Talk:University of Arkansas Grantham

Untitled

This entire article has no references could editors start putting in references.Mysteryquest 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the Trivia section to the talk page for comment on what can be integrated into the article. The only items were are marginally relevant would be the fact that the school has 2500 alumni and it is one of the largest employers in Kansas City, and the last three items. The other items are well, trivial.Mysteryquest 04:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dept. of Education's "Equivalence of DETC and regional accreditation"

"The Criteria do not differentiate between types of accrediting agencies, so the recognition granted to all types of accrediting agencies-regional, institutional, specialized, and programmatic-is identical. Only the specific scope of recognition varies according to the type of agency recognized."

Above is the text of the Dept. of Education letter which purports to state that all accreditation is equal at least in the in the eyes of the Department of Education. First, the Dept of Education has nothing to do with the academic or transfer of credit affairs of any school thus what they think of accreditation is irrelevant to these matters. Secondly, the letter clearly states in the second sentence that "... the specific scope of recognition varies according to the type of agency recognized" so all accreditation is apparently not the same, contrary to the first statement. Again, criteria for inclusion as an accrediting agency has to do with Dept. of Education regulation and has nothing to do with the academics of the schools which are being accredited or the particular criteria applied by the accreditors to decide what school it will accredit. Thus, even if the Dept. of Education believes all accreditation is the same, that does not mean that all the accredited schools are the same.

According to the scenario the letter purports to support, a national accrediting agency which only accredits certificate granting vocational schools would be equivalent to the American Bar Association or, in effect, a massage school is equivalent to Harvard Law School. This is, of course, ludicrous. What is relevant are the accrediting criteria of the particular accrediting body, the criteria which schools accredited by that body have to meet. There is obviously a difference between the accrediting criteria of an accreditor who accredits certificate granting purely vocational schools and the accrediting criteria of the American Bar Association, just as there are differences between the criteria of national accrediting agencies and that of a regional accrediting agency. The Department of Education merely recognizes an accrediting agency for the purpose of whether or not the students attending schools accredited by that particular agency can receive federal loans and grants. The Dept. of Ed. does not pass judgment on the equivalence of the criteria of one accreditor vs. another.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the most recent edits(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grantham_University&oldid=390132867) by User:Jlt679 I agree that the section on accreditation should not include disparaging remarks about national versus regional accreditation. But it should, just as equally, not include misleading information about the equivalence of national accreditations to regional ones. The neutral, unbiased truth is that they absolutely are not equivalent, a fact which is stated clearly, and sourced accurately on the main accreditation page [[1]].Special:Contributions/131.53.128.23|131.53.128.23]] (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

There is a major violation of copyright currently on the page. Much of the material on the page is either directly copied or slightly reworded from .pdf, which is the schools course catalogue. Most if not all of the material in the history section are either directly copied sentences or have minimal changes. I'm removing the obvious parts, but the article will have to be more thoroughly checked over. Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the photos in this article, with the exception of the school logo appear to have been taken from one source and modified using an image-editor, in some feeble attempt at circumventing copyright issues. The logo itself is purportedly a work of user Cferraragrantham, which I think is suspect.

WP:Image use policy states the following:

Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright—copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work.

This perverted interpretation of fair-use constitutes further violations, IMO. These images should be taken down.--131.53.128.33 (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional issues

After checking the article for more copyright violations and following up on some of the sources, It's clear this article needs major work. I hate to come down so hard on this institution's article in particular, but I've been around many school and university articles on wiki and this is the best hatchet job I've seen (and not just by one or two users). I guess it just makes since that an online university would be good at promoting itself online. I've left the primary sources tag up, and will continue to work on the article over the next week. Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing WP:Neutrality

Some of the my changes have been reverted and I'd like to get virus' reply here before I consider replacing them:

