Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 1

message: Is UofP being heralded by a software product which does not have any kind of academic acceptance and it would seem is using UofP as a shill warrant inclusion in this article? Mysteryquest 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The software company has got to be at least as notable as the Council for Applied Technology Centers and Related Academic Programs (CATCRAP).  How do you know that UoP isn't the shill using the software company to bolster its image?  It's already doing the exact same thing with a football stadium. Reswobslc 18:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University in a Box Accolades 

message: I recently removed part of the history section that talks about the legal issues UOP has and is currently facing. I have removed them because these points are already covered in the controversy section. Poweroverwhelming 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Issues 

message: Surely that's a typo. Anyone? Dan Lovejoy 05:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it is not a typo. That is the awful name for one of their "colleges". --Vizcarra 09:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it's clumsy.  But it's no worse than the "University College" that many "real" universities created to house their night schools.  And University of Phoenix isn't the only outfit to have a "University of College" - there are a bunch in the British isles, and the one in Cork fought to keep the name after it was taken away. RossPatterson 15:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It may have been a legitimate name once, but the current U. Phoenix catalog (http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/publications/university_catalog/Catalog2005-2006.pdf) lists it as "University College" now.  User:Dave Murphy has already corrected it.  RossPatterson 11:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "University of College" 

message: The previous version listed every, single degree.  That is not necesary and borders on turning the article into the brochure (which someone is one "external link" click away from).  In light of the way other major university articles handle it, notably the feature-status Michigan State University article, I have reduced the skeleton to just the schools and colleges.  Now, this may be a basis for information about the individual schools, but not each and every degree. --Bobak 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Academic programs" section comment 

message: Axia College is not a division of University of Phoenix, rather it is a subsidiary of UOP's parent company Apollo Group. Poweroverwhelming 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you can transfer credits very easily and without a transcript it does not mean they are the same school. They all reside under the educational umbrella of Apollo Group. As such you could just as easily transfer credits from Western International University (also an Apollo entity.) Axia is Axia collage OF University of Phoenix, previously know as Axia collage of Western International University. So in a way you are correct in that they are both under Apollo and credit transfer is almost seamless, however they are acutely different entities. (Poweroverwhelming 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axia College 

message: This looks completely like an advertisement. 67.188.172.165 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do all other university article on here. If you have complaints about the university there is a page for that 
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_University
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Of_Washington
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Nevada%2C_Las_Vegas
   You get the point?
(Poweroverwhelming 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement

message: The articles and citations supporting this claim are not viable. A discussion board or blogg is not factual and represents the experience/opinion of a handful of individuals. To associate this as a practice of the school is irresponsible at best. UOP sends all of its advertising to third party companies to create only banner adds. Had one of these third party companies created an add such as the one cited, they would have been quickly dealt with and no longer used as an advertising company. If you wish to make further accusations on baseless material please put your additions on the UOP controversy article.
     * A collection of UOP horror stories and criticisms
     * UOP spyware tactics
     *  Sue a spammer campaign against UOP
Poweroverwhelming 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument does not hold water. UoP is not a victim of circumstance; they are free to contract with advertising firms who do not use "questionable tactics", and they choose not to do so. Holding UoP blameless for the spam they fund is like holding a TV advertiser blameless for a controversial ad--Oh, it was our ad agency's fault; we had nothing to do with it! Of course they don't compose and mass-email spam themselves. Neither do the thousands of internet Viagra purveyors who contract with spammers to fill the nation's inboxes. N6 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam/Spy-ware