Talk:Purdue University Global/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Financial Arrangements

The most recent edit by JA1766 (talk · contribs) deleting information on the financial arrangements was summarized as: "corrected a few departures from facts that were derived from a biased source unsupported by other more neutral analyses & primary documents." I don't see citations (or talk-page references to) any other analyses or any primary documents. However there are are multiple independent sources describing the complicated arrangement that was deleted. It is not clear what is biased about their reporting, but the sources claim to be based on documentary evidence and not people's opinions.

The one primary document I have found is the Graham Holdings 8-K Filing, 139 pages with a mixture of lawyer and contract language and a university policy manual. This is the same primary source referred to in some of the articles. In the filing:

• The "efficiency payments" are described near the beginning, that's the guarantee of $10 million per year in one direction, and other payments in the other direction.
• Exhibit D is the part that limits Purdue's ability to change academic policies or tuition. Purdue is on the hook to pay Kaplan/Graham if it changes any university policies in any way that impacts Kaplan's revenue too much.

It is hard to for me to read the contract definitively, I think it requires experience with complicated contracts and quite a bit of time. But from what I can tell the two sources that have read and reported on the contract probably are describing it correctly. Near the front, the document says that the trustees of the new university have complete control. (This is the part that JA1766 put in the article.) Much of the rest of the document hands the trustees a complete university policy manual (largely inherited from the existing school), a set of financial guarantees to each other, and a set of penalties for changing the manual in ways that impact Kaplan.

We haven't written up the reportage on Purdue Global's personnel policies, the restrictions and conditions on students and faculty that are quite different from the rest of Purdue and public universities in general. They have received quite a bit of coverage. M.boli (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

M.boli (talk · contribs) writes that in Graham Holdings 8-K Filing "Exhibit D is the part that limits Purdue's ability to change academic policies or tuition." It is also claimed that only in one part of the document is Purdue given complete control. Although that in and of itself should be enough to prove the point that Purdue in fact is not limited in its capacity to govern PG, the truth is that ultimate authority is given to Purdue throughout the document. For example, try doing a ctrl+f search for the word "ultimate" in the 8k to see many examples. Or go straight to section 2.1 which states "The operation and control of New University shall at all times be subject to the oversight and exclusive control of the New University Board of Trustees, the members of which shall be appointed by Purdue. The New University Board of Trustees shall have ultimate approval (including veto power) and decision-making authority with respect to all functions of New University, all pursuant to New University’s organizational authority."

The question of control was a primary concern for all the regulatory bodies considering this matter and all of them, state, federal and the accreditor agreed that under the terms of the agreement, control would completely change from Kaplan to Purdue and the financial arrangements would not limit that control.

As shown in the primary source, M.boli (talk · contribs) is correct that Purdue inherited a policy manual from Kaplan but according to recent reporting, Purdue already has changed that manual in several ways it saw fit and continues to review the document and make changes without having to pay Kaplan. For example, all Purdue employees have already been given free tuition and Indiana students a discount with no issues. It also is true that if Purdue were to make dramatic changes that significantly and adversely impacted the revenue of the university, Kaplan could seek some compensation. Again, that in and of itself refutes the argument that Purdue cannot make changes.

The user might claim that the threat of financial penalty prevents Purdue from making changes in effect. I would respond first by pointing out that the independent regulatory bodies did not find this to be the case. Second, as you get into the document it becomes clear that the impact on revenue must be significant. Third, it shows that all payments (operating costs and other financial guarantees) to PG must be executed before Kaplan can seek any compensation. This limits the teeth of the clause and eliminates it as a deterrent to action. It means that even if Purdue acted to reduce revenues, Purdue would not suffer any serious financial pain. After all, we are only talking about 12.5% of actual lost revenue and when you paid $1 for the school, that's not something so burdensome that it should deter action. Fourth, if Kaplan sought such compensation, it would have to follow a process that's cumbersome and expensive, making it only likely to occur in the event of a major falling out and a major change such as dropping associates degrees or giving all Indiana students free tuition.

