Western Governors University was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Western Governors University 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
|
The contention that classes can only be added one at a time and existing classes must be completed first is inaccurate. When I was enrolled at WGU I frequently added multiple classes at a time, and there was no requirement that everything else be finished first. The following is from the WGU student handbook regarding "Satisfactory Academic Progress" which lays out the minimum requirement for course load:
Enrolled Competency Unit Requirements
Undergraduate students must enroll in at least 12 competency units and graduate students must enroll in at least 8 competency units each term. Students receive a mark of Pass or Not Passed on their permanent academic record for any courses of study for which they enroll in a term, regardless of whether they attempt an assessment. Marks of Not Passed are counted as units that are failed and, as such, are counted against satisfactory academic progress. A grade of Pass indicates that the student has demonstrated competency at a grade equivalent of “B” or better.
Maintaining Satisfactory Academic Progress
SAP is evaluated at the end of every term. To maintain SAP, students must pass a minimum of 67% of the competency units for which they enroll in a given term. They also must maintain an overall minimum cumulative pass rate of 67% for all competency units for which they enrolled. Students are prohibited from receiving federal financial aid for transferring or enrolling in more than 150% of the number of competency units required in their current academic program.
I couldn't find any reference in the student handbook regarding adding classes during a term, so I can only speak from my personal experience. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
159.238.13.4 (
talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a current WGU Student and the below is a cut/paste is from the current WGU student handbook: "Working Ahead or Accelerating Courses of Study"
Students who accelerate their studies may add additional assessments to the term once they have successfully completed all term requirements. The student and mentor work together to determine what is best for the student. Bringing additional assessments into the term is risky because should a student fail to pass the assessment, the student will receive a mark of Not Passed on the academic transcript and the mark of Not Passed will count against satisfactory academic progress
The general rule is that you are only allowed to open one course at a time until you have gotten a few under your belt. After that it you can have 2-4 open at any one time at the discretion of your mentor.
I am also a current student who just finished my first term. during my first term i would always work on more than one class at a time. Others who i know would do one class at a time but there are no restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.62.62 ( talk) 01:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "{{Advert|date=June 2009}}" as the page been updated and it is no longer written like an advertisement. (Preceding unsigned comment added by somebody else, not Jerodd)
I've placed the tag back, since the article does still feel like an advertisement. The article has no criticism of WGU yet has plenty of laudatory praise. Most of the links at the bottom are to WGU itself. The article also has sweeping claims. I'll be adding needs citation, etc. links shortly. Joshua ( talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely still written like an advertisement. The tag should come back. The claim that criticism sections are to be avoided is a bogus argument. Lots of articles contain contraversy or criticism sections. I'd feel more comfortable about the marketing content if we added a criticism section, assuming the criticism is properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.215.89 ( talk) 16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have created new definition for the university as it was not including full image about the university. & I also added references.
ok folks, here what I have done so far, as of jan 06, 09
Please help improving this article by giving a better definition for the University.
Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.170.34 ( talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to list all the degrees a school offers. The school's web site and marketing materials are the place for that. In this article it is more appropriate to list degree areas, rather than the dozens of specific degrees -- Utahredrock 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The actual date of NCATE accreditation came at their fall meeting on October 21 or 22nd, 2006. The NCATE press release is dated 10/31 refering to that decision made over a week earlier. The WGU press release came out in early November, after NCATE's. -- Utahredrock 18:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Here are my recommendations for this article. First, check the establishment date indicated on the main page. I believe that the collaboration was begun sometime in 1995 though I can't find a date right now. This shows one reference for my suggestion of a 1995 creation date, " http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/2.2/news/briefs/wgu.htm".
Secondly, while it might seem marketing related, the kind and type of instruction/educational methods used need to be discussed in some detail because as these external sources show, WGU follows a competancy-based model as opposed to the traditional teacher-learner model: " http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-22.dir/22a02101.htm" " http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-22.dir/wgu.htm" " http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/innovator/2003/0306.html"
This is important in that WGU is the only university in the US at this time following the competancy model to be regionally accredited.
Finally, this article seems to be focused on the collaboration across political lines which is an important aspect to be considered. This is intended to show the broad governmental support in addition to the accreditation and business acceptance support functions comprising civic responsibility with regards to a new college or university. Jacob M Metro
I duplicated the entry, as I searched on "Western Governor's University" and recieved no hits. I deleted my entry, and added the content to this entry. Nobuddy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The references in this article are a mess and could use some cleanup when somebody has the time.
The good news, however, is that there are plenty of them.-- Utahredrock ( talk) 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The opening line as of 7/15/08 seems problematic, even though it's sourced. What is "adult education?" It is not clear in that sentence. The term links to a separate Wikipedia article which itself seems too broad to accurately categorize WGU and WGU's students.
Somebody should re-write/clarify this.-- Utahredrock ( talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As of 7/16/08 I cut out the following from the lead:
. . . specializing in adult education.
I haven't checked, but suspect some of those might be good references. Calling what WGU does "adult education" as stated above, is just too misleading.-- Utahredrock ( talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph as of 7/15/08 begins with "WGU grants degrees"
This should be rewritten with more clarity, but should still retain brevity in summarizing the offerings of this school. Future editors need to refrain from listing all degrees, which happened on this page at least once before.
