This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
University of Phoenix article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
I move to close the NPOV dispute. -- Smack ( talk) 05:02, 3 February 2015 (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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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 ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
References
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.
Invictus 80 ( talk) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Invictus_80 Invictus 80 ( talk) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
By the way, that some instructors at other institutions provide little feedback is hardly justification for poor teaching at UOP.
Depending on how long the link works, here is the CMART video that Aaron says does not exist: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymcfgwue68n9e24/cmart.avi?dl=0
Here is a person -- Lisa Jean Thompson -- on Linkedin who claims to have WRITTEN the CMART evaluative rubric -- https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisajeanthompson Perhaps Aaron should talk to her.
Somebody else -Jason E. Thomas at http://tamu.academia.edu/JasonThomas/CurriculumVitae - claimed to have made "Updates to the CMaRT, University of Phoenix 2017"
How is it possible that so many people are claiming credit for something that, according to Aaron at least, doesn't exist?
p.s. You can't verify my identity and employment because I still teach at UOP (it's a decent part-time gig ... beats laying asphalt on a 100-degree summer day), and I don't want to be fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake the Catt ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'd like to start a discussion about reorganizing the article's content.
Anyone else have ideas on this? Michael Powerhouse ( talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm grateful for this discussion, especially because the heated, controversial debate about University of Phoenix has been present since its founding in 1976. I like the controversy section, but feel the controversies are best categorized under the current layout:
What do you think? User:Rrrrevolution ( talk) 10:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
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."
Dm382triuss ( talk) 21:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
has any taken any university of phoenix exams? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.98.227 ( talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Someone needs to update this article, especially the part on online education. Sources in some cases are more than 10 years old, and in something that involves technology, that's a long time. With so many campuses closing, UoPX is also moving towards being exclusively online, so that too should be reflected in this article. CollegeMeltdown ( talk) 02:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo Should the section on marketing be removed? I argue that marketing is a key element of the history of the school. It has been an engine for enrollment and a point of legal disputes. CollegeMeltdown ( talk) 03:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
First off, I think the graph of enrollment is deceptive. The bottom line should be 0 not 100,000. It also should not be a five-year old graph. We also need to incorporate not just statements of money collected during the pandemic, but much more statements of what the pandemic did to University of Phoenix enrollment. Did it go down? Did it go up? Did it go down, but just on an existing trajectory, or did it see a steeper than usual drop off? The article gives us no clue.
Also we have thrown in the closing of the Atlanta and Salt Lake locations. We probably should more in detail trace both the growth and closing of in person education locations. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Does the University of Phoenix really have one million alumni? That's one out of every 270 adults in America, and I don't know a single person who went to Phoenix! The source listed is its own website, which I really doubt can be trusted. Does anybody have any idea of how to find out the actual number? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
In reference to previous discussions on this talk page, I'm making some changes to the article. Most of it is stylistic, but I've removed a 2016-era graph as it is not going to be updated and holds little relevance to 2022. I've also expanded the History section to include all bits of their history and brought the article in line with Wiki's MOS as per WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:TRIVIA. Overall, this makes the page read more in chronological order. I've also split the page into specific time-frames. The amount of content being moved to History really borders on necessitating WP:SPLIT, as much of the Lawsuit content (while in a prose format) reads as a list. Without the single sentence before the information, we're simply reading a list of the events in the order that they happened, which truthfully, belongs more in History. I've also removed duplicate content from the former "Controversy and criticisms" that was also found in History. PcPrincipal ( talk) 22:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Since almost all University of Phoenix students now receive their education online, would it be correct to add the word "online" to the lede? CollegeMeltdown ( talk) 22:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The timeline appears to be in error. The University of Phoenix has been transitioning to online courses (and closing campuses and learning sites) for more than a decade. According to the Washington Post, Apollo Global Management has also been trying to sell of the school since 2019 if not earlier. [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/03/31/university-phoenix-arkansas-deal-draws-scrutiny/ Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Should University of Phoenix be recognized for its name in popular culture? Saturday Night Live recently had a sketch with Keenan Thompson as a fictitious President of the University of Phoenix. [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/arts/television/saturday-night-live-adam-driver-olivia-rodrigo.html Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
What makes the University of Phoenix a private entity if it is part of a publicly traded company and it receives most of its money from the federal government? For the purpose of editing Wikipedia articles, is there a definition of what a private university is?
https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/2013/01/what-public-university-what-private-university
Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Should we keep the data that the University of Phoenix is self reporting if it is significantly different than what appears in the NCES College Navigator? Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 01:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
University of Phoenix article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
I move to close the NPOV dispute. -- Smack ( talk) 05:02, 3 February 2015 (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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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 ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
References
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.