All this evidence supports the conclusion reached by the regulators that while there are extreme circumstances in which a third-party might rule that Purdue must compensate Kaplan a small amount due to some Purdue action, this fact does not limit Purdue's capacity to operate the school in any meaningful way way. Out of respect for the users's position, I have added such language to the article that acknowledges these facts, rather than the exaggerations of a particular activist group. That group really is the only entity to disagree with this conclusion and it clearly has a political agenda against anything even closely connected to for-profit schools and may even have once had some questionable ties to the short sellers who sought to lower stock prices of the for-profit industry. JA1776 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yowza! Thank you for tracking down all those references and doing a lot of reading. And I wasn't aware of the bad-blood history between that organization and Purdue (or at any rate, private schools) on that issue.

It seems to me that regarding the arrangement between Purdue and Kaplan there is a spectrum of possibilities: at one end Kaplan sold a school that Purdue now owns and operates completely as a public university, at the other end a Purdue logo is painted on a Kaplan school. What happened is somewhere in between. It is way complicated and I'm pretty sure there is no value in sussing out all the particulars for a Wikipedia page. However Purdue Global U. is decidedly different than your average public university, regardless of the name, and I think that addressing this difference would be incumbent on an encyclopedia page.

I think you are interpolating your own opinions amongst the (considerable) information you found. The exchange between the two entities is vastly more complicated than the 12.5%. I think that mentally playing out scenarios and looking at 12.5% and deciding what that all means is not a productive exercise and certainly not an accurate one. Similarly, Kaplan and Purdue agreed to a contract where there are penalties for Purdue affecting Kaplan's bottom line. I think there is a $5 million dollar threshold to trigger that. It seems a little odd for us to introspect and conclude, in effect, this is way complicated, it will never happen. The two parties themselves hashed out an arrangement to make it possible. They wrote a contract where Purdue is on the hook if its actions impact Kaplan. We have at least two sources that say it is a serious possibility. We don't have sources that say it isn't. (BTW: The tuition reduction for in-state students and Purdue employees isn't an example of Purdue changing the rules. It took effect a year ago, long before the sale was consummated.)

I don't see anything in the HLC approval letter or Indiana Higher Education thingie that says anything like what you concluded. But probably you have looked further than the summary documents and press releases that I looked at. I agree that they might not have approved the deal if Purdue were merely acting as an appendage of Kaplan.

Thanks for looking into all this, you clearly have more energy than I do and I benefit from your work. And thanks for accommodating some changes to the article. I will continue being involved. Of course we will likely disagree, but we are both experienced editors and I believe we can settle disagreements amicably. M.boli (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

References

No need to add the Purdue seal

I understand @Woko Sapien:'s urge to put the Purdue University seal into this article. But it is a mistake.

• The reason the bot keeps deleting the image is the paperwork is missing. Every use of this encumbered image must be documented on the image's information page. That page has three almost identical blocks describing the logo's use on three different Purdue-related Wikipedia pages. So if the seal is to be included here, it needs a fourth block describing the image's use on this page also. Absent that paperwork, the delete-bot will remove the image.
• It appears that PUG doesn't use the Purdue system seal. Instead all its web pages and documents that I pulled up have a logo like this Purdue University Global Logo, I spied no instance of the seal in question on any documents or web pages.

So I think that putting the Purdue University seal on this page is misguided. --- M.boli (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was edit-warring with a bot until the second time it was removed (my bad). Thanks for the clarification on the non-free logo rules, cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It took me, also, a moment to figure out what was going on. It occurs to me that there may be a difference between a university seal and a logo. If it happes hat PUG is using that seal (I've still seen no evidence, but it may come up) then we can simply duplicate the missing block of information on the images's information page. — M.boli (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Financial problems and campus closures are an essential part of this story