It may want to say something like "WGU offers bachelor's and master's programs, teacher licensure, and other teaching certificates" or something along those lines. In other words an editor needs to be more specific without listing every program/degree. Utahredrock ( talk) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Since WGU is so unique in its approach to higher ed it seems a longer treatment on what competency-based ed means at WGU would be useful.
How has WGU been a pioneer in this area? What external links are relevant to competency-based ed?
A separate and even longer article on competency-based ed in Wikipidia would be good too. There may already be something (probably is).-- Utahredrock ( talk) 06:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that an article treatment is warranted; enough so that until then, 'competency-based' should arguably be tagged as a buzzword. Judging from the description given in this article, it might be described in neutral language as an instructional approach where achievement of learning objectives is measured exclusively by scores on some number of exams. To be useful, even that would have to be made less vague about the number and nature of the exams.
If there is a significant community that uses this phrase with an agreed-on definition and has a body of research into the efficacy of this teaching approach relative to others, that would be enough information to merit an article of its own. While, in fact, there is an existing Competency-based learning article, it describes (as of 2012 June) only an approach to job training within an organization and will not serve as a reference for this article's usage of the term in the university context. 128.210.3.54 ( talk) 17:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The tag is correct—the article presently reads like an advertisement. While this is often true for articles about universities, it seems especially blatant in this case. I suggest that the following passages or sentences be deleted or modified (please discuss on a case-by-case basis):
I believe WGU will still come across as an impressive university if the article just reports the facts in encyclodedic fashion and lets the reader form his or her own conclusions. 75.183.96.242 ( talk) 17:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This entry still has NPOV problems. The page still reads like a viewbook or advertisement for WGU. Shortening the article to just essential facts may reduce NPOV problems. For example, the discussion of the nonpartisan or bipartisan nature of the governors of the participating states may be true, but it really doesn't signify anything important in this entry. Indeed, it's unclear whether the governors' involvement is much more than ex officio. I agree entirely with the above comment--this is an advertisement, does not take a NPOV, and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.82.130 ( talk) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that this article has been substantially cleaned up. How do we go about getting it verified that it no longer reads like an advertisement? If it does still read like an advertisement, can someone provide a specific critique so it can be further improved? JordanHenderson ( talk) 01:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, we can't fall into the trap of believing that if an article simply has *anything* positive to say that it must therefore be written like an advertisement. 64.188.200.200 ( talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter ( Ticket:2011040710017129) from a researcher who indicates that the accreditation of this university with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges could not be verified. This is an extraordinary claim, since the article claims that the subject is the only university accredited by all four. If it cannot be verified and a fact provided, it should be removed. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Should WGU Indiana be listed as an orphan now that 5 articles link to it, and it now has 7 categories?-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
how can i register for masters in education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.236.252.116 ( talk) 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
CBS News claims in a 2012 article that the university had a graduation rate of 6.5%, the worst private university on their list. If true, that statistic would dampen the glowing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3E0B:BA00:A4F2:2AEB:D5F8:C515 ( talk) 04:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I added extra information about how graduation rates are calculated (which is somewhat limited in scope in that it only looks at students who have gone to college for the first time ever) and WGU typically doesn't accept first time students per their application requirements page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorStanley ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ AlaskanNativeRU: I'm confused as to the rational for reverting this edit on the basis of NPOV. There was a previous edit to the graduation rate section which was also reverted, however based on what I could see that edit discounted the DoE score by using dismissive, Judgmental Language. With my edit I tried to avoid any dismissive language. My intention with this edit is to give Due Weight to rates among the students who aren't included in the DoE classification. It can be inferred that if 99% of students from WGU are not first-time or full-time, then there will be a similar ratio of people among those searching for information on the university, including this page. Therefore, to only represent the graduation rate for <1% of students is to give undue weight to the statistic. I did not remove any sourced information from the Article with my edit, and so retained the POV of the original language, instead qualifying the statements made. One place where I believe you may be qualifying your NPOV reversion on is on the Bias of the source used, however biased sources are not inherently disallowed, and I believe excluding it all together does more to Bias the article than it's inclusion which appropriately balances the weight of each source. The statistic of 49% also seems to be backed up by the same government source for the 26% in first-time, full-time students. [1] In the section on Outcome Measures, it lists rates for part-time and non first-time students. This rate currently tracks students who began in 2008, with a 6-year rate of 40% and an 8 year rate of 44%. This statistic seems to match very closely WGU's assertion on it's graduation rate. However it only accounts for the 2008 entering class. It's reasonable to assume that WGU's rate is more up to date and in line - considering that the new first-time full-time rate of 26% is also up from the 18% previously listed in this article. CrockDoctor ( talk) 17:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
References
"It can be inferred that if 99% of students from WGU are not first-time or full-time, then there will be a similar ratio of people among those searching for information on the university, including this page." - I'm not even sure how you could make that statement. Information gathered from this page and other sources are the reasons why the manyof WGU's students are middle age, working adults and not recent High School graduates. This means that even High School graduates may come here looking for information before realizing WGU is not a good fit for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Please note the following talk re Department of Education OIG Audit from September 2017. Inclusion of seven month old news in the talk section doesnt follow guidelines for the lead established for universities /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice .
This is noteworthy and should be included in the article. But it's listed three times throughout the entire article. Is that necessary? Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 00:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead paragraph notes the existence and tentative conclusions of the investigation, as well as the university's having disputed the findings. The matter is summarized briefly in the lead, without citations, as is proper in a LEAD paragraph, and the content is more fully set forth in the article text. Indeed the lead is not the place to lay out the whole dispute. Editors should feel free to rework the lead to ensure its neutrality, but should not restate the article text there. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 22:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
References
The language in the lead regarding the audit does not fall into the criteria set forth in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice . To summarize the guidelines, the lead should only include basic information without "undue weight to any particular section". As currently written, the audit is seven month old news that most likely will not be actionable and thus is not basic information suitable for a lead... Also, having it in the lead gives negative undue weight to the "Federal Audit" section and would possibly thus demonstrate a negative bias. E.g... If you look at the article for Princeton, the lead is mostly basic information. Princeton offers free tuition if you earn less than 140000 which is newsworthy but as per the guidelines not included in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 ( talk) 19:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Right now, Fresno University has bad press due to a professor's actions on Twitter. Harvard is being sued regarding Affirmative Action. Neither of the corresponding Wikipedia articles have leads mentioning this as leads per the guidelines only should state basic information and not give undue weight to any particular section . No one prior, either in January or April, has stated a reason that resolves to the Wikipedia guidelines on why the audit should be included in the lead. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 ( talk) 15:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Even though the deletes will be undid and the undo's referred back to the talk page.. It seems like the majority consensus here is that seven month old news should not be in the lead per the wikipedia guidelines.. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 ( talk) 17:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Please remember to sign all your comment when you post - some comments remain unsigned. On the issue of the lead section, nothing precludes the inclusion of the OIG audit per Wikipedia guidelines. The question is whether it's given undue weight. There is a case to be made that after a certain period of time the audit does become null as a Department does not have to act on an OIG recommendation, either in the negative or affirmative. However, it must also be considered that the legislation you referenced - The Higher Education Act - has not yet been renewed, and so the legal background in the OIG's recommendation is still in place. Considering the length of time, it may be of use to keep the blurb in the lead, but shorten it, while also including other information about the university such as Paul Smiths edit to the lead (the "western governors university offers degrees...") I see no problem with that and it should be replaced. Audit vs Investigation is really quite trivial as they are synonyms, however I think using audit is better suited as it is the language used in most sourced articles. As per "edit warring" this piece of information has been the subject of many malicious deletions over the last 6 months (without any justification or talk) and so discussing changes to it in the talk page is really preferred over what has happened here (over 10 edits by different authors). As a last note, I need to point out after reading this conversation the point of a WikiProject is not to "increase awareness of the great things that are happening" at an institution. Wikipedia is not for publicity it is for information. Please keep that in mind, especially when talking about undue weight and NPOV. CrockDoctor ( talk) 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
What about "In September 2017, an OIG audit concluded that WGU may have ran afoul of Title IV regulations enacted in the Higher Education Amendments of 1992. The Department of Education is reviewing the disputed audit but potential congressional legislation is currently underway [1] which would rescind the offending regulations. If passed, this could conclude the audit and it's findings as irrelevant." Wxm01ced ( talk) 19:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"The OIG audit appears to go to the heart of WGU's business model and as such is pretty significant." - Before making claims that the investigation is significant to justify the location of this information it would do well to understand the investigation itself. The regulations that the OIG was basing it's recommendations on were created in 1992. They were not designed to target schools like WGU, or even Univ. of Phoenix. who business models may be similar to that of long distance schools that existed in 1992(ie: National Radio Institute) where interaction with the school faculty was extremely limited, but that is not the case with distance education today. On top of that with WGU ranking as one of the top schools for educators in the US. WGU is developing a reputation beyond that of DeVry or Univ. of Phoenix and will take any corrective action it needs to take to prevent the Government from interrupting the services it provides. As a current student who has professionally benefited from my education at WGU I am trying to make the case based off of knowledge and not bias. However, I urge anyone who disagrees with me to read the report and the regulations and gain a good understanding of how WGU works before editing any of the information related to the OIG report.
Vbnetdev (
talk) 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/14531/Will_the_OIG_Audit_of_WGU_Cool_Interest_in_CBE
"First, it's important to note that few people in the field expect that the U.S. DOE will actually require that Western Governors return over $700 million in Title IV funds."
"A prospective student might be made more cautious in considering WGU because of this, but only because of lack of understanding."
Let's also consider the state affiliates, one that was approved after the audit was released, and where many students are eligible for state assistance. WGU is not another Univ. of Phoenix and the fact that many traditional schools are trying to follow it's lead and produce online competency based degrees of their own should be proof of this. Like I said, the audit produced a recommendation based on 1992 regulations. If anything this is not a knock on WGU but a knock on a bureaucracy's predictable inability to keep up with the changes of society. We'd have an easier time getting religious people to approve changes to their religious text than getting the government to update or do away with regulations it probably didn't even know it had until they have done their damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yet, it appears they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
At the WGU team meeting in February, they said that WGU Ohio would start in the next few months. They have already hired regional affiliates. Should I update it as an upcoming school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pttplayhouse4 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
References
References
@ AlaskanNativeRU: Using the term campus is misleading. WGU does not have a physical presence in any of these states, nor does it host buildings or classrooms for students. As such the term State affiliate or subsidiary are more appropriate. No one is implying that WGU is a public school, and nowhere is the private moniker being contested. Using state subsidiary or affiliate matches the structure of the institutions, considering they are subsidiaries of WGU based in an individual state and is the same wording that WGU uses in it's communications - not campus. It's the same way that a company could have a headquarters and a "Boston" office or a "regional" branch... this does not imply that the company is ran by the city of Boston or by the government of the region. CrockDoctor ( talk) 21:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Here is a forbes article showing the high approval ratings by students/graduates based on Gallup Polls [1]. In addition their is high approval in the 2017 annual report as well. [2] I am sure I could find a number of additional articles that confirm these sources. So my question is should it be included in the main article? Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 00:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Rankings:
I did some research today and noticed WGU has been ranked in the following. Should this be included on the main article?
