Talk:University of Phoenix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is the Introduction NPV??[edit]

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 108.132.159.114 (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.)

ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


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. 199.19.252.54 (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)
I certainly agree with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I move to close the NPOV dispute. --Smack (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

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. —Eustress talk 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a link to UOP's general history information: http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/about_university_of_phoenix/history.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.209.181 (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, that certainly eliminates the need for verifiable, notable sources. /s 199.19.252.54 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for New Section: Controversy[edit]

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 198.150.19.122 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it anonymous user! JamaUtil (talk) 00:20, 30 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 24.131.238.187 (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)
The White House College Scorecard seems to be a reputable source for information about graduation rates, graduates' earnings 10 years after leaving the school, and also the cost of the academic programs.Rrrrevolution —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 20 January 2016 (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."[2] 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."[11] 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.[12][13][14][15]"
Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
Just Danny Weil, of truthout. Flyte35 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

I have removed this from the lede. It may belong in the body but we are an encyclopedia, not Consumers Report. If the investigation has a notable impact, then that impact could be added to the lede. --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a section, "Governmental lawsuits and investigations", where this sort of thing may belong. It would probably be more useful to explain what the investigation is about precisely. "Issues related to marketing, recruitment, enrollment, financial aid, fraud prevention, and student retention" is broad and ambiguous and, frankly, the Department is "investigating" schools, even real ones, all the time. It's unclear what this is about. Flyte35 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 October 2014[edit]

Other editors are removing key legal, financial, and consumer information that I have inserted. All of my sources are credible, including work by investigative reporter Aaron Glantz.

Dahnshaulis (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 November 2014[edit]

Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have included important legal and consumer information that can be verified by the Center for Investigative Reporting. Muboshgu has deleted this important information.

@Dahnshaulis: Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to add investigative information from Aaron Glantz (Center for Investigative Reporting) as well as information from USA Today regarding University of Phoenix as a "red flag" school. [1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahnshaulis (talkcontribs) 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

References

U of Phoenix likes to harass, but doesn't tolerate being confronted for their harassment and scamming[edit]

Although, I'm sure this post will soon be deleted by the U of Phoenix staff as well, I posted this message on on my Facebook wall to all of my friends and family as well as anyone else it can reach and now I'm sharing it here.

<Remainder of off-topic post refactored Jonathunder (talk)>

Invictus 80 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Invictus_80Invictus 80 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"U of Phoenix staff" do not control this talk page, but this is not a forum for general discussion about the subject of the article and this is definitely not Facebook. This page is for improving the article: anything else is off-topic here. Jonathunder (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Academics sub-heading[edit]

Hello,

I oversee several Academic Operations functions within the University of Phoenix. I received a phone call from a faculty member who reported a concern regarding erroneous information found in this article. Specifically, this excerpt found under the Academics sub-heading is false:

In October 2014, the university instituted a policy directive to instructors advising them not to grade or mark papers in a detailed fashion because too-intense criticism might be demoralizing to students. In a rubric it deemed "CMART" (which some insiders dubbed "KMART"), instructors were to limit their corrections on student papers to a very few salient features and a generalized positive comment.

I can confirm faculty have never been directed to limit corrections or provide generalized positive comments. Faculty members are required to provide affirmative and corrective feedback (credit deductions must be clearly explained, contrary to the suggestion in this article) as well as feedback specific to the content, organization, and mechanics of submitted work. This is explicitly stated in the University's Faculty Handbook - a governing document - along with the classroom review tool referenced in this article. Also, while hardly the most significant point, the review tool has never been referred to as "KMART" - formally or colloquially - by anyone internal to the University.

I am happy to provide clarification on our feedback requirements. However, I feel neutrality is better served by eliminating this excerpt altogether. In reviewing articles of other universities, I see no mention of feedback delivery mechanisms. In fact, while this is clearly anecdotal, the overwhelming consensus in discussing this with peers - all having attended traditional schools - is that faculty members at these institutions rarely provide feedback beyond a score or letter grade. I believe a bias-free approach supports removal of this content. Furthermore, the source cited to support the information found in this excerpt is unavailable.