Purdue University Global is losing money and it is being forced to close at least five campuses in 2019. This is an essential part of the Purdue Global story. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The "campus closures" are still there. No facts regarding such closures were deleted. However, since we are really talking about more of a "store-front" or rented retail space than a massive campus or shuttering of a building, it makes sense to fold them into a paragraph format rather than bullets. It appears the business model of such online universities is to be able to flexibly start and shut down the physical facilities as demand requires so it's not a central part of the article. Regardless, even if there is disagreement on this point, the edits undone were much more than that and a complete undo is inappropriate. If you still disagree, lets work on an appropriate manner to address that issue.--JA1776 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you deleted essential information before. I will accept your edits in order to avoid a feud, but am concerned that the story of the school's downturn could be whitewashed.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Kaplan University/Purdue University Global Numbers

The US Department of Education (ED) has been dragging its feet in producing numbers for the online campus in College Scorecard. I will post the numbers as soon as ED posts them. In the meantime, the best numbers I can provide are from the largest physical campus.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Difference between "Net Operating Loss" and "Net Loss" matters and proper location for Graham Holdings finance info

Recent edits by CollegeMeltdown (talk · contribs) conflate the difference. On page 73 of the linked source, it shows a Net Operating Loss of $38 million and a Decrease in Net Position or "Net Loss" of $18 million. The net operating loss number has no business being in this article, at least unless the context is added making it clear it would be shocking and likely a scandal if Purdue Global wasn't showing a net operating loss. It probably would mean someone was cooking the books. The reason is that virtually all institutions of higher education run an operating loss because that excludes a good chunk of their revenue such as government grants. For example, on page 15 of the linked source, the entire Purdue University ran an operating loss of $590 million and has been in that range for the last three years. As described by CFO Sullivan, Michigan had an operating loss of a billion dollars. As I side note (and less important), I think Graham Holdings quarterly results belong in the Graham Holdings or Kaplan Higher Education article, not the section describing Purdue Global's finances. Any objections to moving that there? I am going to make the first change but will wait to here from you on the second one. JA1776 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. for the correction. I have changed the entry to state "net operating loss." Please be careful trying to hide this financial information. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is not adequate because it misleads the lay reader. Saying an institution of higher education has an operating loss is no more remarkable than saying the sky is blue. There is no effort to "hide financial" information and I don't appreciate the insinuation from CollegeMeltdown (talk · contribs). Rather, my goal is to convey accurate information for the reader to judge and understand. The only way "net operating loss" should be in there is if it's next to numbers from other schools in the hundreds and billions of dollars. What is remarkable is the $18 million loss because that's the one that shows Purdue Global lost money. Likewise, the Graham Holding number should be in the Graham Holdings article, not the Purdue Global article. I suggest you move it there. JA1776 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's laudable that you admit that Purdue Global lost money in FY 2018. But, Purdue Global also received $20 million in bailout money from Kaplan Higher Education. It would be helpful if Purdue University were more transparent in their budget regarding Purdue University Global and its assets, revenues, and expenditures. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As has been reported , the 20 million was not a bailout but came at the time of closing or day 1 of operations. It was to offset by the expected first year losses that would occur (see the $18 million referenced above) while during the transition and startup period. Purdue Global has $67 million in cash. A bailout would be hardly necessary JA1776 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

References

The numbers you refer to are from 2018 and Purdue University won't release the FY2019 numbers until the end of the year. In 2018, the Purdue University system financial report had only 2-3 pages of information about Purdue University Global. Graham Holdings reports numbers every three months. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It reports numbers about KHE every three months, not about Purdue Global. JA1776 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Graham Holdings, Kaplan Higher Education, and Purdue University Global. Financial data deleted.

There is a controversy whether important information about Graham Holdings Company (GHC) and Kaplan Higher Education (KHE) should be included in this Purdue University Global (PG) article. Information about GHC and KHE have been deleted. PG was owned by KHE/GHC until 2018, and KHE is still the online program manager (OPM) for PG, receiving an estimated $300 million dollars for "back office" work (including HR), marketing and advertising. The contract between KHE and PG runs until 2048. Key data about the financial health of Purdue University Global have also been deleted. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The only writing about PG financials that was deleted was info that was not accurately interpreted from the cited sources -- Purdue financial statements. I'll comment on those elements above in the financial talk section.

