Talk:Grand Canyon University

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Canyon 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gcu.edu/Documents/phoenix-business-journal-sept-2015.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225201525/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17607 to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=17607

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) 09:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

For-Profit Transition

Some editors "jumped the gun" after the school's accreditors approved its transition from for-profit to non-profit. I reversed these changes while making it clear that the university is currently in a transition period. Its should remain like this until a secondary or primary source, like the Department of Education's College Navigator tool or the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education's classification, indicates otherwise. Any other statements are WP:SPECULATION. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@ErieSwiftByrd: Those are trailing indicators that aren't updated very frequently, sometimes taking a few years to update or change information. If we have reliable sources and the information isn't contested or complex then there's no reason for us to wait for those specific sources to catch up. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I added a cited sentence regarding the steps the school still needs to take before becoming a non-profit. We can make further changes once a secondary or primary source indicates that the school is actually a non-profit. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The university is still uniquely working with its for-profit arm - Grand Canyon Education Inc. as is noted by multiple reputable sources. Including this in the intro makes sense seeing how no other university presumably has its CEO working for its contractor and itself, and it is disingenuous since multiple employees and resources are involved in a for-profit publicly traded company, not solely a non-profit institution. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As I stated almost a year ago the suspicious circumstances surrounding GCU's transition were spot on. The Department of Education ruled that the "university is a for-profit" and rejects its attempted transition to non-profit. Along with this new development, ErieSwiftByrd's links still prove the same point, that the school been a for-profit this whole time and only certain media outlets/editors jumped the gun. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand (and share) your concerns about this institution and its recent actions. However, the article needs to reflect what reliable sources say, not our personal opinions. The IRS and Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education have approved the institution's conversion to non-profit status as has the institution's regional accreditor. The Department of Education appears to be the lone holdout and it isn't accurate to only represent its ruling when many other prominent and important organizations have ruled otherwise.

Given the complexity of the situation, I see two viable ways to handle this. The first is what we have right now: Omit the classification from the infobox and lede sentence with some explanation later in the lede and detailed explanation in the body. The second way would be to include something in the infoxbox and lede sentence - I'm not sure what - and have a detailed footnote explaining the situation.

(Incidentally, there is at least one other institution in a very similar situation - Bridgepoint, maybe? - and I would not be surprised if a few other institutions end up here, too, given the decreasing enrollments of for-profits and the constant skepticism by legislators and policy experts. So it would be good if we can establish a workable precedent for this article that could be applied in other similar articles.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would have it clearly state that the university is a for-profit college in the lede and infobox - to be consistent. I would take a quick glance at the federal government's actual ruling located here that state's GCU is still a for-profit. Most notably "GCU must cease any advertising or notices that refer to its "nonprofit status". Such statements are confusing to students and the public, who may interpret such statements to mean the Department considers GCU a nonprofit under its regulations". For every other university wiki page we look at the classifications listed in publications and the Department of Ed's website so it would make sense to list its for-profit status in the lede and then explain (as it does now) in the body of it further. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We're not beholden to a ruling by one agency of the U.S. government particularly when another agency has made a different ruling that are consistent with several other prominent organizations. So I still don't understand why you believe that we should place so much weight on one agency's ruling when this is so clearly a complex and contentious issue with contradictory rulings by different groups.

(It's also confusing to refer to the Department of Education as "DOE" when that abbreviation is customarily used to refer to the Department of Energy.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

i agree we aren't beholden to a specific agency. What is being used to determine if a school is a for-profit or non-profit at this time? I thought we used the ed departments website along with other 3rd party sources. That would be the easiest and most consistent to have in place throughout wiki. As of now the ED's website lists GCU as a for-profit, so does Carnegie classifications, and recent local and national news articles (inside higher ed, ect). Furthermore while it's good to mention in the bosy of the article that the IRS considers it a nonprofit for tax purposes and so does its accrediting body (after multiple attempts) those were all just steps necessary to convert the school into a non-profit based on the department of education's requirements - which it was ultimately denied. As of now the school is a 'for-profit university' as a higher education provider. Let's see what some other editors see and I apologize on my abbreviations I have since fixed it. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a very unusual situation. We can almost always reference any reliable source because they all say the same thing. This situation of conflicting sources would only typically only arise when an institution is in the midst of a transition and some sources are out-of-date with new information. This specific situation is unusual in that reliable sources accurately describe contradictions among different agencies who each make their own determination.

