Talk:University Canada West/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tuition section

According to the Student Aid BC website, 30 per cent of UCW students defaulted on their government-backed loans in 2009. That compares with a default rate of 3.7% at the University of British Columbia and 4.7% at the University of Victoria.

References

I have a few questions regarding the above:

that figure of 30% still relevant and accurate? Does someone know the actual current number? Facts from five years ago might not be very reflective of what is going on currently.

The sentence says that these figures are come from the Student Aid BC website. However, I personally could not find anything on their website. The article on CBC news does not link to the source of the information. Has someone found the original data on the Student Aid BC website?

Could someone clarify whether this information really fits under a “Tuition” category? As a reader, I would expect to read about their courses, faculty, facilities, delivery models, etc. If we can furnish this section with more relevant information the page will be more informative. UliVileella (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

See my comments in the section above concerning WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph about the accreditations, when it comes to MBA the most widely recognised accreditations are AMBA, EQUIS and AACSB.

It’s misleading the keep the article as it is for a number of reasons:

- The AACSB accreditation is for research-led universities and the accreditation process can take up to 7 years (UCW is a relatively new university). As the article states, UCW is working through the application process.

- The ACBSP accreditation is actually an American accreditation and is not compulsory for Canadian universities.

- The IACBE is an international accreditation and not compulsory for Canadian universities Mezzenga (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed at great length, and I wish we had better sources to guide us on how to best approach this.

The university is notable because of its repeated problems regarding accreditation, so we should take care with changes in emphasis so we don't overlook past discussions and consensus to this point. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the mention about the AUCC, as it stands, can be quite misleading. AUCC does not recognize private institutions: this is purely ideological (it is questionable whether this is relevant to UCW). It is not related to "accreditation", the right to offer degrees, or a reflection of an institution's academic credibility or rigour. This should be included in a “membership and affiliations” section, if there was one. What do you think? -- Mezzenga (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What you say about the AUCC is not what our article about the AUCC says: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, "an organization that represents Canada's colleges and universities", and "it represents 95 public and private not-for-profit Canadian Universities and University Colleges in Canada." So it's not true that it doesn't recognise private institutions. Also: "Membership in AUCC along with a provincial charter to grant degrees is used as de facto accreditation in Canada." If those statements are wrong, then they should be fixed. But since you've changed that section based on what appears to be a misunderstanding, I'm going to revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is that UCW is private and for-profit, whereas the AUCC represents only public and private not-for-profit institutions. Therefore, the AUCC accreditation would not be relevant to UCW anyway. I had not removed the reference to AUCC in my edit – only moved the paragraph down due to its low relevance to the topic. I had also added further sources about UCW’s accreditations, so I’m reverting back to my changes if that’s ok. -- Mezzenga (talk)

While I understand why the changes to the Reception section have been reverted (no consensus), I think it was unreasonable to remove all the content about the university’s credit transfer. This has certainly been a topic of major discussion (even in this discussion page) and I thought that adding details found on the BCCAT Transfer Guide website would help to clarify things – sorry, I was trying to WP:BEBOLD. If the wording is not suitable, please feel free to amend it, but I strongly believe the essence of the credit transfer content should be maintained on the article.

I think we all should work together to help the article become more relevant to this university. At the moment, this entry has a lot of information about the Canadian accreditation system and all the accreditations that UCW does not hold. Given the lack of reliable sources, this article fails to provide some pretty basic information that you would easily find in any other entry about universities (history, notable alumni, campuses, notable faculty, research, etc). We don’t have much information available, so let’s try and use the little we have to find a solution for this article – and let’s avoid WP:EDITWAR please. If you don’t agree with a change, let’s discuss and amend it, rather than revert the whole thing.

A few points to consider about the Reception and Authorization sections:

• Original research: this has already been mentioned here and I don’t think we should ignore it. The references made in the Reception and Authorization sections seem all to imply a conclusion. I understand there is a very limited amount of reliable sources available to build a more balanced account of the facts, but perhaps the original research issue is something that more experienced editors could look into;
• There is clearly an excess of quotes in the Reception Section. Although the relevance and suitability of the CAUT Bulletin are debatable (see WP:RS and WP:QUESTIONABLE), most experienced editors would agree that there are too many quotes (350+ words) from one single source. To avoid undue weight issues (WP:UNDUE), these could be summarized and condensed into one paragraph highlighting the most important points;
• The Hindustan reference: the university’s side of the story is included in the original news article in the Hindustan, but it is not included in this WP entry. Perhaps this could be included to ensure WP:NPOV;
• Authorization section: I’d like to ask more experienced page watchers their views on whether they would find appropriate to include details about the Canadian accreditation system. It’s useful to know, but not sure how relevant this is. Perhaps we should stick to the accreditations that are relevant to the university;
• Both sections seem to be comprised of a lot of news stories thrown together, but without a clear link between each other. For example – the financial issues, the closing of campuses, the reaction prior it UCW founding and reports in the Hindustan, etc. are all under one single section, which I’m not sure it’s ideal.