As for what to include here and what to include in the KHE or GHC entries, I propose we think of it from the reader's perspective. If I am looking for info on Purdue Global, there is some info that the reader should have in regards to both companies. There is no disagreement on that point. However, if anything about KHE or GHC belongs here simply because there is a relationship and history between the three, it will lead to an unreadable and lengthy article. What criteria do you propose as the test to whether it's info that belongs in the PG page or info that belongs in one of the other pages? I propose that if it's essential to understanding PG, it belongs here. For example, knowing that most of the Kaplan faculty became PG faculty is an essential part of the PG story, at least for the next couple of years. Knowing everything that any one has ever said about Kaplan or the complete history of Kaplan, is not essential and such references should be shifted over time to the Kaplan article. Another example, briefly stating that Kaplan's student outcomes at the time of the acquisition were quite different from Purdue's is an important part of the story. Knowing every little statistical point about Kaplan from years before the acquisition, is not essential. Let me know your thoughts. JA1776 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

For now, Purdue University Global is essentially Kaplan University with a new owner and a more prestigious name. The students, and teachers are essentially the same. The biggest difference is that PG is getting rid of physical learning sites. And online education tends to produce less optimal results.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that's an oversimplification. The owner and name makes a big difference. For example, it's likely that the quality of student attracted to Purdue Global will be an improvement from the highest risk students attracted to Kaplan. See for example, the students coming from corporate partnerships with Wal-Mart and Papa Johns. That will make a difference in learning outcomes even before you adjust for changes in management. You already see signs of integration with the new programs (Pharmacy and aviation) announced this summer in collaboration with Purdue. Mitch Daniels has a history of aggressive hands-on leadership. He is not the type to just leave an entity alone with less than satisfactory results. As such, to tell readers that the current and future state of PG is identical to the past state of Kaplan is not serving them well. Far better in my view to refer them to the Kaplan article for the history and then zealously document the current state of PG on this article.JA1776 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You could be right about a few programs, but at this point Kaplan Higher Education continues to downsize. How do think employees from Walmart and Pappa Johns will be better students than the "nontraditional" students who attended Kaplan University? And how about the instructors, who are mostly adjuncts? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This article needs a few images

Are there any images at all that can be added to this article about Purdue University Global? Not as a promotion, but as a way of describing the online school and its history? Maybe an image of the American Institute of Commerce, and/or its current headquarters and/or one of the remaining campuses or learning centers? If so, can someone upload images to Wikimedia Commons then add them to the article? Thanks.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example, an image of the American Institute of Commerce. https://www.flickr.com/photos/photolibrarian/33016326422 CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's another image, on slide two of this presentation. https://slideplayer.com/slide/3258758/CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Financial Arrangements

The most recent edit by JA1766 (talk · contribs) deleting information on the financial arrangements was summarized as: "corrected a few departures from facts that were derived from a biased source unsupported by other more neutral analyses & primary documents." I don't see citations (or talk-page references to) any other analyses or any primary documents. However there are are multiple independent sources describing the complicated arrangement that was deleted. It is not clear what is biased about their reporting, but the sources claim to be based on documentary evidence and not people's opinions.

The one primary document I have found is the Graham Holdings 8-K Filing, 139 pages with a mixture of lawyer and contract language and a university policy manual. This is the same primary source referred to in some of the articles. In the filing:

• The "efficiency payments" are described near the beginning, that's the guarantee of $10 million per year in one direction, and other payments in the other direction.
• Exhibit D is the part that limits Purdue's ability to change academic policies or tuition. Purdue is on the hook to pay Kaplan/Graham if it changes any university policies in any way that impacts Kaplan's revenue too much.

It is hard to for me to read the contract definitively, I think it requires experience with complicated contracts and quite a bit of time. But from what I can tell the two sources that have read and reported on the contract probably are describing it correctly. Near the front, the document says that the trustees of the new university have complete control. (This is the part that JA1766 put in the article.) Much of the rest of the document hands the trustees a complete university policy manual (largely inherited from the existing school), a set of financial guarantees to each other, and a set of penalties for changing the manual in ways that impact Kaplan.