Wikiproject Western Governors University
I think its time to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Governors University. Is anyone else interested in being part of it?
Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 14:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
References
The WGU WikiProject has now been created. Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 11:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
As part of WikiProject Western Governors University - I would like to try to turn the main WGU page into a Good Article (GA). I know BarrelProof has already done a fantastic job of cleaning up the citations. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and would like some guidance on how we can make the necessary edits to achieve this distinction. Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Barkeep49 ( talk · contribs) 04:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Running it through the Copyvio detector I find several places that should really be paraphrased better, most notably many of the phrases listed here. I'm not worried about the quotes since they are properly sourced.
in June 1996 each signing state governor committed $100,000Was this the 13 who signed on or the 19? Needs clarity
The online campuses WGU offshoots offer the same programs and curricula as the national WGU student body receives, and accreditation is through WGU.Was explained much better in the history section above.
@ Paul Smith111977: I've begun my review of the article. There are several larger problems with the article as it stands. I believe most articles, with a dedicated editor(s), can pass GA but you should know this one will be a heavier lift than some. I am placing the review on hold to let you respond to and act on the comments present so far. If you have questions or want to discuss let me know.Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.acbsp.org/members/default.asp?id=18776342&hhSearchTerms=%22WGU%22
https://utahbusiness.com/wgus-business-programs-now-accredited-by-the-accreditation-council-for-business-schools-and-programs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This article incorrectly names Bob Mendenhall as WGU's first president. This is incorrect. I adjusted one of the references to remove that component; however, the other is in the listing of presidents. I did not adjust that one as I could not remember the name of the first president. Mendenhall became WGU president in 1999; however, the university was created in 1997 and had a president for that period of time prior to Mendenhall. I can't remember who it was and I can't find any references to that person anywhere online; however, they existed. 174.79.34.199 ( talk) 08:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Unbelievable negative edits of the Western Governors University article just occurred (I reverted them all as vandalism). Looks like the negative forces are attacking WGU again simply because it's not prestigious enough for them. We need to have the Wikiproject WGU reformulated because this is a fine non-profit university with over 120,000 student and over 150,000 alumni and needs to be treated with some respect. Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 12:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Paul Smith111977: I see that you've returned to edit-warring at this article to ensure it includes essential information like a list of state governors and a list of the members of the board of trustees. Please (a) revert your edit so you're not edit-warring and (b) explain why this information is so critical that it needs to be included in this encyclopedia article. Exactly what are readers supposed to learn by knowing the names of the governors of the member states (information they can also easily find in the articles about those states)? Exactly what are readers supposed to learn by knowing the names of the members of the board of trustees? ElKevbo ( talk) 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there is a new WGU affiliate for 2021. A WGU press release states: "In celebration of the WGU Idaho affiliate..." This seems to be in the very early stages, but WGU is using the term "affiliate" at the very bottom of their press release from June 15, 2021 [1]. An identical press release has been posted on the Idaho Office of the Governor's website [2] Does anyone see any reason why we should not expand the section on WGU affiliates to include Idaho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.56.42 ( talk • contribs) 05:41, July 4, 2021 (UTC)
References
Although more nonprofit universities are coming online, there are still a huge amount of online schools that are questionable and/or for-profit. The resistance to including "nonprofit" in the lede comes off as if there is an effort to hide/bury/make-difficult-to-find the fact that WGU is a nonprofit university. Since stating this fact is not allowed in the first sentence of the lede, would it be acceptable to include it elsewhere in the lede? For example, how about:
Western Governors University (WGU) is a private, online university based in Millcreek, Utah. The university uses an online competency-based learning model as opposed to the traditional, cohort-based class model present at most universities.[6] The nonprofit university was founded by 19 U.S. governors in 1997 after the idea was formulated at a 1995 meeting of the Western Governors Association to expand education offerings to the internet.[7] WGU degree programs are accredited by institutional and professional accreditation bodies such as the NWCCU, ACBSP, CAEP, CAHIIM, CCNE, and the NCATE.[8][9]
....or elsewhere in the lede? If not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryUSAUSAUSA ( talk • contribs) 18:10, July 8, 2021 (UTC)
Is the section about a financial aid audit in 2017 relevant? The section basically says there was a financial aid audit, due to a technicality the auditors recommended qualifying WGU as correspondance education instead of distance education, the Department of Education disagreed, and the auditors eventually agreed with the Department of Education's assessment. Financial aid and the school's status were never affected. Is this information useful? Does it belong in the history section, or is it just cluttering up the article?