Views? -- Mezzenga (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion for Reception Section

Following my comments above, I’d like to propose a review of the Reception section. As it stands, I believe there is considerable undue weight given to the opinions featured in the CAUT newsletter, with a particular excess of quotes which, in my view, could be summarized. I have not removed any of the sources in my suggestion but simply organized the text in a more comprehensible way. The key point is where I summarize the quotes from the CAUT bulletin newsletter into two sentences: “In 2004, prior to its founding, UCW was criticized by the Canadian Association of Teachers (CAUT), by the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia (CUFA/BC) and by the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of British Columbia, who raised questions about UCW’s academic quality, transparency, and its cost. They also criticised the government’s emphasis on expanding the private sector universities, rather than committing to investing in high-quality, affordable post-secondary education.”

References

Please see below an attempt of re-restructuring the Reception section and let me know your views:

"Given that UCW was the first private, for-profit university in Canada, there is continuing debate regarding the governance it would have to adhere to and about the future of the higher education system in Canada and British Columbia. Established in 2005, the university was sold by David Strong to the Eminata Group, who owns small colleges in Vancouver only three years later. At the time, it was reported that the university was losing $300,000 per month . In 2011 UCW closed its Victoria campus and informed students that they could continue their studies online or transfer to the Vancouver campus . At the time, some students stated that they found it difficult to get their credits transferred to other institutions. Some students were also unhappy that the university's announcement closing the Victoria campus came immediately after the final day for dropping classes without financial penalty. In 2004, prior to its founding, UCW was criticized by the Canadian Association of Teachers (CAUT), by the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia (CUFA/BC) and by the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of British Columbia, who raised questions about UCW’s academic quality, transparency, and its cost. They also criticised the government’s emphasis on expanding the private sector universities, rather than committing to investing in high-quality, affordable post-secondary education.In March 2012, it was reported that some dissatisfied students from UCW expressed "disappointment" with their experience at the university to BC Opposition leader Adrian Dix, who in turn called for a closer look at the regulatory bodies responsible for monitoring B.C.’s for-profit schools In October 2012, "over 30 students, graduates, faculty and former teachers and employees interviewed by Hindustan Times have alleged that it is a university only in name, and that many of them were duped" – allegations vehemently denied by the university. "

References

Let me know your thoughts Mezzenga (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's original research to change the pov of the topic in a manner that doesn't hold to the references. It's something suitable for pr from the university. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional Content – History, Academic Activity and Article Summary

Hi all,

This article currently lacks important information about UCW’s history, current ownership structure and academic activities. There may also be the issue of original research which has already been touched upon by Ronz further up this talk page in 2009 in a thread that also involved Hairhorn and Ingoman.

Let me declare straight away that I have a COI here as UCW is one of the organisations that I represent – you can see my user page for more details. I will also register my COI on WP:COIN shortly. Despite my COI, I want to reassure all editors and everyone here that I intend to work with the community to update and improve this article at the best of my efforts by seeking consensus on neutral, accurate content. I understand that such information hasn't always been easy to find, but there is a good number of credible sources on UCW that deserve some attention.

First of all, please see a proposed Article Summary, History and Academics sections in this user space here. I think the information about credit transfer is particularly important as it has been a topic widely debated, including in this page. This is ready for review as it’s fully referenced with appropriate citation templates. Please feel free to leave feedback on this talk page, on COIN, on my talk page or on the talk page of the user space. If you have issues with the wording, please feel free to suggest improvements.

I have also noticed that the page has been tagged and its neutrality is disputed. The tag suggests that the original article’s Reception and Authorization sections could be improved with further information and more facts to avoid original research. I intend to work with the community to address this in the future, but in the meantime I would be grateful for you feedback on the proposed Summary, History and Academics sections here.

Many thanks, BrandDude (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have you helping out with this!

At a glance, it might need some trimming. Looks like it might be too dependent on primary sources, but I'll have to look more carefully.

You might want to try using WP:REFLINKS to get the sources expanded and formatted better, which will help others review the proposal.

The controversies have to be included given how well documented and prominent they have been. They should be included as part of the history, summary (lede), and any other relevant section. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Ronz - and I’m more than happy to help.

I don’t intend to remove any of the controversies which I believe are already very well documented in the Reception section. The idea behind the History was not replace any of the current existing sections, but to provide a very factual summary of what has happened at UCW in the past 10 years – this is particularly important because UCW is a university and I'm sure if we scratch below the surface we can find even further details about other engagements that go beyond the controversies.

We can look at the neutrality and possible original research issues within the Reception and Authorization sections once we reach a consensus on the proposed article summary, history and academic activity.

I will take some of your suggestions on board and let you know once I have a new draft for those sections. In the meantime, please do consider updating the lede as UCW is no longer part of the Eminata Group, so this information is out of date.

I have also registered my COI on COIN here

Thanks a lot, - BrandDude (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's just a cursory look.

As far as requests go (like the Eminata Group info being out of date), it's best to provide a source, even when it is covered in current proposals or the like.

Unless I'm overlooking something, you've offered nothing but press releases, and nothing that makes it clear what financial and legal transactions took place and with what outcome. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I have included a new source regarding the transfer of ownership in the draft (source note number 3, to be precise). You will see the relevant information on the third page of the document. I hope that will suffice.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, - BrandDude (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What I was hoping for was a straightforward description with a link, here on this page.