We haven't written up the reportage on Purdue Global's personnel policies, the restrictions and conditions on students and faculty that are quite different from the rest of Purdue and public universities in general. They have received quite a bit of coverage. M.boli (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

M.boli (talk · contribs) writes that in Graham Holdings 8-K Filing "Exhibit D is the part that limits Purdue's ability to change academic policies or tuition." It is also claimed that only in one part of the document is Purdue given complete control. Although that in and of itself should be enough to prove the point that Purdue in fact is not limited in its capacity to govern PG, the truth is that ultimate authority is given to Purdue throughout the document. For example, try doing a ctrl+f search for the word "ultimate" in the 8k to see many examples. Or go straight to section 2.1 which states "The operation and control of New University shall at all times be subject to the oversight and exclusive control of the New University Board of Trustees, the members of which shall be appointed by Purdue. The New University Board of Trustees shall have ultimate approval (including veto power) and decision-making authority with respect to all functions of New University, all pursuant to New University’s organizational authority."

The question of control was a primary concern for all the regulatory bodies considering this matter and all of them, state, federal and the accreditor agreed that under the terms of the agreement, control would completely change from Kaplan to Purdue and the financial arrangements would not limit that control.

As shown in the primary source, M.boli (talk · contribs) is correct that Purdue inherited a policy manual from Kaplan but according to recent reporting, Purdue already has changed that manual in several ways it saw fit and continues to review the document and make changes without having to pay Kaplan. For example, all Purdue employees have already been given free tuition and Indiana students a discount with no issues. It also is true that if Purdue were to make dramatic changes that significantly and adversely impacted the revenue of the university, Kaplan could seek some compensation. Again, that in and of itself refutes the argument that Purdue cannot make changes.

The user might claim that the threat of financial penalty prevents Purdue from making changes in effect. I would respond first by pointing out that the independent regulatory bodies did not find this to be the case. Second, as you get into the document it becomes clear that the impact on revenue must be significant. Third, it shows that all payments (operating costs and other financial guarantees) to PG must be executed before Kaplan can seek any compensation. This limits the teeth of the clause and eliminates it as a deterrent to action. It means that even if Purdue acted to reduce revenues, Purdue would not suffer any serious financial pain. After all, we are only talking about 12.5% of actual lost revenue and when you paid $1 for the school, that's not something so burdensome that it should deter action. Fourth, if Kaplan sought such compensation, it would have to follow a process that's cumbersome and expensive, making it only likely to occur in the event of a major falling out and a major change such as dropping associates degrees or giving all Indiana students free tuition.

All this evidence supports the conclusion reached by the regulators that while there are extreme circumstances in which a third-party might rule that Purdue must compensate Kaplan a small amount due to some Purdue action, this fact does not limit Purdue's capacity to operate the school in any meaningful way way. Out of respect for the users's position, I have added such language to the article that acknowledges these facts, rather than the exaggerations of a particular activist group. That group really is the only entity to disagree with this conclusion and it clearly has a political agenda against anything even closely connected to for-profit schools and may even have once had some questionable ties to the short sellers who sought to lower stock prices of the for-profit industry. JA1776 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yowza! Thank you for tracking down all those references and doing a lot of reading. And I wasn't aware of the bad-blood history between that organization and Purdue (or at any rate, private schools) on that issue.

It seems to me that regarding the arrangement between Purdue and Kaplan there is a spectrum of possibilities: at one end Kaplan sold a school that Purdue now owns and operates completely as a public university, at the other end a Purdue logo is painted on a Kaplan school. What happened is somewhere in between. It is way complicated and I'm pretty sure there is no value in sussing out all the particulars for a Wikipedia page. However Purdue Global U. is decidedly different than your average public university, regardless of the name, and I think that addressing this difference would be incumbent on an encyclopedia page.