My opinion is that the entire writeup about the incident does not provide any useful information about the school or the school's history and should be removed. Userdk ( talk) 05:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Western Governors University was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Western Governors University 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
|
The contention that classes can only be added one at a time and existing classes must be completed first is inaccurate. When I was enrolled at WGU I frequently added multiple classes at a time, and there was no requirement that everything else be finished first. The following is from the WGU student handbook regarding "Satisfactory Academic Progress" which lays out the minimum requirement for course load:
Enrolled Competency Unit Requirements
Undergraduate students must enroll in at least 12 competency units and graduate students must enroll in at least 8 competency units each term. Students receive a mark of Pass or Not Passed on their permanent academic record for any courses of study for which they enroll in a term, regardless of whether they attempt an assessment. Marks of Not Passed are counted as units that are failed and, as such, are counted against satisfactory academic progress. A grade of Pass indicates that the student has demonstrated competency at a grade equivalent of “B” or better.
Maintaining Satisfactory Academic Progress
SAP is evaluated at the end of every term. To maintain SAP, students must pass a minimum of 67% of the competency units for which they enroll in a given term. They also must maintain an overall minimum cumulative pass rate of 67% for all competency units for which they enrolled. Students are prohibited from receiving federal financial aid for transferring or enrolling in more than 150% of the number of competency units required in their current academic program.
I couldn't find any reference in the student handbook regarding adding classes during a term, so I can only speak from my personal experience. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
159.238.13.4 (
talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a current WGU Student and the below is a cut/paste is from the current WGU student handbook: "Working Ahead or Accelerating Courses of Study"
Students who accelerate their studies may add additional assessments to the term once they have successfully completed all term requirements. The student and mentor work together to determine what is best for the student. Bringing additional assessments into the term is risky because should a student fail to pass the assessment, the student will receive a mark of Not Passed on the academic transcript and the mark of Not Passed will count against satisfactory academic progress
The general rule is that you are only allowed to open one course at a time until you have gotten a few under your belt. After that it you can have 2-4 open at any one time at the discretion of your mentor.
I am also a current student who just finished my first term. during my first term i would always work on more than one class at a time. Others who i know would do one class at a time but there are no restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.62.62 ( talk) 01:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "{{Advert|date=June 2009}}" as the page been updated and it is no longer written like an advertisement. (Preceding unsigned comment added by somebody else, not Jerodd)
I've placed the tag back, since the article does still feel like an advertisement. The article has no criticism of WGU yet has plenty of laudatory praise. Most of the links at the bottom are to WGU itself. The article also has sweeping claims. I'll be adding needs citation, etc. links shortly. Joshua ( talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely still written like an advertisement. The tag should come back. The claim that criticism sections are to be avoided is a bogus argument. Lots of articles contain contraversy or criticism sections. I'd feel more comfortable about the marketing content if we added a criticism section, assuming the criticism is properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.215.89 ( talk) 16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have created new definition for the university as it was not including full image about the university. & I also added references.
ok folks, here what I have done so far, as of jan 06, 09
Please help improving this article by giving a better definition for the University.
Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.170.34 ( talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to list all the degrees a school offers. The school's web site and marketing materials are the place for that. In this article it is more appropriate to list degree areas, rather than the dozens of specific degrees -- Utahredrock 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The actual date of NCATE accreditation came at their fall meeting on October 21 or 22nd, 2006. The NCATE press release is dated 10/31 refering to that decision made over a week earlier. The WGU press release came out in early November, after NCATE's. -- Utahredrock 18:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Here are my recommendations for this article. First, check the establishment date indicated on the main page. I believe that the collaboration was begun sometime in 1995 though I can't find a date right now. This shows one reference for my suggestion of a 1995 creation date, " http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/2.2/news/briefs/wgu.htm".
Secondly, while it might seem marketing related, the kind and type of instruction/educational methods used need to be discussed in some detail because as these external sources show, WGU follows a competancy-based model as opposed to the traditional teacher-learner model: " http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-22.dir/22a02101.htm" " http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-22.dir/wgu.htm" " http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/innovator/2003/0306.html"
This is important in that WGU is the only university in the US at this time following the competancy model to be regionally accredited.
Finally, this article seems to be focused on the collaboration across political lines which is an important aspect to be considered. This is intended to show the broad governmental support in addition to the accreditation and business acceptance support functions comprising civic responsibility with regards to a new college or university. Jacob M Metro
I duplicated the entry, as I searched on "Western Governor's University" and recieved no hits. I deleted my entry, and added the content to this entry. Nobuddy —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The references in this article are a mess and could use some cleanup when somebody has the time.
The good news, however, is that there are plenty of them.-- Utahredrock ( talk) 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The opening line as of 7/15/08 seems problematic, even though it's sourced. What is "adult education?" It is not clear in that sentence. The term links to a separate Wikipedia article which itself seems too broad to accurately categorize WGU and WGU's students.
Somebody should re-write/clarify this.-- Utahredrock ( talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As of 7/16/08 I cut out the following from the lead:
. . . specializing in adult education.
I haven't checked, but suspect some of those might be good references. Calling what WGU does "adult education" as stated above, is just too misleading.-- Utahredrock ( talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph as of 7/15/08 begins with "WGU grants degrees"
This should be rewritten with more clarity, but should still retain brevity in summarizing the offerings of this school. Future editors need to refrain from listing all degrees, which happened on this page at least once before.
