This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The introduction includes the Huffington Post's claim that UOPX is an "example of for-profit colleges that operate to receive government educational subsidies", but doesn't mention that UOPX is "fully" accredited? Can't hide the elephant in the room!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
That claim was made in a column by Amitai Etzioni, of course Phoenix is also fully accredited. For most well known universities, Wikipedia usually does not list the school's accreditation in the first sentence. That sentence had been in the "organization and administration" section for about a year, but it was recently suggested that it did not belong there. If you have a better idea of where it should go, please let me know. JamaUtil (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this doesn't belong in the lead. It seems to fit best in the history section since that is where some of the criticisms and investigations are currently located. (Incidentally, if anyone has the time and the interest, the history section needs to be rewritten. The content is fine but it's essentially a list of bullet points without actual bullets.)
I just read the lead of this article and it is clearly slanted towards a negative POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you find reality unpleasant doesn't mean the article isn't neutral. It is sourced, relevant information. If you think there's something important that's being left out, or untrue claims being made, then why don't you say what they are? Just because you clearly don't like it doesn't mean it's clearly non-neutral. The reality of the situation is that it's obvious to every sane person that this is a worthless diploma mill. If you really think you have sources (apart from, you know, itself) that tout its value, by all means, be bold and go ahead and add them.
But it's not wikipedia's fault that the University of Phoenix is a worthless institution. And the fact that the lead of the article makes that clear even to you just proves that the article is neutral. It would not be neutral if, to jump right into a Godwin's Law situation here, Adolf Hitler's page had to be "neutral" in the sense of making the reader unsure whether this is what sane people would consider a good or bad person. "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." - It is a seriously contested assertion that there is any merit to the University of Phoenix whatsoever, and so it would be non-neutral of Wikipedia to present it as a fact. Either state your objections in detail, or the dispute tag is going away. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
With talk page comments like this, I'm not surprised this article is biased against the institution. You don't know whether or not I "find reality unpleasant" since I've never said anything about my personal views on for-profit colleges, just on this particular Wikipedia article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There's just too much information in the introduction. It's certainly worth discussing many of the problems the company has now, but it doesn't all need to be in the intro. Grafs 1 and 3 of the intro would be a fine summary. The other stuff can go elsewhere in the article. Flyte35 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The history section almost seems as a different title for "Controversy". It seems rather strange to put that sort of thing in History. Mysteryquest (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Such criticism is presented in History to adhere to WP:STRUCTURE; granted, more general historical information about the university is needed. Any help filling it out is appreciated. —Eustresstalk 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Considering how frequently articles and op eds about the dropout rate, inflated cost as compared to public univeristies, low job placements, etc, it seems appropriate to add a controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There's been one many times, but faithful UoP students and graduates keep editing it into oblivion with regularity. It has a short shelf life and requires a decent amount of maintenance to keep in existence. Try perusing the article history - there's complete and well-referenced criticism all ready to paste back into the article. Casascius♠ (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Then please paste it back in! If not already in the article, I will make sure it finds a nice home. I looked through the history, I'm pretty sure nothing has been removed. JamaUtil (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is a perfect candidate for being protected, I think. Right now, it reads almost like an advertisement for the school, despite the healthy amount of criticism it has and does receive from both traditional schools/teachers, former and current students, and others tasked with monitoring such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Then please paste it back in! If not already in the article, I will make sure it finds a nice home. I looked through the history, I'm pretty sure nothing has been removed.JamaUtil (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This page should be protected because of repeated vandalism by self-interested Phoenix affiliates who violate Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission to present objective facts from multiple well-documented perspectives. The following paragraph seems to be of particular concern to these vandals:
"In 2012, Apollo Group planned to close 115 campuses. The New York Times reported that "enrollments at the University of Phoenix and in the for-profit sector over all have been declining in the last two years, partly because of growing competition from other online providers, including nonprofit and public universities, and a steady drumroll of negative publicity about the sector’s recruiting abuses, low graduation rates and high default rates ... including many charges that the schools enrolled students who had almost no chance of succeeding, to get their federal student aid." According to an article by Brian Stoffel at the Motley Fool "tens of thousands of students were being recruited [by for-profit colleges] for a service that wasn't fit for their personal circumstances – leaving them with little to show for their decision but a boatload of debt." Some critics have referred to Apollo Group and University of Phoenix as criminal enterprises that prey upon veterans, women, people of color, and socially isolated individuals."
The problem is that the last line is misleading. The source for it doesn't "refer to Apollo Group and University of Phoenix as criminal enterprises that prey upon...." It's talking about the entire for-profit education industry.Flyte35 (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Even if it were specific to them, "Some critics have referred to..." prompts the question: who? Jonathunder (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)