So we have two sentences in the draft:

"UCW is part of Global University Systems, an international group of education institutions with colleges and business schools in the UK, Germany, Singapore and Canada."

"In 2015, it was announced that UCW had been incorporated by the Global University Systems group"

"is a part of" is vague and ambiguous, hence my confusion. Is it correct to say "Global University Systems group purchased and operates UCW" then?

It would be extremely helpful if you were a bit more up to speed on Wikipedia editing. I'm not very aware of what Wikipedia now offers for learning how to edit: User:WLU/Generic_sandbox and WP:TMM are two that I've recommended for a long time. WP:TUTOR and WP:ADVENTURE appear to be more recent and approachable.

You cannot have missed references to WP:NPOV in reading about conflicts of interest, but I want to make sure.

You may have yet to read WP:PSTS and the associated policies/guidelines/essays. At some point we'll need to the primary and non-independent sources from the secondary/tertiary and independent sources. The latter are what we use to decide what information to include in the article and to what detail - NPOV issues.

MOS:WTW is helpful when it comes to actual language. The language of public relations and marketing is generally not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Ronz. I’ll check out those links to ensure we speed up the process.

The source refers to “change of ownership”, so I believe “UCW is owned by Global University Systems” is clear enough and would be appropriate in this case.

I'm totally with you on your point about PR and marketing language – I’ll stick to the facts and hope everyone here will too.

Let me know if you need anything else to proceed.

Thanks for your help, - BrandDude (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Granted I don't know much about corporate law. I was looking to see if it was an outright purchase, a merger, or some other legal agreement. Then I wanted to add something that parallels the current content:

"Founded in 2005 by David F. Strong, a former president of the University of Victoria, it was purchased in 2008 by the Eminata Group." by adding something like, "in 2015 it was purchased by the Global University Systems group". But I don't know how to properly describe the change of ownership. --Ronz (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I think ‘acquisition’ would be the most appropriate term to describe this, so “in 2015, it was acquired by the Global University Systems group” would be a suitable way to put it.

Does that work for you?

Many thanks, - BrandDude (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential sources

• http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/nridiaspora/ndp-grills-government-over-ties-to-eminata-group/755022/

There's a great deal about Global University Systems group that should probably be examined. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for making the changes, Ronz. I understand that the press-releases, the recent media coverage and the letter on the BC government website might not be the ideal primary sources of info that we would like to include here, but perhaps it would be worth to cite them for now until we can find further “official” sources. This way the article would still benefit from referenced content. It would be a waste not to use the current information that is available out there.

I suggest the below as potential sources for the time being – let me know what you think:

• http://www.hothousemedia.com/stmnews/news/150512-University-Canada.html
• http://docs.openinfo.gov.bc.ca/D17479915A_Response_Package_AED-2014-00145.PDF
• http://academica.ca/top-ten/ucanwest-signs-global-university-systems
• http://canadaindiaeducation.com/ucanwest-signs-with-global-university-systems/
• http://oraweb.aucc.ca/pls/ua/english_search2?ad_nbr_in=32865
• http://www.ucanwest.ca/all-news/about-university-canada-west/university-canada-west-joins-global-university-systems/index.html
• http://www.globaluniversitysystems.com/news/university-canada-west-joins-global-university-systems

I agree with you on the Global University Systems group – in the near future I believe this could be a topic for a separate wiki article. BrandDude (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's basically all press releases other than the one opinion piece, or am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of them are press-releases, others are articles based on the press-release. The information is factual, but their relevance depends a lot on how we interpret them as sources. Study Travel Magazine (first on the above list) is a reliable publication covering international education news. The Academica.ca Group (third on the list) is a respected source of information about higher education in Canada. The second link on the list is a PDF hosted on the British Columbia government website and is not a press-release - scroll down to page 3 and you'll see a letter of confirmation from the Ministry of Advanced Education, which I think is as close to the event as we can get. What do you think?

Thanks a lot for spending time helping out, - BrandDude (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Press releases reprinted with minor changes are press releases still.

The letters are primary sources. Sorry I didn't note that.

"The Academica.ca Group (third on the list) is a respected source of information about higher education in Canada." Howso, and why do we care given all they did was print a short paragraph summarizing the press releases? --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I’m aware the Academica Group's Top Ten is very popular among university staff, but I know that doesn’t necessarily make it a reliable source. I'll keep an eye out for further primary sources about the acquisition and will share here as soon as I find them.

Should I include the letter in the article – or do you prefer doing it yourself?

Moving on - I'll incorporate your feedback onto my original draft and share a revised version here later.

Many thanks, - BrandDude (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been hoping we'd get some more help. I guess we plow ahead without. --Ronz (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, thanks for your help.

I have updated my draft for the Summary, History and Academic Activity sections following your advice. It’s fully referenced and you can check the draft here . Most notably, I have added the following line to the History section:

“During the years in which UCW was under the Eminata Group’s ownership, the institution was involved in a number of controversies related to course cancellations, office and campus closures, student satisfaction and quality standards.”

Otherwise, I kept it quite short and sharp, sticking only to the facts. These sections are not intended to replace any of the current sections – we’ll address those once we have a consensus on these new ones.