It may want to say something like "WGU offers bachelor's and master's programs, teacher licensure, and other teaching certificates" or something along those lines. In other words an editor needs to be more specific without listing every program/degree. Utahredrock ( talk) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Since WGU is so unique in its approach to higher ed it seems a longer treatment on what competency-based ed means at WGU would be useful.
How has WGU been a pioneer in this area? What external links are relevant to competency-based ed?
A separate and even longer article on competency-based ed in Wikipidia would be good too. There may already be something (probably is).-- Utahredrock ( talk) 06:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that an article treatment is warranted; enough so that until then, 'competency-based' should arguably be tagged as a buzzword. Judging from the description given in this article, it might be described in neutral language as an instructional approach where achievement of learning objectives is measured exclusively by scores on some number of exams. To be useful, even that would have to be made less vague about the number and nature of the exams.
If there is a significant community that uses this phrase with an agreed-on definition and has a body of research into the efficacy of this teaching approach relative to others, that would be enough information to merit an article of its own. While, in fact, there is an existing Competency-based learning article, it describes (as of 2012 June) only an approach to job training within an organization and will not serve as a reference for this article's usage of the term in the university context. 128.210.3.54 ( talk) 17:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The tag is correct—the article presently reads like an advertisement. While this is often true for articles about universities, it seems especially blatant in this case. I suggest that the following passages or sentences be deleted or modified (please discuss on a case-by-case basis):
I believe WGU will still come across as an impressive university if the article just reports the facts in encyclodedic fashion and lets the reader form his or her own conclusions. 75.183.96.242 ( talk) 17:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This entry still has NPOV problems. The page still reads like a viewbook or advertisement for WGU. Shortening the article to just essential facts may reduce NPOV problems. For example, the discussion of the nonpartisan or bipartisan nature of the governors of the participating states may be true, but it really doesn't signify anything important in this entry. Indeed, it's unclear whether the governors' involvement is much more than ex officio. I agree entirely with the above comment--this is an advertisement, does not take a NPOV, and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.82.130 ( talk) 03:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that this article has been substantially cleaned up. How do we go about getting it verified that it no longer reads like an advertisement? If it does still read like an advertisement, can someone provide a specific critique so it can be further improved? JordanHenderson ( talk) 01:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, we can't fall into the trap of believing that if an article simply has *anything* positive to say that it must therefore be written like an advertisement. 64.188.200.200 ( talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter ( Ticket:2011040710017129) from a researcher who indicates that the accreditation of this university with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges could not be verified. This is an extraordinary claim, since the article claims that the subject is the only university accredited by all four. If it cannot be verified and a fact provided, it should be removed. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Should WGU Indiana be listed as an orphan now that 5 articles link to it, and it now has 7 categories?-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
how can i register for masters in education — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.236.252.116 ( talk) 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
CBS News claims in a 2012 article that the university had a graduation rate of 6.5%, the worst private university on their list. If true, that statistic would dampen the glowing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3E0B:BA00:A4F2:2AEB:D5F8:C515 ( talk) 04:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I added extra information about how graduation rates are calculated (which is somewhat limited in scope in that it only looks at students who have gone to college for the first time ever) and WGU typically doesn't accept first time students per their application requirements page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorStanley ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@ AlaskanNativeRU: I'm confused as to the rational for reverting this edit on the basis of NPOV. There was a previous edit to the graduation rate section which was also reverted, however based on what I could see that edit discounted the DoE score by using dismissive, Judgmental Language. With my edit I tried to avoid any dismissive language. My intention with this edit is to give Due Weight to rates among the students who aren't included in the DoE classification. It can be inferred that if 99% of students from WGU are not first-time or full-time, then there will be a similar ratio of people among those searching for information on the university, including this page. Therefore, to only represent the graduation rate for <1% of students is to give undue weight to the statistic. I did not remove any sourced information from the Article with my edit, and so retained the POV of the original language, instead qualifying the statements made. One place where I believe you may be qualifying your NPOV reversion on is on the Bias of the source used, however biased sources are not inherently disallowed, and I believe excluding it all together does more to Bias the article than it's inclusion which appropriately balances the weight of each source. The statistic of 49% also seems to be backed up by the same government source for the 26% in first-time, full-time students. [1] In the section on Outcome Measures, it lists rates for part-time and non first-time students. This rate currently tracks students who began in 2008, with a 6-year rate of 40% and an 8 year rate of 44%. This statistic seems to match very closely WGU's assertion on it's graduation rate. However it only accounts for the 2008 entering class. It's reasonable to assume that WGU's rate is more up to date and in line - considering that the new first-time full-time rate of 26% is also up from the 18% previously listed in this article. CrockDoctor ( talk) 17:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
References
"It can be inferred that if 99% of students from WGU are not first-time or full-time, then there will be a similar ratio of people among those searching for information on the university, including this page." - I'm not even sure how you could make that statement. Information gathered from this page and other sources are the reasons why the manyof WGU's students are middle age, working adults and not recent High School graduates. This means that even High School graduates may come here looking for information before realizing WGU is not a good fit for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Please note the following talk re Department of Education OIG Audit from September 2017. Inclusion of seven month old news in the talk section doesnt follow guidelines for the lead established for universities /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice .
This is noteworthy and should be included in the article. But it's listed three times throughout the entire article. Is that necessary? Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 00:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead paragraph notes the existence and tentative conclusions of the investigation, as well as the university's having disputed the findings. The matter is summarized briefly in the lead, without citations, as is proper in a LEAD paragraph, and the content is more fully set forth in the article text. Indeed the lead is not the place to lay out the whole dispute. Editors should feel free to rework the lead to ensure its neutrality, but should not restate the article text there. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 22:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
References
The language in the lead regarding the audit does not fall into the criteria set forth in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice . To summarize the guidelines, the lead should only include basic information without "undue weight to any particular section". As currently written, the audit is seven month old news that most likely will not be actionable and thus is not basic information suitable for a lead... Also, having it in the lead gives negative undue weight to the "Federal Audit" section and would possibly thus demonstrate a negative bias. E.g... If you look at the article for Princeton, the lead is mostly basic information. Princeton offers free tuition if you earn less than 140000 which is newsworthy but as per the guidelines not included in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 ( talk) 19:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Right now, Fresno University has bad press due to a professor's actions on Twitter. Harvard is being sued regarding Affirmative Action. Neither of the corresponding Wikipedia articles have leads mentioning this as leads per the guidelines only should state basic information and not give undue weight to any particular section . No one prior, either in January or April, has stated a reason that resolves to the Wikipedia guidelines on why the audit should be included in the lead. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 ( talk) 15:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Even though the deletes will be undid and the undo's referred back to the talk page.. It seems like the majority consensus here is that seven month old news should not be in the lead per the wikipedia guidelines.. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.220.30 ( talk) 17:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Please remember to sign all your comment when you post - some comments remain unsigned. On the issue of the lead section, nothing precludes the inclusion of the OIG audit per Wikipedia guidelines. The question is whether it's given undue weight. There is a case to be made that after a certain period of time the audit does become null as a Department does not have to act on an OIG recommendation, either in the negative or affirmative. However, it must also be considered that the legislation you referenced - The Higher Education Act - has not yet been renewed, and so the legal background in the OIG's recommendation is still in place. Considering the length of time, it may be of use to keep the blurb in the lead, but shorten it, while also including other information about the university such as Paul Smiths edit to the lead (the "western governors university offers degrees...") I see no problem with that and it should be replaced. Audit vs Investigation is really quite trivial as they are synonyms, however I think using audit is better suited as it is the language used in most sourced articles. As per "edit warring" this piece of information has been the subject of many malicious deletions over the last 6 months (without any justification or talk) and so discussing changes to it in the talk page is really preferred over what has happened here (over 10 edits by different authors). As a last note, I need to point out after reading this conversation the point of a WikiProject is not to "increase awareness of the great things that are happening" at an institution. Wikipedia is not for publicity it is for information. Please keep that in mind, especially when talking about undue weight and NPOV. CrockDoctor ( talk) 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
What about "In September 2017, an OIG audit concluded that WGU may have ran afoul of Title IV regulations enacted in the Higher Education Amendments of 1992. The Department of Education is reviewing the disputed audit but potential congressional legislation is currently underway [1] which would rescind the offending regulations. If passed, this could conclude the audit and it's findings as irrelevant." Wxm01ced ( talk) 19:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"The OIG audit appears to go to the heart of WGU's business model and as such is pretty significant." - Before making claims that the investigation is significant to justify the location of this information it would do well to understand the investigation itself. The regulations that the OIG was basing it's recommendations on were created in 1992. They were not designed to target schools like WGU, or even Univ. of Phoenix. who business models may be similar to that of long distance schools that existed in 1992(ie: National Radio Institute) where interaction with the school faculty was extremely limited, but that is not the case with distance education today. On top of that with WGU ranking as one of the top schools for educators in the US. WGU is developing a reputation beyond that of DeVry or Univ. of Phoenix and will take any corrective action it needs to take to prevent the Government from interrupting the services it provides. As a current student who has professionally benefited from my education at WGU I am trying to make the case based off of knowledge and not bias. However, I urge anyone who disagrees with me to read the report and the regulations and gain a good understanding of how WGU works before editing any of the information related to the OIG report.
Vbnetdev (
talk) 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/14531/Will_the_OIG_Audit_of_WGU_Cool_Interest_in_CBE
"First, it's important to note that few people in the field expect that the U.S. DOE will actually require that Western Governors return over $700 million in Title IV funds."
"A prospective student might be made more cautious in considering WGU because of this, but only because of lack of understanding."
Let's also consider the state affiliates, one that was approved after the audit was released, and where many students are eligible for state assistance. WGU is not another Univ. of Phoenix and the fact that many traditional schools are trying to follow it's lead and produce online competency based degrees of their own should be proof of this. Like I said, the audit produced a recommendation based on 1992 regulations. If anything this is not a knock on WGU but a knock on a bureaucracy's predictable inability to keep up with the changes of society. We'd have an easier time getting religious people to approve changes to their religious text than getting the government to update or do away with regulations it probably didn't even know it had until they have done their damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yet, it appears they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
At the WGU team meeting in February, they said that WGU Ohio would start in the next few months. They have already hired regional affiliates. Should I update it as an upcoming school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pttplayhouse4 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
References
References
@ AlaskanNativeRU: Using the term campus is misleading. WGU does not have a physical presence in any of these states, nor does it host buildings or classrooms for students. As such the term State affiliate or subsidiary are more appropriate. No one is implying that WGU is a public school, and nowhere is the private moniker being contested. Using state subsidiary or affiliate matches the structure of the institutions, considering they are subsidiaries of WGU based in an individual state and is the same wording that WGU uses in it's communications - not campus. It's the same way that a company could have a headquarters and a "Boston" office or a "regional" branch... this does not imply that the company is ran by the city of Boston or by the government of the region. CrockDoctor ( talk) 21:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Here is a forbes article showing the high approval ratings by students/graduates based on Gallup Polls [1]. In addition their is high approval in the 2017 annual report as well. [2] I am sure I could find a number of additional articles that confirm these sources. So my question is should it be included in the main article? Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 00:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Rankings:
I did some research today and noticed WGU has been ranked in the following. Should this be included on the main article?