I think you are interpolating your own opinions amongst the (considerable) information you found. The exchange between the two entities is vastly more complicated than the 12.5%. I think that mentally playing out scenarios and looking at 12.5% and deciding what that all means is not a productive exercise and certainly not an accurate one. Similarly, Kaplan and Purdue agreed to a contract where there are penalties for Purdue affecting Kaplan's bottom line. I think there is a $5 million dollar threshold to trigger that. It seems a little odd for us to introspect and conclude, in effect, this is way complicated, it will never happen. The two parties themselves hashed out an arrangement to make it possible. They wrote a contract where Purdue is on the hook if its actions impact Kaplan. We have at least two sources that say it is a serious possibility. We don't have sources that say it isn't. (BTW: The tuition reduction for in-state students and Purdue employees isn't an example of Purdue changing the rules. It took effect a year ago, long before the sale was consummated.)

I don't see anything in the HLC approval letter or Indiana Higher Education thingie that says anything like what you concluded. But probably you have looked further than the summary documents and press releases that I looked at. I agree that they might not have approved the deal if Purdue were merely acting as an appendage of Kaplan.

Thanks for looking into all this, you clearly have more energy than I do and I benefit from your work. And thanks for accommodating some changes to the article. I will continue being involved. Of course we will likely disagree, but we are both experienced editors and I believe we can settle disagreements amicably. M.boli (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

References

No need to add the Purdue seal

I understand @Woko Sapien:'s urge to put the Purdue University seal into this article. But it is a mistake.

• The reason the bot keeps deleting the image is the paperwork is missing. Every use of this encumbered image must be documented on the image's information page. That page has three almost identical blocks describing the logo's use on three different Purdue-related Wikipedia pages. So if the seal is to be included here, it needs a fourth block describing the image's use on this page also. Absent that paperwork, the delete-bot will remove the image.
• It appears that PUG doesn't use the Purdue system seal. Instead all its web pages and documents that I pulled up have a logo like this Purdue University Global Logo, I spied no instance of the seal in question on any documents or web pages.

So I think that putting the Purdue University seal on this page is misguided. --- M.boli (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was edit-warring with a bot until the second time it was removed (my bad). Thanks for the clarification on the non-free logo rules, cheers! Woko Sapien (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It took me, also, a moment to figure out what was going on. It occurs to me that there may be a difference between a university seal and a logo. If it happes hat PUG is using that seal (I've still seen no evidence, but it may come up) then we can simply duplicate the missing block of information on the images's information page. — M.boli (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Financial problems and campus closures are an essential part of this story

Purdue University Global is losing money and it is being forced to close at least five campuses in 2019. This is an essential part of the Purdue Global story. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The "campus closures" are still there. No facts regarding such closures were deleted. However, since we are really talking about more of a "store-front" or rented retail space than a massive campus or shuttering of a building, it makes sense to fold them into a paragraph format rather than bullets. It appears the business model of such online universities is to be able to flexibly start and shut down the physical facilities as demand requires so it's not a central part of the article. Regardless, even if there is disagreement on this point, the edits undone were much more than that and a complete undo is inappropriate. If you still disagree, lets work on an appropriate manner to address that issue.--JA1776 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you deleted essential information before. I will accept your edits in order to avoid a feud, but am concerned that the story of the school's downturn could be whitewashed.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Kaplan University/Purdue University Global Numbers

The US Department of Education (ED) has been dragging its feet in producing numbers for the online campus in College Scorecard. I will post the numbers as soon as ED posts them. In the meantime, the best numbers I can provide are from the largest physical campus.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Difference between "Net Operating Loss" and "Net Loss" matters and proper location for Graham Holdings finance info