Invictus 80 ( talk) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Invictus_80 Invictus 80 ( talk) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
By the way, that some instructors at other institutions provide little feedback is hardly justification for poor teaching at UOP.
Depending on how long the link works, here is the CMART video that Aaron says does not exist: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymcfgwue68n9e24/cmart.avi?dl=0
Here is a person -- Lisa Jean Thompson -- on Linkedin who claims to have WRITTEN the CMART evaluative rubric -- https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisajeanthompson Perhaps Aaron should talk to her.
Somebody else -Jason E. Thomas at http://tamu.academia.edu/JasonThomas/CurriculumVitae - claimed to have made "Updates to the CMaRT, University of Phoenix 2017"
How is it possible that so many people are claiming credit for something that, according to Aaron at least, doesn't exist?
p.s. You can't verify my identity and employment because I still teach at UOP (it's a decent part-time gig ... beats laying asphalt on a 100-degree summer day), and I don't want to be fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake the Catt ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'd like to start a discussion about reorganizing the article's content.
Anyone else have ideas on this? Michael Powerhouse ( talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm grateful for this discussion, especially because the heated, controversial debate about University of Phoenix has been present since its founding in 1976. I like the controversy section, but feel the controversies are best categorized under the current layout:
What do you think? User:Rrrrevolution ( talk) 10:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
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."
Dm382triuss ( talk) 21:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
has any taken any university of phoenix exams? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.98.227 ( talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Someone needs to update this article, especially the part on online education. Sources in some cases are more than 10 years old, and in something that involves technology, that's a long time. With so many campuses closing, UoPX is also moving towards being exclusively online, so that too should be reflected in this article. CollegeMeltdown ( talk) 02:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo Should the section on marketing be removed? I argue that marketing is a key element of the history of the school. It has been an engine for enrollment and a point of legal disputes. CollegeMeltdown ( talk) 03:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
First off, I think the graph of enrollment is deceptive. The bottom line should be 0 not 100,000. It also should not be a five-year old graph. We also need to incorporate not just statements of money collected during the pandemic, but much more statements of what the pandemic did to University of Phoenix enrollment. Did it go down? Did it go up? Did it go down, but just on an existing trajectory, or did it see a steeper than usual drop off? The article gives us no clue.
Also we have thrown in the closing of the Atlanta and Salt Lake locations. We probably should more in detail trace both the growth and closing of in person education locations. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Does the University of Phoenix really have one million alumni? That's one out of every 270 adults in America, and I don't know a single person who went to Phoenix! The source listed is its own website, which I really doubt can be trusted. Does anybody have any idea of how to find out the actual number? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
In reference to previous discussions on this talk page, I'm making some changes to the article. Most of it is stylistic, but I've removed a 2016-era graph as it is not going to be updated and holds little relevance to 2022. I've also expanded the History section to include all bits of their history and brought the article in line with Wiki's MOS as per WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:TRIVIA. Overall, this makes the page read more in chronological order. I've also split the page into specific time-frames. The amount of content being moved to History really borders on necessitating WP:SPLIT, as much of the Lawsuit content (while in a prose format) reads as a list. Without the single sentence before the information, we're simply reading a list of the events in the order that they happened, which truthfully, belongs more in History. I've also removed duplicate content from the former "Controversy and criticisms" that was also found in History. PcPrincipal ( talk) 22:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Since almost all University of Phoenix students now receive their education online, would it be correct to add the word "online" to the lede? CollegeMeltdown ( talk) 22:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The timeline appears to be in error. The University of Phoenix has been transitioning to online courses (and closing campuses and learning sites) for more than a decade. According to the Washington Post, Apollo Global Management has also been trying to sell of the school since 2019 if not earlier. [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/03/31/university-phoenix-arkansas-deal-draws-scrutiny/ Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Should University of Phoenix be recognized for its name in popular culture? Saturday Night Live recently had a sketch with Keenan Thompson as a fictitious President of the University of Phoenix. [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/arts/television/saturday-night-live-adam-driver-olivia-rodrigo.html Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
What makes the University of Phoenix a private entity if it is part of a publicly traded company and it receives most of its money from the federal government? For the purpose of editing Wikipedia articles, is there a definition of what a private university is?
https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/2013/01/what-public-university-what-private-university
Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Should we keep the data that the University of Phoenix is self reporting if it is significantly different than what appears in the NCES College Navigator? Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 01:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)