In the meantime, could you please add the BC government letter as a reference for the sentence about the university’s acquisition?

Many thanks, - BrandDude (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing anything like the letters being used in a Wikipedia article. Let's play it safe and bring it to WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz - I get what you’re saying. Sorry, I didn’t know the letter wasn’t an appropriate citation. I’ll keep checking the government website and let you know as soon as I find further official sources.

Have you had a chance to look at my updated draft for the new sections? Your feedback will be very much appreciated. You can read the draft here. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks a lot, - BrandDude (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I was hoping to reach an agreement on the draft so we could make a progress on this article.

If you have some spare time, please do take a look on the proposed copy here? Your feedback will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a lot for your help on this, - BrandDude (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see us making any progress at this point. Maybe we can get someone with far more time that I to help you learn what is and is not appropriate within Wikipedia and why. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, although I am disappointed with the deletion of my draft, I understand where you are coming from. I'm still very keen to work with you and the wider community to improve this entry and therefore I will include this article in the Peer Review list on WP:UNI. Hopefully someone with more experience in editing university-related articles will help us to improve and ensure this entry has the information it needs to meet at least some of the WP:UNIGUIDE guidelines. Many thanks, BrandDude (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow! I'm surprised it was deleted, especially while under discussion.

WP:UNI should get us some help. Good job finding it! --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Review

@BrandDude: I did some major cleanup, but it's all I have time for, for now.

What I noticed was that the page was filled with primary sources and original research. For most articles about minor organizations, the sources we're looking for are almost always bylined press articles from established news organizations, written by staff journalists for the News section (no op-eds, guest blogs, press release reposts, short blurbs, etc.)

Here is an example of press article that has a byline from Kathy Tomlinson and is from a major news organization; that's a good source. Well, in truth, press articles are some our weaker sources, compared to academics and expert-written books, but it's almost always the best sources available for these types of subjects. You may also want to look for any trade press that covers academics or well-established industry reports that are considered the authority on education.

At-a-glance, based on the current sources that are salvageable, this doesn't look like the type of organization that would stand to benefit from a Wiki-compliant article. I did not find any allegations in the sources of actual corruption and poor educational standards as was alleged, but by all accounts the school has done poorly; both students and investors feel they have gotten the short end of the stick as the school went broke.

My suggestion would be to do some due diligence to research other press clippings of comparable quality to the BBC story, but I would lean towards this being one of those cases, where there is no possible way for both the article-subject and Wikipedia to both leave happy.

CorporateM (Talk) 22:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice work overall.

I think it's notable as the very first private university, and the Cautbulletin.ca source needs to be retained as the only commentary (that I recall) about the problems as being the first. These problems continued (to this day?) in the form of lack of MBA accreditation.

I think we need to identify all removed sources and be sure we're not overlooking anything else of obvious importance. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

According to CBC News they were "one of" the first for-profit universities, as oppose to the first. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Doesn't change a thing other than specific wording. --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: Sorry for the belated response. I don't have this page on my watchlist. I think there are quite a few reasons to question this source's reliability. First, it made a factual error about this university being "the first", which suggests a lack of fact-checking. It's a "Bulletin" which is usually a name given to newsletters for small communities, as oppose to serious reporting. It says they accept crowd-sourced Commentary submissions and the source in question has no author listed. When a source is the only one to covered an alleged controversy, this does not seem like a good rationale for inclusion, but another indication of questionable reliability. No source has an exclusive on accurate information and any legitimate controversy of a national level scope about private education would surely be covered in better sources, if it existed.

Finally, I see that this bulletin is published by the Canadian Association of of University Teachers, which appears to be an advocacy organization, that, among other things, advocates against the involvement of commercial interests in education. CorporateM (Talk) 04:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see that as an indication of lack of fact checking. Most importantly, I don't see any reason to remove the source completely. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

History Section?

@CorporateM: @Ronz: hope you’re both well.

In line with the WP:UNIGUIDE, I believe this article would benefit from a section about the university’s history. I’ve gathered as much information as I could find and drafted a few paragraphs. I kept it as factual and neutral as I could. Could you please take a look when you have some time? I’d be grateful for your feedback.

UCW was established in 2005 by Dr David F. Strong as the country’s first self-funded university to degree-level courses. The university’s first campus was located at 950 Kings Road, in Victoria, British Columbia in a site formerly occupied by Blanshard Elementary School. The first degree classes began in September 2005, with active student recruitment throughout Canada and internationally.

Late in 2005, thanks to a partnership with Sage Hills the University announced plans to expand operations with a new campus in Comox Valley, in Vancouver Island. In 2006, UCW merged with 32-year-old Victoria College of Art and Design and with the Canadian College of Business and Language, one of Victoria’s oldest English language schools. Both mergers enabled UCW to add language courses and fine arts diplomas to its program portfolio. In 2008, UCW started offering MBA and BCom programs in Singapore in co-operation with Kaplan Asia Pacific Management Institute.

Although the institution was valued at $30 million in 2006, due to financial difficulties and a high amount of debt which almost drove the university to bankruptcy, UCW was sold to the Eminata Group in 2008. During the years in which UCW was under the Eminata Group’s ownership, the institution was involved in a number of controversies related to course cancellations, office and campus closures, student satisfaction and quality standards.