I also think it's inaccurate to say that the news articles describe the university as "for-profit" when the articles very explicitly say exactly the opposite. The lede of the Inside Higher Ed article is "Grand Canyon University, one of the few remaining success stories among big for-profit universities, has become a nonprofit" and the lede of the azcentral article is "Grand Canyon University is officially a non-profit school again."

Finally, I don't think it's helpful for readers to give primacy to the Department of Education's ruling because I don't think that is the agency that most people think of as making the definitive ruling on this issue. My best guess is that most people would defer to the IRS and its rulings for tax purposes i.e., is the organization a 501(c)(3)? The Department of Education's ruling only seems to apply to federal financial aid. ElKevbo (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You are providing old articles that are outdated from 2018. I would argue those news articles jumped the gun as did GCU with its massive advertising campaign of it being a "nonprofit" which it was forced to stop. More recent articles of the insidehigher ed [1] and [2] identify the university as a "for-profit" due to the department of education's decision. AZCentral also notes the university has been denied its nonprofit conversion [3].

I have to disagree with you on your second point - I imagine most readers are interested in how the Department of Education labels the institution. This is a school in which the US Government sees it as a for-profit, the university president is an active CEO of a publicly traded company and is giving earnings calls [4] (something that is truly unprecedented). AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you misrepresenting those news articles? They clearly don't "identify the university as a 'for-profit'" but describe the complexity of the situation including the relationship of the university with its (unambiguously) for-profit parent company. Please provide exact quotes that directly support your assertion.

And I'm extremely skeptical that the vast majority of readers even know that the Department of Education has the independent authority to consider an institution "for-profit" for its own purposes. For nearly everyone, the primary (and perhaps only) definition or consequence of being non-profit is exemption from taxes. ElKevbo (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not - I said 'due to the department of education's decision', both articles go into the for-profit status significantly so I will just leave it as that. Again I'll have to disagree with your analysis that its all about taxes (and taxes are still being paid by the for-profit arm, so this isn't totally in the clear). The primary benefit (as noted by various articles and the university itself) is the ability to advertise itself as a non-profit to get more students since there is less stigma and more respect academically/publicly. GCU is now unable to advertise itself as a non-profit, and the department is labeling it (along with other 3rd party's such as Carnegie as a for-profit). Its also the understanding that the schools main role is not providing profits to shareholders - which GCU is still doing. The school is in the business of creating profits for it's for-profit company, which the dep of education noted. I'm not sure there is much up for debate - it is clear that Grand Canyon University is a for-profit college, but I would like to see how other editors feel about the precedent we should move forward with in the future. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I came here from the WikiProject Universities noticeboard and just read through this discussion and the two more recent IHE articles AlaskanNativeRU linked. ElKevbo, I don't think they're misrepresenting them; the November 13 one, for instance, says "The decision...could be relevant to other for-profits that are seeking to change their tax status" (emphasis added), which clearly implies to me that it's still considered for-profit. I'm in favor of listing it as a for-profit and clarifying further with a footnote. Sdkb (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is probably the other institution that I was thinking of because it's in nearly the same predicament (it has been a for-profit institution and the IRS and regional accreditor have said it's now non-profit but ED has not yet said it's non-profit). ElKevbo (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

From that article it seems to distinctly state that Ashford is a for-profit "Several large nonprofit universities have expressed interest in purchasing for-profit Ashford University, potentially following the controversial playbook of the 2017 takeover of Kaplan by Purdue." and "Ashford University is in limbo. The predominantly online institution announced its intention to convert from for-profit to nonprofit in March 2018. Now, more than a year later, the transition is still unfinished." Indicating that the transition into non-profit status is not completed and the university is still a for-profit. This was also before the big GCU decision (that makes it seem likely these types of transitions will fail). The Department of Education's College Navigator tool and the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education's classification also indicate it is a for-profit college, just like it does for GCU. So I believe we are on the same page. FYI I reverted the Ashford wiki article, an IP editor just changed the lede 2 hours ago with the false assertion. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Carnegie data are almost definitely from IPEDS so they're not independent sources at all. There are only a handful of organizations that make independent determinations of this status.

I still think your approach is untruthful and misleading for readers so we're not on the same page at all. Selectively quoting tiny portions of news articles that are explicitly about how this situation is complex is especially dishonest. ElKevbo (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Well that is an unfortunate that you feel that, but I truly don't intend to come across as such. I was just stating how even though there's obviously multiple issues (which you've mentioned) at the end of the day the article still calls it a for-profit college. And along with everything I've reviewed and the sources, and input for another editor - it's clear to me that it's a for profit college and should be stated as such in the article. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)