Talk:University of Phoenix

Is the Introduction NPV??

The introduction includes the Huffington Post's claim that UOPX is an "example of for-profit colleges that operate to receive government educational subsidies", but doesn't mention that UOPX is "fully" accredited? Can't hide the elephant in the room!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.159.114 (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That claim was made in a column by Amitai Etzioni, of course Phoenix is also fully accredited. For most well known universities, Wikipedia usually does not list the school's accreditation in the first sentence. That sentence had been in the "organization and administration" section for about a year, but it was recently suggested that it did not belong there. If you have a better idea of where it should go, please let me know. JamaUtil (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't belong in the lead. It seems to fit best in the history section since that is where some of the criticisms and investigations are currently located. (Incidentally, if anyone has the time and the interest, the history section needs to be rewritten. The content is fine but it's essentially a list of bullet points without actual bullets.)

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

History Section

The history section almost seems as a different title for "Controversy". It seems rather strange to put that sort of thing in History. Mysteryquest (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Such criticism is presented in History to adhere to WP:STRUCTURE; granted, more general historical information about the university is needed. Any help filling it out is appreciated. —Eustress ^talk 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to UOP's general history information: http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/about_university_of_phoenix/history.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.209.181 (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for New Section: Controversy

Considering how frequently articles and op eds about the dropout rate, inflated cost as compared to public univeristies, low job placements, etc, it seems appropriate to add a controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.19.122 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it anonymous user! JamaUtil (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There's been one many times, but faithful UoP students and graduates keep editing it into oblivion with regularity. It has a short shelf life and requires a decent amount of maintenance to keep in existence. Try perusing the article history - there's complete and well-referenced criticism all ready to paste back into the article. Casascius♠ (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Then please paste it back in! If not already in the article, I will make sure it finds a nice home. I looked through the history, I'm pretty sure nothing has been removed. JamaUtil (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is a perfect candidate for being protected, I think. Right now, it reads almost like an advertisement for the school, despite the healthy amount of criticism it has and does receive from both traditional schools/teachers, former and current students, and others tasked with monitoring such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.238.187 (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Then please paste it back in! If not already in the article, I will make sure it finds a nice home. I looked through the history, I'm pretty sure nothing has been removed.JamaUtil (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)