In March 2011, the University ended operations in its Victoria campus. In February 2014, UCW announced a relocation from its Vancouver campus in Melville Street, to the larger London Building on 626 West Pender Street.

In 2014, Alfred Morris CBE, a former vice-chancellor for a number of British universities, was appointed chairman of the board at UCW.

In 2015, it was announced that UCW had been acquired by the Global University Systems group. The new affiliation is aimed at strengthening student support and academic development at UCW.

Thanks, BrandDude (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Are there any page watchers willing to review the edit request above? Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! BrandDude (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

BrandDude - I'm happy to make this edit, however, many of the sources you've referenced do not meet WP:RS guidelines. Usually any large-circulation daily newspaper, peer-reviewed journal, major news website or broadcast media outlet (e.g. you used cbc.ca and canada.com which are great), is a RS. Government websites are often okay, too. For non-controversial, self-evident statements, an organization's own website or press releases posted to MarketWired or PRNewswire are (sometimes) okay if qualified (for instance, adding prefix "according to XYZ organization ..."). Social media (LinkedIn), blogs, business directories (n49.com), user-edited sites (e.g. yelp), commercial websites, etc. are rarely or never allowed as RS. If you can edit this so it only references RS sources and then ping me, I'd be happy to make the change to the article. LavaBaron (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron - Thank you. I will make those changes and ping you as soon as I can. - BrandDude (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest edits

@Ronz: Hi,

An entire factual paragraph about the university’s accreditation has been deleted and I’m struggling to understand why since the information contained in it was correct, relevant and adequately referenced. If you have suggestions to improve it please let me know, but simply deleting it only contributes to reducing the overall quality of the article.

“Since its founding, it has struggled to attract enough students to stay in business.” – I can't see any references to this statement. It is also a very subjective claim since there are no references to student recruitment targets to rely upon.

Could you please reconsider or explain your views?

I will be grateful for your feedback. Thanks, - BrandDude (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does it belong? What makes it noteworthy in an encyclopedia article? Certainly, with all the controversies and problems, the university wants to promote the information loudly and repeatedly, but that doesn't mean we do it here. I found it to be rather blatant WP:SOAP, hence my edit summary.

“Since its founding, it has struggled to attract enough students to stay in business.” Seems to summarize the main (highly noteworthy) problems well. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz:

Accreditation information belongs to the page because UCW is a university. Yes, it is owned by a profitable business, but UCW is a university and academic information is relevant.

Please take a look at the WP:UNIGUIDE’s recommendation for article structure. It says that editors are recommended to “try to include information about the institution's accreditation, tuition and financial aid, number of degrees/programs offered, number of degrees awarded annually, academic honors, academic calendar, and admissions statistics.” – I don’t have all this data available yet, but I see no reason to assume that accreditation details are not relevant to this university’s article.

I know that due to my professional connection to the university most people assume that I’m here for the wrong reasons, but I’m serious about working with the community, respecting the WP policies and helping this entry to become a GA. I think adopting the WP:UNIGUIDE as a guideline here will definitely help us to improve the quality of this entry as a whole.

Views? - BrandDude (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"The school is accredited by the British Columbian government." --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: I completely understand your point, but, given that UCW is the first for-profit university, readers expect to see further information related to credit transfer and the licenses and affiliations under which the university operates. In fact, credit transfer has been a topic of a major discussion here on this talk page in the past and there are good resources available to cite, so I see no reason to believe that such data is irrelevant to a university.

It will be helpful to have other points of view here, otherwise we might end up going round in circles – @LavaBaron:, @EmeraldM78:, would you care to share some thoughts?

Thanks. – BrandDude (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"readers expect to see " Says who?

"credit transfer has been a topic" I agree that credit transfer problems need to be restored to the article. --Ronz (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I made the following changes:

• Renamed section "educational services" to "academics" and added accreditation information ("educational services" is not a section recommended by WP:UNIGUIDE, nor is it present in a sample of other BC universities I checked (Simon Fraser, UBC, UVic, etc.) ... however, "academics" recommends including information about the institution's accreditation, tuition and financial aid.
• Deleted the section "reception" (not included in the model template of WP:UNIGUIDE) but retained the content that was in that section, moving it to "History"
• Edited According to the Student Aid BC website, 30 per cent of UCW students defaulted on their government-backed loans in 2009 to Thirty per-cent of UCW students defaulted on their government-backed loans in 2009 - the source in this case is CBC. While CBC, in turn, cites the Student Aid BC website, since CBC is a RS source we don't need to qualify where they got the info from, but can simply state it as a fact.
• Deleted Tuition for a full undergraduate degree program at UCAN is higher than similar programs at public universities due to the fact that it is not publicly subsidized. as it's not supported by a RS and appears to be WP:OR. I will look for a RS for this to see if it can be reintegrated.
• Added additional info to "History" sourced to Study Magazine.
• Added section called "campus" between "history" and "academics" as per UNIGUIDE.
• Much of the content in the lede was not included in the body, so I moved most detail from the lede into the body as per the MOS. While I am cognizant that there is a recent desire to include controversial information in ledes to mute the advertising benefit created by the sudden reliance of Google Knowledge Graph on WP articles, until the MOS is updated allowing us to address this, the lede needs to remain a succinct and standalone summary of the article and we should not be engaging in individually-inspired crusades for truth and justice, regardless of how noble they may be.