I changed "Later that year, Harvard wrote an best practices article called "The Future of Urbanization" featuring Grantham University" to "later that year, an article appeared in the Harvard International Review entitled "The Future of Urbanization" and discussed Grantham Universities move from Louisiana." I made this change for several reasons. First, Harvard did not write and article Harvard published it, an author is given. In addition Grantham University is only mentioned in passing the article, it is certainly not featured and not the primary topic of the article.
- Virus Comments: Grey, doesn't only iscussed Grantham Universities move from Louisiana the but the Teletechnology’s Impacts on Urban Evolution. It features Granthams, online delivery model and proposes its teletechnology support capability relevent to this wikiarticle. Also, the comment "sourced "oldest" statement since I know that some other distance education schools claim to date to the 1890s (notably including Penn Foster), but replaced it with date of founding" I agree but Grantham is the oldest "online" university to date over Penn Foster.
  - Cool, now we are getting somewhere. I'm happy as long as we say what it was published in, not the "Harvard" wrote it. Also I would suggest "discusses" instead of "Featured." Featured implies it is the subject of the article. We also need to find a reliable third party source that says Grantham is the oldest. Until then we can say Grantham claims to be the oldest... as per the reference provided. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Grey, Harvard International Review is written by Harvard. Here is the editor's email addy editorial@hir.harvard.edu. Also, I've attached the weblink http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=static&id=contact. Ok, let's compromise ... I suggest the word "highlights"; the article mentions no other university and that is more than a mere discussion about the topic, A. What do you think?

--Virusunknown 00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virusunknown (talk • contribs)

Professor Sangeeta Theru did the work mentioned as a graduate student before he was a part-time faculty member at Grantham. It is not appropriate to discusses what contributions to science Theru made unless they took place at Grantham. In addition the linked reference is a direct link to the academic paper, this is inappropriate for wikipedia, we need third party links. Thousands of academic papers are published each year this one does not appear to be special.

- Virus Comments: I strongly feel that the work mentioned is appropriate to discusses what contributions to science Theru has made. I feel that this information describes the degree/caliber of the faculty hired and teaching by Grantham. This is apparent in many other wiki articles that are similar on Wikipedia such as articles on MIT, Duke, Florida State. I feel this im completely appropriate to describe the history of the faculty as its faculty is now a history of Grantham, right?

- - Professor Theru does not meet WP:Notability. The difference here I think is that MIT, Duke discusses very notable professors (e.g. Nobel winners). Theru's paper from his graduate work at another university is far too detailed for an article about Grantham's faculty. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed POV words from the alumni section. I change A number of Grantham alumni have made significant contributions in the fields of government, law, science, business, a writer to alumni have been employed in the fields of government, law, science, business, a writing Saying alumni have made "significant contributions" without a reliable sources, without any of these alumni appearing to meet WP:Notabilty is POV.

- Virus Comments: Define notability? Wiki or dictionary dot com doesn't define notability based on one being a famous figure. These alumni are prominent people (notable) within their respected fields otherwise why have they written books, published articles, etc. I feel that many people would agree with me that authoring a book or having an article published inside a trade magazine is a "significant contribution" to society. When was the last time you or I had an article published or written a book?

- - Notability is defined by Wikipedia:Notability and WP:Verifiability, you need to find coverage of them outside Grantham's newsletter. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I changed the ranking by eworld to 13th out of 27 U.S. institutions. This is what the source provided says, the edit summary removing it said something irrelevant about reliable sources.

- Virus Comments: Ok, after double checking it is "13"th. Sorry, Grey!!!!

- - Looks good, thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a portion of the academic section as advert fluff. per WP:Advertising also sources provided are from Grantham itself and do not support the assertions in the paragraph. If you are going to assert that grantham programs are "specially designed " and "provides each student with a sound basis for future teamwork, interaction, and life-long networking opportunities" then yes this is advertising fluff, with no data. If you say Grantham's students score an average of ___ on the LSAT then provide a ref that is data.

- Virus Comments: Ok, I agree with this! Grey, perhaps instead of deleting it you could have made that recommendation for improvement in my "talk" as I suggested. We are all trying to make wiki's articles the mist accurate and reliable data to society. As you've said, I am still learning, but my sources I've provided are accurate and reliable.

- - Reliable sources would be those unaffiliated with grantham. Perhaps it was rash of me to remove the entire thing, but I thought it was fundamentally flawed and required a complete rewrite.

Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned the article to how it was when these edits were completed. Please be careful with the undo button as you have undone both edits you disagree with and non-controversial constructive changes like removing and coor template. Please explain how the edits are no justified given the details above. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Virus Comments: Grey please see my comments above.

Thank you!