I hope I have introduced this matter appropriately.

Regards,

Aaron Aaron Rawls of the University of Phoenix (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out on the talk page. I removed the paragraph because it is not confirmed in the linked article, and the linked YouTube video was removed because of copyright claim by Apollo Education Group. The linked article has this link] to a video which requires sign in. UOP has no obligation to provide Wikipedia access to the video, of course, but it would help provide transparency if it were available to us, if for no other reason than to serve as a basis for refuting the information that you requested removed if it is ever added again. Unfortunately we have no way of confirming your affiliation with UOP, and we need a source that is reliable by Wikipedia standards. An official video or written statement on UOP's website regarding this issue would be considered reliable. But as I said, that is entirely up to UOP. Sundayclose (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

2008 religious discrimination judgment conspicuously missing from Wiki page[edit]

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-10-08.cfm


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX TO PAY $1,875,000 FOR RELIGIOUS BIAS AGAINST NON-MORMONS


EEOC Settles Suit on Behalf of Class of Enrollment Counselors in Online Division

PHOENIX – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Federal District Court Judge Mary H. Murguia has entered a consent decree for nearly $2 million and significant remedial relief to resolve a class religious discrimination lawsuit against the University of Phoenix, Inc., and its parent corporation, Apollo Group, Inc.

Apollo Group and the University of Phoenix are one of the largest employers in the Phoenix metropolitan area. In its lawsuit, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (EEOC v. University of Phoenix, Inc., and Apollo Group, Inc., CV 06-2303-PHX-ROS), the EEOC charged that the University of Phoenix engaged in a widespread practice of discriminating against non-Mormon employees who worked as enrollment counselors in the University’s Online Division. Enrollment counselors at the University of Phoenix are responsible for recruiting students and are largely evaluated based on the number of students they recruit. At present, the University of Phoenix has over 2,000 employees working in online enrollment.

Robert Lein, who filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC that resulted in the lawsuit, said, “I am very pleased with the outcome of this case and I thank the EEOC staff for their work. I am happy to hear that the University of Phoenix is making significant changes to its environment to prevent what happened to me and many of my colleagues from happening again in the future.”

Testimony of witnesses in the case revealed that managers in the Online Enrollment Department at the University of Phoenix discriminated against non-Mormon employees, and favored Mormon employees, in several ways, including: (1) providing the Mormon employees better leads on potential students; (2) disciplining non-Mormon employees for conduct for which Mormon employees were not disciplined; (3) promoting lesser-qualified or unqualified Mormon enrollment counselors to management positions while repeatedly denying such promotions to non-Mormon enrollment counselors; and (4) denying tuition waivers to non-Mormon employees for failing to meet registration goals, while granting the waivers to Mormon employees.

“We are pleased that University of Phoenix is going to stop condoning such favoritism toward Mormon employees and the resultant discrimination against non-Mormon employees,” said EEOC Phoenix Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “It is the EEOC’s belief that, for many years, the University of Phoenix condoned an environment in which Mormon managers felt free to engage in favoritism toward their Mormon employees, and did so by providing the Mormon employees things such as strong leads on potential students. Given that evaluations are based largely on recruitment numbers, this disproportionate assignment of leads affected a whole host of matters for employees, including compensation, access to tuition waivers, and ability to be promoted.”

The consent decree entered into by the EEOC, the University of Phoenix, and Apollo Group provides monetary relief of $1,875,000 for 52 individuals. The amount of relief provided to any individual is based on the nature of the discrimination he or she experienced. The consent decree also contains several strong provisions designed to stop further religious discrimination and prevent it from recurring, including: ◾Dissemination of a Zero Tolerance Policy to all employees in the University of Phoenix Online Enrollment Department, stating that the company has zero tolerance for religious discrimination and that any violation of the policy will result in termination; ◾Training for managers and non-managers on the issue of religious discrimination; ◾Creating a system to include in managers’ evaluations an assessment of their compliance with equal employment opportunity laws; and ◾Hiring a Diversity Officer, and the staff necessary, at the University of Phoenix to monitor compliance with the terms of the consent decree.

