Talk:Bryant & Stratton College/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request to remove entries

I hereby request the removal of the following entries for the following reasons:

1. "In 2015, Bryant & Stratton was put on a Heightened Cash Monitoring list by the federal government, to allow for a closer monitoring of their financial practices."

2. "In 2020, Bryant and Stratton College began pursuing a non-profit designation, as the college was previously a for-profit institution. Bryant H. Prentice III, the college's former owner and a descendent of the college's founders, transferred his ownership of the college to a New York-based nonprofit corporation."

Reasons:

Entry 1:

1. This occurred almost a decade ago.

2. In the source of this entry, the school explains its list entry as it states it had been spending significantly because it was actually growing and investing in infrastructure (i.e. a new campus building) at the time.

3. The source says that, at the time, over 550 schools were on this list.

4. All kinds of schools are on this list: small, large, private and even public ones like, on the most recent list, Alabama State University, Kentucky State University or Michigan State University which has an endowment of over 4 billion dollars. Heck, there are even foreign universities on this list such as the University of London in England or the University of New South Wales in Australia! Source: https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/Schools-on-HCM-December2023.xlsx

Quite frankly, there are only two ways to go here: either remove the entry from this article OR add the same kind of entry to all schools, to each and every single school article where the individual school has ever been on this list. So, entries to roughly 500 schools (only accounting for the schools from the most recent list, not even counting the schools which may have been on older lists). From the above points, it's arguable how significant this list is, or if at all. But the main point I will make is that this entry simply aims to potray the school in a false light, implying it was, almost a decade ago, financially struggling and engaging in dubious financial practices when it wasn't.

Entry 2:

Pretty much the same core issue as with entry 1. Being a for-profit school isn't illegal. Being a non-profit school isn't illegal. Business transactions and conversions aren't illegal. Hence, both was approved by the respective official authorities with this school. This entry is merely there to also portray the school in a false light, implying and creating the perception the school and the family who owns it engaged in shady business tactics. POV has to work in both ways: when positive portrayal is attempted but also when there is targeted negative portrayal.

I hereby also ping the user who's been most recently involved with these entries: @MrOllie. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:9986:D20:11F7:BBE4 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea that we shouldn't cover things that are "almost a decade ago" in an encyclopedia is a bit weird. The history of things is part of what we do here. And no, the inclusion of something here does not require the inclusion of the same thing on the page of every institution for which it's true, as some institutions have a far richer history that means limiting ourselves in various ways so it's not overwhelming. I'm not saying that we necessarily need to include this, but those arguments are weak.

As for some implication of nefariousness in point 2, I'm really not seeing it. Profit versus not-for-profit is not a trivial distinction, and that they were starting an effort to change the school from one status to another seems a reasonable part of the history of the institution. A change in ownership is part of the history of any business. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler, so, with regard to entry 1: why then include and highlight this entry with this particular school but omitting it with 500+ other listed schools? As I explained, this list features all kinds of schools: small, large, (also old and young), private, public... even huge public ones like Michigan State with 50'000 plus students and a USD 4 billion plus endowment. As for your argument that some institutions have richer histories than others and so the entry may be omitted for schools with a rich history: coincidentally, this particular example, Michigan State, is just as old as this school (this school is even 1 year older if we want to be nitpicking). So, again, why should this entry be included with this school and not also Michigan State? This school is 170 years old; loads, if not hundreds, of other listed schools are younger. Why not include the same kind of entry with these schools then? You also contradict yourself: you say, on the one hand, age isn't an argument for whether or not information should be included but you then go on to say, on the other hand, that it actually is, depending upon how old the institution is, information should or shouldn't be included...

As for entry 2: the point of implied false light info is that you cannot directly see it. That's the whole point of implications: to say something indirectly so that it is, logically and consequently, not seen directly but nevertheless understood. If the negative implication in the entry itself is not obvious to you, then check out the source to the entry which simply aims to bash the school, schools in general which convert and for-profit education altogether; especially the bottom part of the source. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:8994:A13B:1278:DD4C (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Michigan State University is actually a fine example. Look at that page. It's huge, it's far larger that this article. There are many thing to say about MSU, among which this would be a small datapoint. It's like I get listed as a notable person from my hometown of a couple thousand people, but would not be on the same list for, say, New York City; I'd be a trivial fact there.

As for entry 2, if the point is that what you claim cannot be seen, that's actually a pretty good argument for it not being there. We are not in charge of editing the source, and there's no particular reason for us to avoid sources because they say something bad about a topic. What we are saying is neither false nor irrelevant. Whether it's shameful or not, you've given no good reason to hide that information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler You need to be clearer and less ambiguous... first you wrote that for you it's a matter of rich history. When I then point out that these two schools have roughly the same age (170 years), you suddenly change your statement again and now say it's not actually the "rich history" per se but the article size... ok, I am sure, out of the 500+ listed schools, there will be certainly quite a lot of listed schools with shorter articles than is the case with this school. Should this kind of entry then be included in all listed school articles that are shorter than this one?

As for entry 2: the sources form a fundamental part of an entry. No source, no entry. They go hand in hand and are linked like cogwheels. If this entry hadn't a source, it arguably wouldn't be there in the first place. So, please, don't undermine the influence of this entry's source. If highlighting whether the school is for-profit or non-profit is important to you (this was already discussed before and agreed upon that no such highlighting is needed as non-profit schools are now merely referred to in Wiki articles as "private colleges"); if highlighting this is so important to you, then why not simply write in the infobox "type: non-profit"? Why explain in such great detail the whole business transaction and conversion? Including explicitly citing the owner's name and family roots?

As in the beginning of my comment here, I ask you to be clearer and less ambiguous: for the first entry you stated that you found my arguments shaky but also that you are "not saying that we necessarily need to include this". So, can you be clear? Do you actively advocate to include this entry? Yes or no? 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:8994:A13B:1278:DD4C (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't change at all. I said "rich history", it was you that made it about age. I then pointed to the MSU article which displays its rich history. The two concepts are not the same. Someone who was born, worked fifty years at their Piggly-Wiggly, never traveled, married, or had kids may have lived twice as long as Amy Winehouse, but have a much less rich history.

As for not liking material because the sources say negative things, well boo-hoo. This is not supposed to be a promotional packet. We are not only supposed to have material sourced to promotional materials. We are supposed to source material to reliable, third-party sources, and I've seen no argument that would disqualify that source. Detailing the transaction and conversion is part of telling the history of the college. I don't see any reason why that history should be covered up or erased.

I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of the first material, I've just not yet seen any reasonable argument for excluding it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that there is some merit to the first complaint. I don't think the answer is to remove this information from this article but to instead (a) ensure that there is appropriate context so readers understand why this is important and (b) move toward consistently including this is other articles where it's appropriate.

I do not think there is merit in the second complaint. Changing from for-profit to not-for-profit or vice versa is a very important event in the history of an organization that should absolutely be included. If there is POV language in this article where this historical development is described than should be addressed. But merely including this information is not itself a NPOV problem. In fact, omitting the information is more likely to be a NPOV problem. ElKevbo (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ElKevbo,

Have you read the entire thread when you commented? I ask because you made your first comment to this discussion quite quickly after my most recent comment. It's a long and controversial thread and recommend, as daunting as it may be, to read it all as new arguments emerge throughout the thread.

The real question is: for the first entry, why does it need to be included explicitly with this school but not with any of the other 500+ listed schools? No matter how long ago it was? Even a decade ago as in this case? As user @NatGertler may come up with all kinds of pretexts: I am sure, out of 500+ schools and possibly a lot more, considering all lists from the last 10 years would need to be considered; I'm sure out of those hundreds, if not thousands, of currently and formerly listed-schools, there will be at least one other listed school (note my slight irony and sarcasm there; it's probably way more than one) of the same age, roughly the same Wiki article size and what not...

For the second entry: it surprises me that you now think it's important to highlight the profit/non-profit distinction. I remember when, some time ago, I wanted to highlight in the article that the school is non-profit. You explicitly advocated to remove this altogether, stating that all non-profit schools are now simply referred to as "private college" on Wikipedia. We had quite a discussion about it where eventually I gave in and we agreed to simply state "private college" in the article. And now you do kind of make a U-turn. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:A800:5942:4B82:E290 (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors but I'm not advancing either of the positions you've claimed that other editors are putting forth. I think that the Department of Education's financial monitoring status should be in other articles. And my claim is that changing status is historically important and meaningful, for any institution, not that "not-for-profit status" is not important. ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with NatGertler's points: Wikipedia is supposed to cover history, so age doesn't matter. And WP:OTHERCONTENT comparisons with other articles are similarly unconvincing (and are common enough that we have an essay pointing out why they are unconvincing. On the second point, Most schools are non-profit and either always have been or have been since such a status was available. A school that transitions from one category to the other is rare enough that it is worth mentioning. MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie Are you seriously advocating that entry 1 should be included only for this school but no other school from a list of 500+ and possibly way more considering not only currently but also formerly listed schools from the last 10 years? So, this entry merits inclusion for this one particular school but not for any of the other hundreds or thousands of schools who have ever been on this list?

And for entry 2: why does it need to be such a detailed formulation, showcasing the school owner's private name and his family roots? And why could it not be a more neutral source? 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:A800:5942:4B82:E290 (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No, but have fun arguing with that Straw man. MrOllie (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see anyone arguing that Heightened Cash Monitoring information should be removed from the many schools that have such information mentioned in their articles. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie, @NatGertler, @ElKevbo

I have informed the school about the entries and the discussion going on here. Per the discussion archives, they have had an employee (who disclosed their ID and COI) in the past monitoring their Wikipedia page and engaging in discussions. So I thought the school probably cares to know what is going on on their Wikipedia page. Thus, I thought I would get them involved by writing them, see if they appreciate the entries.

Apart from the false light issues I already explained: to recap, first entry falsely implies the school was financially struggling and engaging in nefarious financial practices when, as per the school's statement in the entry's source, they actually were spending more to grow and expand. The second entry, especially through its attached source, falsely implies the school engaged in shady business tactics. Apart from these issues, the second entry may also bear the problem of doxxing: outing the private identity and identifiable information of the school owner and his family. The school owner (and his family) are non-public figures, they didn't actively seek publicity, they don't have a Wikipedia article and they didn't give consent to have their identity publicly showcased.

Thus, I informed the school on the above entries and issues.

To @NatGertler: Wow... you found 27 other schools on Wikipedia where there is a Heightened Cash Monitoring entry. What about the remaining 473 (and likely a lot more...)? If it were just 500 schools, that would be roughly 5%. You have a lot of work left then including the entry in the remaining 95%. And again, the number 500 is probably a vast underestimation considering all lists from the last 10 years. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:C196:1D4D:C810:BA4E (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I have no work left in that regard. I am working on this article, not those (or at least most of 'em.) Care to raise any other false claims? Also, not doxxing; far from trying to keep himself separate from the school Prentice's own foundation (the very not-call-attention-to-ourselves Prentice Family Foundation) puts out press releases linking him to the school. You may want to let them know they've been doxxing Prentice. But yes, he's so private that he's never posed for press photos... oh, wait. But his part in the family ownership has only been public since 1984.- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@ElKevbo, @MrOllie, @NatGertler

I have dug a bit deeper into the issue at hand to get to the root of those two entries. My research indicates that it originates from a serious COI editor named @CollegeMeltdown who has a history ranting and publicly discrediting private schools in general and for-profit schools in particular. The user started to discredit this particular school around 5 years ago. I was even able to trace back at least the second entry to him (see here: [1]). The user has been involved in issues such as edit wars, COI discussions and SPIs (also with regard to this school). Looking just at the first few of the 27 HCM entries @NatGertler dug out, this user has been involved in a great deal of these (see here [2] or here [3] or here [4] or here [5] or here [6] just to cite a few). Heck! This guy has even been ranting on Harvard's talk page, trying to link it to land theft, slavery and genocide (see here: [7])! This just reeks of COI, tendentious editing and targeted public discreditation. Seriously people, what else do you need?

As to @NatGertler's latest comment: Wow... a short press release on the school owner's own charity website and 3 tiny black-and-white snippets of him from a news paper archive... he's probably soon going to overtake Kim Kardashian and Taylor Swift in publicity and fame... NatGertler, your arguments start to become funnier than your comics. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:4039:69ED:1220:4860 (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Heaping personal attacks on CollegeMeltdown, NatGertler, or anyone else is not doing to get the article changed in the manner you would like, see WP:NPA. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie, @ElKevbo, @NatGertler

MrOllie, in what way did I personally attack CollegeMeltdown? I stated facts about this user with corresponding evidence. But the fact that you seem to ignore the evident targeted discreditation by this user against this and other private schools and that you even side with this user who has evidently tried to link Harvard to land theft, slavery and genocide; this does make me wonder about your sanity. MrOllie, since you seem to be on the same wavelength as this user and also riding the wave of whitewashing (per your edit summaries in this article); maybe it would be helpful to point out to you what user @EEng pointed out to CollegeMeltdown in the Harvard instance: Wikipedia is not a place for crusaders to fight to right great wrongs (WP:RGW). In all honesty, MrOllie; do you think you have a neutral and impartial perspective in this matter (really honest question and not meant to provoke or attack)? As for @NatGertler, yeah, I might have been ironic and sarcastic in my latest comment to him; but look at his provocative tone in his preceding comment. To that I will just say: what goes around, comes around. Now I had the decency to recognize the irony and sarcasm in my latest comment to NatGertler. I wonder if he has the decency to recognize the provocative tone in his preceding comment. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:E416:5D9D:496B:7CCF (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You have already had the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy pointed out to you. If you continue to engage in personal attacks, you risk finding yourself without editing access to this page or other Wikipedia access limits. Please adjust your manner accordingly. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this discussion from the recent ANI COI case about @CollegeMeltdown (see [8]). @ElKevbo pointed out to me that this appears to be still an on-going discussion here. Sorry ElKevbo, reading the end of it, my impression was that all was said by the individual parties involved and that the discussion had reached an ending point. I must say that I'm with the IP user here. The two questioned edits alone would have been perhaps a bit shaky but in connection with CollegeMeltdown and in combination with the apparent COI issues of this user; I think the IP user has a valid point here and Wiki policies are clear on COI edits. Yes, some editors may put people's backs up but an editor with a history of edit wars, multiple COI cases and SPIs; who attempted to even vilify Harvard via various alleged atrocities; such a user is not a credible editor in educational matters. The IP user's tone may have been a bit harsh here and there, not outright rude in my eyes but a bit harsh as the discussion boiled up. Nevertheless, I feel he's eventually right and those questioned entries ought to be removed. AsteroidComet (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No evidence has been submitted that CollegeMeltdown had any COI with this article, and there is no policy which would permit COI edits to be blanket reverted even if there was. (Also, the COI noticeboard is not ANI). And as I just had to tell the IP, a collection of personal attacks on that editor is not a valid reason to make a revert. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

On further review, you and the IP editor are clearly the same person pretending to be two people on the talk page. SPI filed. MrOllie (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And of course when they talk about CM having been the target of COI investigation in the past, they are presumably talking about this case raised by an IP (who may well be our IP here), for which no one found any cause to consider the edits COI. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler, reading that case, some did find there may be a COI and wished some answers from CM... what is visible from that case too is sockpuppetry and block evasion issues with CM too. @MrOllie asked for specific COI evidence of @CollegeMeltdown towards this school in particular, here it is, from CollegeMeltdown's own public blog: [9]. In the blog post he's ranting against the school, calling it "subprime", "failing", accusing it of "luring" people and trying to discredit the school publicly with an open letter to the NY Fed.@ElKevbo,@MrOllie,@Orangemike 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:6434:F04B:808C:DCF9 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

1) This is probably WP:OUTING and 2) Expressing an opinion is not a conflict of interest. MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents having read this whole chain.

1) We should include HCM data when it exists, as it usually (but not always) indicates a higher ed institution is having some trouble. Of the institutions that closed this year many had HCM flags that were important tells. But why doesn't this always happen with HCM data being added? Well no one really cares about institutions that are in trouble. Their Wikipedia pages are usually pretty sparse and upon closure, need a decent amount of clean-up. Now as for a 2015 HCM from Bryant&Stratton? Mention it but not if/when it was removed. That seems like an easy solution.

2) I think for-profit status is worth mentioning. I did an overhaul of colleges in New York and New York city (lots of edits, lots of time, as well as the page for Vermont and this distinction is almost always noted. I see no reason why NOT to note it, just in the name of specificity.

Issues around socks are a bit above my pay-grade/skill level so I'll leave more competent editors to deal with them. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh just a point on my connection to Bryant and Stratton. A friend growing up lived down the block from the Bryant and Stratton in Syracuse in around 2007. I thought it was kinda funny there was a college parked between some apartments, a TV station, and some old-timey falling apart mansions. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I'm proud to say that I did a lot of work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of 19th-century business colleges, both those defunct and those still in operation; and this definitely includes the complex history of their origins, ownership, etc. The B&S chain and the varying fates of the individual schools are fascinating to trace, and no hostility towards the various families involved was anybody's motivation. (Did you know that one of the University of Wisconsin's campuses was originally a proprietary manual training school?) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on these pages! Keep it up! Jjazz76 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)