Wikiproject Western Governors University
I think its time to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Governors University. Is anyone else interested in being part of it?
Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 14:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
References
The WGU WikiProject has now been created. Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 11:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
As part of WikiProject Western Governors University - I would like to try to turn the main WGU page into a Good Article (GA). I know BarrelProof has already done a fantastic job of cleaning up the citations. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and would like some guidance on how we can make the necessary edits to achieve this distinction. Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Barkeep49 ( talk · contribs) 04:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Running it through the Copyvio detector I find several places that should really be paraphrased better, most notably many of the phrases listed here. I'm not worried about the quotes since they are properly sourced.
in June 1996 each signing state governor committed $100,000Was this the 13 who signed on or the 19? Needs clarity
The online campuses WGU offshoots offer the same programs and curricula as the national WGU student body receives, and accreditation is through WGU.Was explained much better in the history section above.
@ Paul Smith111977: I've begun my review of the article. There are several larger problems with the article as it stands. I believe most articles, with a dedicated editor(s), can pass GA but you should know this one will be a heavier lift than some. I am placing the review on hold to let you respond to and act on the comments present so far. If you have questions or want to discuss let me know.Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.acbsp.org/members/default.asp?id=18776342&hhSearchTerms=%22WGU%22
https://utahbusiness.com/wgus-business-programs-now-accredited-by-the-accreditation-council-for-business-schools-and-programs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbnetdev ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This article incorrectly names Bob Mendenhall as WGU's first president. This is incorrect. I adjusted one of the references to remove that component; however, the other is in the listing of presidents. I did not adjust that one as I could not remember the name of the first president. Mendenhall became WGU president in 1999; however, the university was created in 1997 and had a president for that period of time prior to Mendenhall. I can't remember who it was and I can't find any references to that person anywhere online; however, they existed. 174.79.34.199 ( talk) 08:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Unbelievable negative edits of the Western Governors University article just occurred (I reverted them all as vandalism). Looks like the negative forces are attacking WGU again simply because it's not prestigious enough for them. We need to have the Wikiproject WGU reformulated because this is a fine non-profit university with over 120,000 student and over 150,000 alumni and needs to be treated with some respect. Paul Smith111977 ( talk) 12:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Paul Smith111977: I see that you've returned to edit-warring at this article to ensure it includes essential information like a list of state governors and a list of the members of the board of trustees. Please (a) revert your edit so you're not edit-warring and (b) explain why this information is so critical that it needs to be included in this encyclopedia article. Exactly what are readers supposed to learn by knowing the names of the governors of the member states (information they can also easily find in the articles about those states)? Exactly what are readers supposed to learn by knowing the names of the members of the board of trustees? ElKevbo ( talk) 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there is a new WGU affiliate for 2021. A WGU press release states: "In celebration of the WGU Idaho affiliate..." This seems to be in the very early stages, but WGU is using the term "affiliate" at the very bottom of their press release from June 15, 2021 [1]. An identical press release has been posted on the Idaho Office of the Governor's website [2] Does anyone see any reason why we should not expand the section on WGU affiliates to include Idaho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.56.42 ( talk • contribs) 05:41, July 4, 2021 (UTC)
References
Although more nonprofit universities are coming online, there are still a huge amount of online schools that are questionable and/or for-profit. The resistance to including "nonprofit" in the lede comes off as if there is an effort to hide/bury/make-difficult-to-find the fact that WGU is a nonprofit university. Since stating this fact is not allowed in the first sentence of the lede, would it be acceptable to include it elsewhere in the lede? For example, how about:
Western Governors University (WGU) is a private, online university based in Millcreek, Utah. The university uses an online competency-based learning model as opposed to the traditional, cohort-based class model present at most universities.[6] The nonprofit university was founded by 19 U.S. governors in 1997 after the idea was formulated at a 1995 meeting of the Western Governors Association to expand education offerings to the internet.[7] WGU degree programs are accredited by institutional and professional accreditation bodies such as the NWCCU, ACBSP, CAEP, CAHIIM, CCNE, and the NCATE.[8][9]
....or elsewhere in the lede? If not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryUSAUSAUSA ( talk • contribs) 18:10, July 8, 2021 (UTC)
Is the section about a financial aid audit in 2017 relevant? The section basically says there was a financial aid audit, due to a technicality the auditors recommended qualifying WGU as correspondance education instead of distance education, the Department of Education disagreed, and the auditors eventually agreed with the Department of Education's assessment. Financial aid and the school's status were never affected. Is this information useful? Does it belong in the history section, or is it just cluttering up the article?
My opinion is that the entire writeup about the incident does not provide any useful information about the school or the school's history and should be removed. Userdk ( talk) 05:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)