EEOC’s Phoenix District Director Chester Bailey said, “We hope this settlement sends a message to all employers to be vigilant in ensuring a fair and equitable work environment for all employees regardless of their religion. The relief the EEOC obtained will require this large employer to change discriminatory business practices that already have affected potentially hundreds of non-Mormon employees at the University of Phoenix Online.” The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.104.100 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

recent reversions to reversions[edit]

Regarding Revision 693594392, I looked at the edit by 701.91.213.37. The unregistered user appeared to have deleted some content and added new content. Overall, the edits seemed reasonable, although an explanation of why he/she deleted a few paragraphs would have been helpful. I then noticed that in Revision 693351526, Jonathunder reverted the edit by 701.91.213.37 without writing a reason in the edit summary. I clicked Undo and added the "rv without explanation" in edit summary. If I did something wrong procedure wise, I'd like assistance. Thank you. @Sundayclose: @Cabdkc123: Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Anon 70.91.213.37 removed a substantial amount of information without giving a reason. Jonathunder restored it. You removed it again. with the odd edit summary "rv unexplained deletion". You didn't revert a deletion. You yourself deleted. It would help if you would explain why you think the information should be deleted. Sundayclose (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like Michael misread the edit history and was trying to undo the deletion that Jonathunder already undid, and Michael accidentally removed it again. Happens. Just restore the info and all is good. oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the candid feedback. I'll be sure to double check in future before clicking Undo. Thanks again, guys. Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization of article - ideas[edit]

I'd like to start a discussion about reorganizing the article's content.

  • First, I'm wondering if readers would be better served if either:
    • a) all the controversies and negative info that appears in several sections be put under the header "Controversies," with appropriate second-level headers; or
    • b) if the content of the article is moved around to make it more like a narrative, like you would see in an encyclopedia.
  • Second, the sections History, Campuses, and Organization and administration are quite short. Perhaps the content within those sections can be moved into other areas in the article.

Anyone else have ideas on this? Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Controversies sections are deprecated, but that doesn't mean just removing properly sourced negative information. See Wikipedia:Criticism. A narrative approach is better. Jonathunder (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

assertion of university as a criminal enterprise[edit]

Some issues to discuss regarding the text:

"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."

  • Harsh language
  • Contentious labels (see WP:LABEL)
  • Weasel words - "Some critics" -- Which people specifically said it?
  • Neutrality - it's a strong accusation that doesn't provide a counterpoint.

Dm382triuss (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be helpful to review the article on Corinthian Colleges to see how similar issues are covered there. Jonathunder (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Admissions and financial aid[edit]

This is describing the issue for the for-profit higher education system and there already is an entry for that. --WatchingContent (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because the information in the "admissions and financial aid" section of this article also applies to other for-profit colleges it's unnecessary to include "admissions and financial aid" in the University of Phoenix article? Flyte35 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. It has an undue weight issued to the section, most likely because of the second paragraph, but when you get into default rates, etc., how is that on point with Admissions and financial aid? This should talk about how admissions and financial aid work. Any controversy should probably go under the criticisms section.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
You should feel free to go ahead and edit it. Be bold. Flyte35 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Will do, thanks.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I think this section is well balanced now and the tag can be removed. Any objections? Flyte35 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Received no objections. Removed tag. Flyte35 (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

university of phoenix tests[edit]

has any taken any university of phoenix exams? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.98.227 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

300 companies is too vague[edit]

This revert removed material that had been around for 5 months. It does not give a meaningful reason to remove the material.

Saying 300 companies does not have any context. The given list of companies includes Fortune 500 companies. The companies would have in-house training programs that have significant content.

Without example companies, the claim of 300 companies suggests transfer credit is a joke.

The statement is sourced.

The statement is not about confering WP:N on UoP. UoP already has WP:N.

Glrx (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)