy out Kaplan and take the back-office functions in-house, or it can contract with another online-program manager." https://www.chronicle.com/article/purdues-purchase-of-kaplan-is-a-big-bet-and-a-sign-of-the-times/ Note that this is one of the sources @Ushistorygeek mentions above but the user only takes one small excerpt.

"Purdue will compensate Kaplan, Inc. for its services by paying Kaplan 12.5 percent of Purdue Global yearly revenue; however, Kaplan, Inc. will only be paid this percentage after Purdue and Kaplan have recuperated their direct costs." https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=ecgar-perspectives

"During the first five years of the 30-year deal, the priority of payments from revenues generated will flow like this: First, the new institution is repaid for its direct operating costs; then the new institution receives a guaranteed payment from Kaplan of $10 million; then Kaplan receives a payment covering its direct operating costs for the marketing, recruiting, technology, and others services it has provided; then Kaplan receives a payment equal to 12.5 percent of total revenue. Any money left over after that goes to the new institution." https://www.chronicle.com/article/purdues-purchase-of-kaplan-is-a-big-bet-and-a-sign-of-the-times/

"In the waterfall of cash flow, the last to get paid will always be Kaplan and the first will always be Purdue. That is, as money comes in, Purdue's side of the operating costs and its $10 million priority payment are paid first." https://www.journalgazette.net/opinion/columnists/purdue-global-successfully-extends-universitys-reach/article_7482e52d-a7e9-5dda-abda-e1733962e7db.html

So that's my explanation for why I think there needs to be a modifier on the 12.5%.

JA1776 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References