Please LMK if anyone disagrees. LavaBaron (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice work.

Why remove the $300,000 mention?

The closing of the Victoria site happened during school session, and was announced after students were able to withdraw without financial penalty. Seems rather noteworthy.

The article makes no mention that the university was one of the very first private Canadian universities, and that the acceptance of such schools was controversial. Seems rather noteworthy.

This source was removed as "unreliable", but seems to be reliable and is by far the most detailed information available on the controversy of the acceptance of the private school as a university: "B.C. Accepts Private University". Cautbulletin.ca. 2004-01-09. Retrieved 2011-03-29.

Great job. Too bad there's so little to work from. There are some reports on the debates about accepting private universities that might be used. If Strong was involved in lobbying for acceptance, then they should be included. I cannot recall the details and am having a hard time tracking them down. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(1) I don't have a problem reinserting the $300K thing, I only removed it for readability as there was only so much that could be crammed in and "teetering on bankruptcy" seemed to be, holistically, the more significant fact than it was losing X$ per month, which is meaningless without context. (2) UCW was not one of the very first private Canadian universities, as there have been a not-insignificant number of Evangelical Christian universities with varying degrees of accreditation since at least the 1970s; we would need a RS that says it was "one of the very first private Canadian universities" (3) I did not remove CAUT Bulletin so can't address that. Ultimately, we need to try to make a readable article, not cram in every piece of salacious scandal at the expense of a concise and encyclopedic entry. The job of this entry is to communicate basic facts about UCW, not warn potential students away (though I agree that's probably a good idea, but WP isn't the correct venue). Besides, the article, as it now reads, is not exactly a glowing testament to UCW. To your point about the debates, that might be better in a standalone article, similar to For-profit higher education in the United States. Such an article would be appropriate to link to this in a "See also" section. LavaBaron (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added a sentence of info from the CAUT Bulletin. In reviewing the CAUT Bulletin, however, I think it is only marginally RS as it's the house organ of a labor union that had a vested financial interest against UCW. In that sense, I think we need to be careful of sourcing criticism of UCW from it as it will, necessarily, only present one perspective. It does seem RS for basic Who / What / Why facts, though. LavaBaron (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Really good work, thank you.

At the end of the reference to the Hindustan Times article, can we possibly add something along the following lines: “At the time of publication, the university denied the allegations saying that it had many students who secured positions in industry and government, both in Canada and abroad”.

I took that quote from the HT article itself. Correct me if I’m wrong, but since the allegation that students were “duped” is based on opinion, it would be reasonable to also include the university’s point of view on the matter, right?

Feel free to adapt the statement as you see fit.

Thanks a lot! -- BrandDude (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me - added. LavaBaron (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Updates

@LavaBaron: Hello! If you have some free time, could you please help me with a few updates?

1 – Default rate info (under Academics): The article currently refers to a 30% default rate, but the most recent figure from the Student Aid BC website is 16%, which is just below the average reporting default in the private and the public sectors in BC. See here: https://studentaidbc.ca/apply/designated (you’ll need to scroll down)

2 – Location: “As of 2012, the university occupies the floor of an office building in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia”. The UCW campus actually occupies five levels in the historic London Building at 626 West Pender Street since 2014. Source here (p.13): https://ucanwest.ca/media/203010/ucw-calendar-2015-2016.pdf

3 – Chairman: I know for sure that Skip Triplett has not been the university’s chairman for a while. Alfred Morris (accountant) CBE has replaced him and has been the chairman of UCW for nearly a year now. There aren’t many RS available on that – but that’s the correct information. I’m listing a few sources for your consideration:

• Alfred’s Linkedin: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alfredmorris
• This company directory: https://www.aihitdata.com/company/010724E4/GLOBAL-UNIVERSITY-SYSTEMS/people
• This article: http://education.tdprofiti.com/private-providers-maligned-and-misunderstood.html
• The article below from Times Higher Education used to have details about his role at UCW, but unfortunately the author’s bio is no longer available: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/private-providers-maligned-and-misunderstood/2017473.article

I know this is not ideal, but could you consider the pros and cons of updating this information based on the sources currently available?

Thanks a lot for your help! - BrandDude (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

BrandDude - this seems fine at first glance but I need to look at the sources more closely and I'm just stepping out. Can you leave a reminder on my Talk page and I'll get to this in the next 48 hours? I'm afraid I'll forget about your ping if you don't. LavaBaron (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron - Of course. No problems at all. I'll leave you a note over the weekend. Thanks a lot for your help. - BrandDude (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

BrandDude - I've made the first two changes. I can't make the third change as it would have to meet WP:BLP which has a high-standard for veracity of sources. Social media is almost impossible to use for references to living people since anyone can make an account in anyone's name. The company directory is self-published and tdprofiti.com appears to be a blog. If the University itself published his name on its website that would probably work since UCW has a legal character and can be held liable for errors and misstatements, therefore we can probably presume it will be accurate about the identity of its own chair. LavaBaron (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron – Thank you very much for your help. I’ve raised this issue with the University and I believe they are in the process of updating the board information on their website. I’ll ping you again when the information is available. Thank you again and all the best, - BrandDude (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Hello! I just wanted to let you know that the information about Alfred Morris CBE has been added to the UCW website:

• https://ucanwest.ca/about-ucw/interim-chair;
• https://ucanwest.ca/about-ucw/governance;

Do you mind taking a look at the source and update the article whenever you have a chance?

