Talk:University of Phoenix

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, that certainly eliminates the need for verifiable, notable sources. /s 199.19.252.54 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: There is a section, "Governmental lawsuits and investigations", where this sort of thing may belong. It would probably be more useful to explain what the investigation is about precisely.  "Issues related to marketing, recruitment, enrollment, financial aid, fraud prevention, and student retention" is broad and ambiguous and, frankly, the Department is "investigating" schools, even real ones, all the time. It's unclear what this is about. Flyte35 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 31 October 2014 

message: Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 6 November 2014 

message: 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. 
:<Remainder of off-topic post refactored Jonathunder (talk)>
Invictus 80 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "U of Phoenix staff" do not control this talk page, but this is not a forum for general discussion about the subject of the article and this is definitely not Facebook. This page is for improving the article: anything else is off-topic here. Jonathunder (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  U of Phoenix likes to harass, but doesn't tolerate being confronted for their harassment and scamming 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out on the talk page. I removed the paragraph because it is not confirmed in the linked article, and the linked YouTube video was removed because of copyright claim by Apollo Education Group. The linked article has this link] to a video which requires sign in. UOP has no obligation to provide Wikipedia access to the video, of course, but it would help provide transparency if it were available to us, if for no other reason than to serve as a basis for refuting the information that you requested removed if it is ever added again. Unfortunately, we have no way of confirming your affiliation with UOP, and we need a source that is reliable by Wikipedia standards. An official video or written statement on UOP's website regarding this issue would be considered reliable. But as I said, that is entirely up to UOP. Sundayclose (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academics sub-heading  

message: 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)
thread_title:  2008 religious discrimination judgment conspicuously missing from Wiki page 

message: 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.   Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon 70.91.213.37 removed a substantial amount of information without giving a reason.  restored it. You removed it again. with the odd edit summary "rv unexplained deletion". You didn't revert a deletion. You yourself deleted. It would help if you would explain why you think the information should be deleted. Sundayclose (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like Michael misread the edit history and was trying to undo the deletion that Jonathunder already undid, and Michael accidentally removed it again. Happens. Just restore the info and all is good. oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the candid feedback. I'll be sure to double check in future before clicking Undo. Thanks again, guys. Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent reversions to reversions 

message: I'd like to start a discussion about reorganizing the article's content. 
* First, I'm wondering if readers would be better served if either:
** a) all the controversies and negative info that appears in several sections be put under the header "Controversies," with appropriate second-level headers; or 
** b) if the content of the article is moved around to make it more like a narrative, like you would see in an encyclopedia. 
* Second, the sections History, Campuses, and Organization and administration are quite short. Perhaps the content within those sections can be moved into other areas in the article.
Anyone else have ideas on this? Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversies sections are deprecated, but that doesn't mean just removing properly sourced negative information. See Wikipedia:Criticism. A narrative approach is better. Jonathunder (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

text: it's probably a good idea to create a new section discussing these issues, as you're responding to a comment from 2015! Nole (chat·edits) 22:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of article - ideas 

message: 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."
* Harsh language
* Contentious labels (see WP:LABEL)
* Weasel words - "Some critics" -- Which people specifically said it?
* Neutrality - it's a strong accusation that doesn't provide a counterpoint.
Dm382triuss (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be helpful to review the article on Corinthian Colleges to see how similar issues are covered there. Jonathunder (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  assertion of university as a criminal enterprise 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that because the information in the "admissions and financial aid" section of this article also applies to other for-profit colleges it's unnecessary to include  "admissions and financial aid" in the University of Phoenix article? Flyte35 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite. It has an undue weight issued to the section, most likely because of the second paragraph, but when you get into default rates, etc., how is that on point with Admissions and financial aid? This should talk about how admissions and financial aid work. Any controversy should probably go under the criticisms section.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should feel free to go ahead and edit it. Be bold.  Flyte35 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, thanks.--WatchingContent (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  I think this section is well balanced now and the tag can be removed. Any objections? Flyte35 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Received no objections. Removed tag. Flyte35 (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admissions and financial aid 

message: has any taken any university of phoenix exams?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.98.227 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  university of phoenix tests 

message: 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)
thread_title:  300 companies is too vague 

message: 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)
thread_title:  University of Phoenix article smells moldy 

message: @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)
replies: text: Then integrate it into the history section with references that support your argument. A bulleted list of disconnected facts, many of them very limited and of little interest to readers who have no context, is not helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing is a key element of University of Phoenix's History  

message: 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)
replies: text: John Pack Lambert, I revised the graph as an area graph to get the 0 in the Y axis. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section is a mess 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm sure their definition of "alumni" is loose (ever taken a single class through a corporate partnership? alum!) but I entirely agree with your point about not using them as the only source. Lets at least start by saying "UoP claims..." Alyo (chat·edits) 18:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

text: *This source is also the university, but published by a RS . Maybe if we said "The university reports 1 milllion....."?  And this says "graduates", but you don't necessarily have to graduate to be listed as alumni. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit what I just did, I agree with all that you said. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  One million alumni? 

message: 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)
thread_title: July 11, 2022

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can we add "online" to describe University of Phoenix in the lede?  

message: 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.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/03/31/university-phoenix-arkansas-deal-draws-scrutiny/ Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be correct! I see a path that may work for now. I think having this pre-2020 instance roll into the section could be okay considering an acquisition would be seen as an important moment for that portion of the timeline. Also, given the increased media attention within the 2020's and the likelihood of a sale increasing, titling the 2020's section around the sale makes more sense to me. That being said, the future of titling the 2020's section will definitely depend on a sale actually taking place, instead of the months (technically years, according to that quote!) of speculation. I'm going to go ahead and re-title the timeline with what you've said in mind. 30Four (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline headings 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: We need much more than one popular press source to support adding a section to an article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. There are several pop culture references over the years, including White Collar (2011), John Oliver (2014), the Simpsons (2017), and Family Guy (2020), but I would have to take time dredging them up. The recent SNL sketch, by the way, was mentioned in the NY Times, LA Times, NY Post, Rolling Stone, The Hill, and the Daily Beast. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Phoenix in popular culture  

message: 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)
thread_title:  University of Phoenix Numbers are very different than NCIS data