Virusunknown (talk

I've responded to your comments next to the three bullets. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this article on my watchlist for a very long time due to past efforts to address promotional content and/or attacks on the school. I've been aware of the recent intense editing activity, and touched the article very lightly a couple of times (I did't have time to study the huge volume of changes, and didn't want to get into edit conflicts). I guess I need to defend my most recent changes, which Grey Wanderer reverted. I revised the beginning as follows, to insert wikilinks to other relevant articles and to delete the unreliably sourced assertion that Grantham is "one of the oldest, private, post-secondary, degree-granting distance education universities in the United States" (I replaced that with the founding date):

'''Grantham University''' is a [[for-profit university]] based in [[Kansas City, Missouri]], that offers [[academic degree|degree]] programs by [[distance education]], primarily online. It was founded in 1951.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.grantham.edu/about-gu|title=about GU|date=2009|publisher=Grantham University|accessdate=2009-12-09}}</ref>

I don't support that "oldest" language because in the last few days I spent time in the Penn Foster College article and looked for sources on its history. It was founded in 1890 as the International Correspondence Schools and there's decent evidence to support that founding date. The 1951 date for Grantham is much older than most distance education schools, but it's a far sight from Penn Foster's 1890, so I don't think the "oldest" language belongs here. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Orlady, I did not mean to remove your addition. In fact, I agree with it. I meant to return the article to a more neutral spot until the issues were addressed here. I have replaced your edit. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Virus Comments: Orlady, your right! I checked DETC its 1890. I agree its not the oldest online school but it is one of the oldest in existence. I'll rack and stack them to come up with a definitive number.--Virusunknown 00:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

- - Ok ladies and gents, after much research to uncover the truth here is what i found. Grantham is "not" the oldest private, degree granting distance education universities in the United States BUT it is "ONE" of the oldest, private, degree granting distance education universities in the United States. See link http://www.educator.com/college-reviews/grantham-university-review/ be Educator, Inc. I do support and think the statement "Grantham is one of the oldest, private, degree granting distance education universities in the United States." --its factual!--Virusunknown (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting really tired of seeing edits to this page which basically equate to pro-Grantham propaganda. I don't know if these individuals are affiliated with GU in any way or not, but the message they are sending is clear "We are here to spread dys/misinformation about this institution." I will continue to be vigilant at spotting planted, pro-Grantham hokum for the foreseeable future. --131.53.128.33 (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I think that it would be appropriate to merge Grantham University Health Sciences program into this article. Individual programs are best included as sections within a larger article instead of languishing as underdeveloped stubs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely needs to be merged here. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree and "how" will we move it as suggested. Happy New Year!!! --Virusunknown 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virusunknown (talk • contribs)

Instead of merging I added as sub bullets. I think it reads better and its still under the main college of arts & science's. --Virusunknown (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added all the info from each individual article to the main article. Someone who cares more than I do needs to rewrite these sections because they are very clearly ripped off from a Grantham catalog. Also, someone needs to do away with the individual articles. A non-regionally-accredited, online school of this size and importance hardly needs six different pages as per previous discussions. I'll leave that to someone else.--98.127.3.141 (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This virusunknown joker is intent on making this unaccredited university into something it is not. Absolutely, there is no reason for there to be separate pages for each college. Particularly when none of those pages has a single reliable source, and have clearly been plagiarized from Grantham materials. This is going to turn into an edit war if VirusUnknown persists in undoing valid edits and posting irrelevant/poorly cited/non-notable information.--131.53.128.23 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)ble[reply]

Graduation Rate

Does anybody know where to find a better graduation rate source? There is one, that I believe qualifies as reliable. There was a recent edit that said that that rate was wrong, but it was not backed up by any source, so I have replaced it. I do think that the rate is probably a low, even for a for-profit school, which have notoriously low graduation rates. Any help would be appreciated. Grey Wanderer (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a source that contradicts the one mentioned above I think the current one needs to stay in, it is better than nothing. Scholarships.com meets WP:Reliable source though I agree it is not the best. I understand the claim that this is incorrect but without something to back that claim up it simply isn't verifiable. Also if it is true that it hasn't been released, I am a bit suspicious of an institution where the graduation rate isn't publicly available. In my mind at least, that gives the unusually low figure some credibility. It is a sourced statement, so lets work it out here before it is removed again. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grantham University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090608134652/http://www.usawoa.org:80/CorporateMembership.htm to http://www.usawoa.org/CorporateMembership.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grantham University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (March 2022)

Recent ip edits have added a very promotional tone and seem to copy official information. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]