Also, do you think it might be worth adding details about the university’s board and governance to the main text? I noticed that the University of British Columbia article has a section on governance and academics, which is also in line with WP: UNIGUIDE. Do you think we have enough RS to build on the governance topic?

Thanks very much in advance, - BrandDude (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Governance

BrandDude - I've updated the chair to Alfred Morris. To your question about governance, that sounds fine. It would probably work best if you drafted proposed text and post it here for a week or so (along with sources; though, in the case of governance for any corporation or association, the organization's website itself is usually sufficient unless there is some obvious controversy as to why it would not be reliable). If no one has objected or suggested alterations after that, ping me and I'll be happy to add it. LavaBaron (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron – Thanks for the edit and for the advice. I’ll be in touch soon. All the best, - BrandDude (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

To all page watchers, may I suggest the content below to be included under this article’s Academic section? For background, please refer to my previous conversation above with LavaBaron. Let me know if you have any objections or suggestions on the proposed draft below:

The governance structure of UCW is composed of an academic council and a board of governance, in line with the bicameral system in place at many other Canadian universities. Under this structure, the board oversees the strategic direction of the university including fiduciary, legal and financial responsibility, while the academic council – which represents staff, faculty, students and alumni – presides over the university’s academic programs and policies.

Although UCW doesn’t receive public funds, the British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education requires the institution to file audited financial statements. The institution also undergoes an annual quality review by the Degree Quality Assessment Board.

In September 2015, Dr Brad O’Hara was appointed as Vice-President of Academic and Students. As of 2015, the board of governance is chaired by British academic Alfred Cosier Morris CBE DL

References

Many thanks in advance for your feedback! -BrandDude (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: – Hello! There have been no objections to my edit request posted here on 29 October. Do you think you can implement them when you have some time? Feel free to make any amendments as you see appropriate. Thanks a lot in advance for your help! - BrandDude (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@BrandDude: - looks good! I'm traveling at the moment but will be able to make these before the end of the week, though probably sooner, if that's okay. LavaBaron (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: - Thanks for letting me know! Feel free to ping me if you have any questions or concerns. All the best, BrandDude (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@BrandDude: I've made these changes with two modifications - I removed the word "Dr" per the manual of style for WP:CREDENTIAL and removed Morrris' post-nominal letters as they've already been used in the first instance (the infobox) and, IIRC, the standard for post-nominals was they are included in the first instance and dropped in subsequent references. LavaBaron (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Thank you very much for your help and advice as always. All the best, BrandDude (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request - Academics

Hello pagewatchers - may I suggest the edit below to be added under the ‘Academics’ session? Given the significance, do you think it would be worth mentioning this in the lede as well?

“In January 2016, undergraduate programs at University Canada West have been granted unconditional five-year consent by BC's Minister of Advanced Education on the recommendation of the Degree Quality Assessment Board. Representatives of the Board determined that “UCW programs met or exceeded the learning outcomes specified” without condition after reviewing the Bachelor of Commerce and renamed Bachelor of Arts in Business Communication.”

Let me know your views! Many thanks - BrandDude (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

@LavaBaron: Hello! Hope all is well with you. Sorry to bother, but I wonder if you could help me with an edit again. I posted an edit request 10 days ago but had no feedback so far. If you have some free time, do you think you can take a look and let me know if the content above is relevant enough to be added to the article? Thanks a lot! - BrandDude (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Hello! Hope you had a good break. Sorry to bother again, but do you think you could take a look into the above whenever you have some free time? Thanks a lot! - BrandDude (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a single-paragraph summary of a UCW press release. It has no wider context demonstrating any encyclopedic value, so I think it best be left out per SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

BrandDude, I have to concur with Ronz on this point. The Academia Group company's corporate website is probably not RS. I tried looking for something substantially similar at the Ministry's own website but couldn't find an announcement there and there was nothing in mainstream media. If another source is forthcoming, however, I think we could incorporate this in the future. LavaBaron (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback! I'll get in touch again should I have more significant content for the page. Thanks for taking time to look into it. All the best - BrandDude (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request - ACBSP Accreditation

Hi all, University Canada West is now accredited by the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). May I kindly request one of the page watchers to update this information both in the body of the article and also on the infobox? The article currently says that UCW is a candidate for the accreditation.

Here are the sources:
https://www.acbsp.org/members/default.asp?view=0&id=18775599&pubview=
https://www.acbsp.org/page/membership_list

Please let me know if I can be of any further help. In case anyone has any questions regarding my COI with the institution, you can find more information in my user page and in previous posts in this talk page. I am available - feel free to ping me anytime.

Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the Academics section accordingly. I have not "updated" the infobox, and in fact have removed the "Affiliation" entry. It has nothing to do with accreditation. Voceditenore (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: thanks for taking time to look into this and for your quick response. I’m sure you are a lot more experienced than me to know what is appropriate and what is not. The change you applied to the infobox seems to be in line with what other university articles have in their infoboxes. Thanks for helping me out once again! - BrandDude (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request - Scholarships

Hello pagewatchers - may I suggest the edit below to be added under the ‘Academics’ session? While I understand that some primary sources have been used in the draft, I believe there are no obvious reasons as to why the university’s website would not be a reliable source of information about its own scholarship programmes. This doesn’t seem to be unusual - the McGill University article, for example, follows a similar pattern. Please let me know your thoughts on the below. I’m very happy to take your suggestions on board.

Scholarships at UCW are available to Canadian and international applicants for both undergraduate and graduate courses. Similarly to other Canadian universities, many of the scholarships available are merit-based, relying upon applicants’ high school (or international equivalent) grades. For example, domestic and foreign students applying for UCW’s Academic Excellence need a minimum 3.20 GPA out of 4.33 to qualify for the minimum scholarship award. The amount offered as scholarship grows proportionately to the applicant’s GPA, going up to $20,000 (undergraduate) and $15,000 (graduate) for those with a minimum GPA of 3.80 and above.

The university also offers one annual full scholarship exclusively for First Nations applicants. In total, according to an announcement made in November 2015, UCW’s scholarship programs for 2016 are, together, valued at more than $800,000.

References

Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Hello! I’m wondering if you could give me a hand again. I posted the above edit request 10 days ago and I was hoping to receive for some feedback, but had no response so far. When you have some free time, do you think you can take a look and let me know if the content is acceptable? Thanks a lot! - BrandDude (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

BrandDude this seems fine to me. I'm not familiar enough with the treatment of scholarships on higher education sites, however, to know if this is WP:PROMOTIONAL or not. I don't think it is, however, out of a preponderance of caution let me get some advice and I'll circle right back. LavaBaron (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be outright promotion without any encyclopedic value as sourced. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don’t think the wording itself is promotional, but I completely understand that the lack of RS might be an issue here. I’ll try and find some better references and get in touch again. Thanks a lot! -- BrandDude (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

BrandDude - it may be more of an issue with the content itself rather than the sources. On reviewing a random selection of university pages for University of British Columbia, University of Toronto, and University of Manitoba, it doesn't appear any contain this level of detail (or even mention) of scholarship programs the university offers. Particularly spelling-out specific acceptance criteria and dollar amounts is probably more akin to what would find on a company, organization, or institution's website than in an encyclopedia. LavaBaron (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron - Thanks a lot, I appreciate the feedback. I was looking around and there doesn’t seem to be a standard when it comes to scholarships. While the WP:UNIGUIDE doesn’t have a guideline on scholarships, the McGill University, New York University, the University of Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology articles (some of which are GA) give a reasonable amount of details on scholarships. Since UCW does offer a number of scholarships, do you think it would be worth to mention it? We don’t necessarily need to add all the details, but perhaps a couple of sentences as below would do the job. Let me know your thoughts:

Scholarships at UCW are available to Canadian and international applicants for both undergraduate and graduate courses. Similarly to other Canadian universities, many of the scholarships available are merit-based, relying upon applicants’ high school (or international equivalent) grades.

References

Thanks a lot! -- BrandDude (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

BrandDude - based on your rationale, I don't think that's unreasonable. I've implemented this addition. LavaBaron (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The second half is WP:SYN based upon primary sources, so I've removed it. Let's look at what sourcing the GA articles have. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Ronz. LavaBaron (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over the GA articles mentioned, I don't think the remaining bit strays too far. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help! –BrandDude (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over this again, it's WP:SOAP. UCW isn't comparable to the universities mentioned, or any research university for that matter. I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Student default rate

In case someone wants to look for valid sources, or check to see if these are archived somewhere, the following was removed: --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Thirty per-cent of UCW students defaulted on their government-backed loans in 2009, compared against a default rate of 3.7% at the University of British Columbia and 4.7% at the University of Victoria. By 2010 that number had dropped to 20-percent, further improving to 16-percent by the end of 2012."

References

Source for Campus section

Hi Ronz – I managed to find a source for Vancouver’s heritage buildings and the London Building is included in the register. Please check page 25: http://guidelines.vancouver.ca/V001.pdf

Since we’re talking about the building, would it be appropriate to add an image of the façade under this section? Please see an option below which clearly shows the name of the building – let me know if you agree to use it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:University_Canada_West_-_The_London_Building_Campus.jpg

Thanks - BrandDude (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That is an authoritative, primary source. The only independent source doesn't mention the building at all, just the location. It seems a bit undue to go into all that detail.

I'm no experts on images and their use. I'm not sure how well it will scale down to a suitable size. There's a 320x197 version of the image that seems too big. What size are you thinking? Go ahead and put it in so we can see how it renders. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello pagewatchers, please could someone assist with my request above? Due to my COI with the university, I’d rather not interfere on the content and look of the page directly. Could one of the volunteers here upload the image below to the article?

Here’s the URL to the image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:University_Canada_West_-_The_London_Building_Campus.jpg

Probably the “Campus” section would be a suitable area for the image. Grateful for your help. Thanks - BrandDude (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)