Talk:The Princeton Review

message: Please help! First time edit but just wanted add that on a personal level I agree with the sentiments expressed in "Internal Criticism," but they are just that, sentiments and not facts. Furthermore, while the expression "blushes noble etc..." certainly reads prosaically it does not fit the wikiverse. I am honestly very happy that this information has made it to wikipedia so that future workers or patrons of TPR can know what has happened to the business and make their decisions accordingly. Speaking as a former TPR teacher, the company has gone to great lengths to maintain its pristine and somewhat elitist image and I did have fears that they had somehow managed to suppress this information. However, the biased manner of representation as well as the beautiful but ultimately detrimental flowerly language only hurts the credibility of the facts provided. I do not have the words to edit this myself, I am not a wiki regular, but please do fix it as I think the passage, through its overly expressive and vehement sentiments, ends up trivializing this very serious policy change that has affected so many of us. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.151.8 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous discussion 

message: I came here looking for the Princeton Review rankings ("Biggest Party School," "Best Campus Food," "Cutest Campus Squirrels," etc.). I'm pretty sure it's the same company as the one that does the test-prep courses that are the subject of this article. 24.63.206.145 03:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

message: I'm not sure this section really belongs in an encyclopedia, since it's essentially a list of tips for taking tests. Cordless Larry 11:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Techniques section

message: The first two paragraphs of the "Description" section are wildly non-neutral. I don't have time to fix this at the moment, but clearly they are in serious need of revising in light of the NPV policy. Kelandon 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those paragraphs were completely unsourced, and apparently added by one IP editor.  I removed them from the article as apparent original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV paragraphs

message: :Image:Tpr logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tpr logo.gif

message: I work for the Princeton Review and I will definitely say that every LSAT teacher that teaches the hyperlearning course had to score in the top 98th percentile on the exam. I believe that is a 172. Unfortunately, we had to let quite a few of our teachers go last year due to this change in policy. Personally, I think it is really hard to quantify a teacher's future success through previous test scores, but I'm not the director of content. I think that is the materials and techniques are so great, anyone should be able to teach the class. I can see how it would be harder "to sell" that though. October 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.89.73 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections on internal policy and LSAT teachers 

message: It's fairly transparent that the section on Recent Internal Criticism was written by a former or present employee who feels that they've been treated unfairly by a particular office.  In turn, they have written a reasonably negative-POV paragraph about their personal experience as if it were voiced by a group that they're unable to cite.  The anonymous user making these edits would do well to either stop replacing the negative information when it is deleted or allow me to post a second, equally uncited, viewpoint.  Obviously within a company different locales will have different experiences.  Either various points of view are important or none of them are.  (Signing comments I wrote while not logged in.) GeorgeHG (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: I noticed that the discussion of the August 2008 Data Exposure which appeared in prior versions of this page (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Princeton_Review&oldid=317322596) has disappeared in the recent flurry of edits. Given the scope of the exposure and the widespread media coverage, I believe the data exposure section should be returned. Any objections or comments? All viewpoints welcome. Transmissionelement (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinstated this section based on no objection from other users and the clear notability of the issue. Transmissionelement (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 2008 Data Exposure 

message: Hello. New AND work for TPR and therefore will not edit. But I am curious about the placement of the second paragraph (info about financial losses) in the introductory section. I don't disagree with its inclusion in the article, but the placement in the intro just reads odd and abrupt. Seems like this should have its own section? Also, the other reason it reads odd is there's no contextual data for the mention of the losses. For example: it reads as an unusually large loss, compared to the previous year, but is the loss large compared with other companies in the field? With other companies overall? The fact that the country has experienced economic strain in the last few years prompts me to ask these questions. Without the context, I don't know whether Princeton Review's losses as described reflect something about TPR, something about the industry, or something about the country as a whole. Please, someone with more experience move and/or elaborate.208.92.32.4 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of Info re Stocks/Losses? 

message: I tagged a couple of sections as "advertisements" because they were overly detailed in a way that serves to promote the topic.  See WP:Undue weight.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Advertisement" section tags 

message: Changes requested based on change in ownership. Sourche: http://www.reuters.com/brandfeatures/venture-capital/article?id=2887
Overview section: The Princeton Review is headquartered in New York, NY.
Key People: Andrew Feld, CEO Source: https://www.princetonreview.com/press/ceo-announcement-andy-feld and https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-andy-feld-6327b9/ 
Corporate History section:
Request addition of the following: On March 31, 2017, ST Unitas acquired The Princeton Review for an undisclosed sum. Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2017/02/694_223955.html
Privacy Concerns: Request that this section be considered for revision, as The Princeton Review is no longer owned by or associated with any dating services, and the cited privacy policy regarding web visitors is not unique to the company.
Thank you for considering these changes.
Kristen at TPR (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes