Talk:Fresno Pacific University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Accreditation

I find it odd that one or more persons seem to be very concerned that the article specifies that FPU "has not sought accreditation for its business, music, social work, or teacher education programs." I don't see how it is important to specify this. With some quick research, I found that professional accrediting is often not tremendously important if the university as a whole is accredited: http://www.degree.net/guides/gaap_listings.html

FPU's teacher education program is currently more highly regarded than Fresno State's in many circles at this point in time, so I don't see how accreditation for the program is significant right now.

Whatever the case may be, it seems an inconsequential point to belabor when the article as a whole has barely been fleshed out. I'll leave the comment as it currently stands, though. --Sxeptomaniac 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"FPU's teacher education program is currently more highly regarded than Fresno State's in many circles at this point in time, so I don't see how accreditation for the program is significant right now."

In which circles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.183.18 (talk) 12:15, November 24, 2006

I can't exactly give names here, but I know of several school administrators who specifically prefer to hire FPU graduates when possible, stating that they have found them to be better prepared.

However, that's beside the point. With a bit more experience with Wikipedia now, I still see no reason to include the statement. It's unsourced, not NPOV, and just plain unnecessary. We have the information regarding what is accredited, so we don't need to waste space saying what the school is not. Sxeptomaniac 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is now sourced. It is important because the failure of the institution to seek obtain program accreditation in any field is at variance with the statement that it "exists to prepare students ... through excellence in ... higher education."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.224.83 (talk) 16:31, March 8, 2007

That's a logical fallacy. Accreditation can certify "excellence," but lack of it tells us absolutely nothing (neither that it's a poor program nor a good one). Accreditation can be a time-consuming process, so it's not always sought, particularly if it's not necessary to accredit the particular program.

It doesn't matter if the addition is sourced, because it's still unnecessary and not NPOV. Sxeptomaniac 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that one person is seemingly unconcerned that it "has [apparently] not sought accreditation for its [art], [counseling], business, music, social work, or teacher education programs, even though it "exists to prepare students... through excellence in... higher education." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.137.235 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your source for that first quote? Sources for what the school is accredited for do not support your proposed addition, as I've commented here before. Your argument from ignorance has so far been a synthesis from available sources, which is specifically against policy. There is a good reason for this, in my experience, as I've repeatedly seen the exact same fallacious arguments used to attempt to slant articles by adding any number of different attacks using gaps in the sources, rather than the sources themselves. Others have agreed and removed your addition, so this is not "one person's" opinion. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me. Are you denying that its art, counseling, business, music, social work, and teacher education programs all lack national program accreditation? Does saying that it "develops students... through excellence in... higher education" reflect a NPOV? And, do you really think it is proper to insult someone who disagrees with you by flinging words such as "ignorance" and "fallacious" at them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.224.83 (talk) 15:13, November 3, 2009

It is unfortunate that you feel insulted, but I can not help it if you do not understand what "fallacious" means or what an "argument from ignorance" is (even after twice linking to the article on the subject... now three times). Both terms reference your arguments, not you as a person. Since you have apparently either not read or not understood the article, I'll attempt to explain:

An argument from ignorance is when a person takes a fact/source that provides a specific piece of information, then attempts to assert a claim based on what information is not there. Essentially, taking facts A and B, and asserting NOT C. This reasoning is, nonetheless, not sound.

In your case, you are taking sources that say: "Fresno Pacific University is accredited by WASC" to say "Fresno Pacific University has not sought program accreditation." Those are not the same things. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am "taking sources" that list the nationally recognized program accreditors for art, business, counseling, music, social work, and teacher education "to say" that Fresno Pacific's art, business, music, social work, and teacher education programs lack national program accreditation. It is true that I cannot be certain why it does not have program accreditation in any fields. Does saying that it "develops students... through excellence in... higher education" reflect a NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.137.235 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can reflect NPOV, if it's a direct quote. It should be a little clearer where the quote comes from, but that's easily fixed.

I'm referring to sources you've used in the past. Either way, you've attempted to support your addition with sources that do not say the same thing.

Still, there's a second problem with you attempting to take sources that list one thing and turning it around: you are attempting to change the focus of the sources, which is definitely not NPOV. Unless a reliable source thought it was significant to show what accreditation FPU does not have, we will stick with the sources that say what it does have. If we went your way, what next? List every program other schools have that FPU doesn't? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not important that other schools have undergraduate majors which Fresno Pacific lacks. What is important is that other schools have various accredited undergraduate majors while Fresno Pacific (despite its claims of "excellence") has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.170.175 (talk) 20:36, August 12, 2010

Without a reliable source that says that, it's only your belief that it's important and why. Please see policies regarding "synthesis of published material that advances a position," which I've pointed to before. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fresno Pacific should be embarrassed by the fact that (despite its claims of "excellence") its art, business, counseling, music, social work, and teacher education programs all lack national program accreditation (http://www.chea.org/Directories/special.asp and http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg6.html#NationallyRecognized).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.112.70 (talk) 18:07, September 6, 2010

You've made your opinion abundantly clear, but it does not change that the sources only say what accreditation the school does have, while others only say what accreditation is available. As I've said, inserting your line would be original research, specifically a synthesis of materials to advance your position, based on current sources. You are off-topic if you aren't addressing that issue. This talk page is for discussing the article about the college, not the college itself. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)