Recent edits by CollegeMeltdown (talk · contribs) conflate the difference. On page 73 of the linked source, it shows a Net Operating Loss of $38 million and a Decrease in Net Position or "Net Loss" of $18 million. The net operating loss number has no business being in this article, at least unless the context is added making it clear it would be shocking and likely a scandal if Purdue Global wasn't showing a net operating loss. It probably would mean someone was cooking the books. The reason is that virtually all institutions of higher education run an operating loss because that excludes a good chunk of their revenue such as government grants. For example, on page 15 of the linked source, the entire Purdue University ran an operating loss of $590 million and has been in that range for the last three years. As described by CFO Sullivan, Michigan had an operating loss of a billion dollars. As I side note (and less important), I think Graham Holdings quarterly results belong in the Graham Holdings or Kaplan Higher Education article, not the section describing Purdue Global's finances. Any objections to moving that there? I am going to make the first change but will wait to here from you on the second one. JA1776 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. for the correction. I have changed the entry to state "net operating loss." Please be careful trying to hide this financial information. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is not adequate because it misleads the lay reader. Saying an institution of higher education has an operating loss is no more remarkable than saying the sky is blue. There is no effort to "hide financial" information and I don't appreciate the insinuation from CollegeMeltdown (talk · contribs). Rather, my goal is to convey accurate information for the reader to judge and understand. The only way "net operating loss" should be in there is if it's next to numbers from other schools in the hundreds and billions of dollars. What is remarkable is the $18 million loss because that's the one that shows Purdue Global lost money. Likewise, the Graham Holding number should be in the Graham Holdings article, not the Purdue Global article. I suggest you move it there. JA1776 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's laudable that you admit that Purdue Global lost money in FY 2018. But, Purdue Global also received $20 million in bailout money from Kaplan Higher Education. It would be helpful if Purdue University were more transparent in their budget regarding Purdue University Global and its assets, revenues, and expenditures. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As has been reported , the 20 million was not a bailout but came at the time of closing or day 1 of operations. It was to offset by the expected first year losses that would occur (see the $18 million referenced above) while during the transition and startup period. Purdue Global has $67 million in cash. A bailout would be hardly necessary JA1776 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

References

The numbers you refer to are from 2018 and Purdue University won't release the FY2019 numbers until the end of the year. In 2018, the Purdue University system financial report had only 2-3 pages of information about Purdue University Global. Graham Holdings reports numbers every three months. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It reports numbers about KHE every three months, not about Purdue Global. JA1776 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Graham Holdings, Kaplan Higher Education, and Purdue University Global. Financial data deleted.

There is a controversy whether important information about Graham Holdings Company (GHC) and Kaplan Higher Education (KHE) should be included in this Purdue University Global (PG) article. Information about GHC and KHE have been deleted. PG was owned by KHE/GHC until 2018, and KHE is still the online program manager (OPM) for PG, receiving an estimated $300 million dollars for "back office" work (including HR), marketing and advertising. The contract between KHE and PG runs until 2048. Key data about the financial health of Purdue University Global have also been deleted. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The only writing about PG financials that was deleted was info that was not accurately interpreted from the cited sources -- Purdue financial statements. I'll comment on those elements above in the financial talk section.

As for what to include here and what to include in the KHE or GHC entries, I propose we think of it from the reader's perspective. If I am looking for info on Purdue Global, there is some info that the reader should have in regards to both companies. There is no disagreement on that point. However, if anything about KHE or GHC belongs here simply because there is a relationship and history between the three, it will lead to an unreadable and lengthy article. What criteria do you propose as the test to whether it's info that belongs in the PG page or info that belongs in one of the other pages? I propose that if it's essential to understanding PG, it belongs here. For example, knowing that most of the Kaplan faculty became PG faculty is an essential part of the PG story, at least for the next couple of years. Knowing everything that any one has ever said about Kaplan or the complete history of Kaplan, is not essential and such references should be shifted over time to the Kaplan article. Another example, briefly stating that Kaplan's student outcomes at the time of the acquisition were quite different from Purdue's is an important part of the story. Knowing every little statistical point about Kaplan from years before the acquisition, is not essential. Let me know your thoughts. JA1776 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

For now, Purdue University Global is essentially Kaplan University with a new owner and a more prestigious name. The students, and teachers are essentially the same. The biggest difference is that PG is getting rid of physical learning sites. And online education tends to produce less optimal results.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that's an oversimplification. The owner and name makes a big difference. For example, it's likely that the quality of student attracted to Purdue Global will be an improvement from the highest risk students attracted to Kaplan. See for example, the students coming from corporate partnerships with Wal-Mart and Papa Johns. That will make a difference in learning outcomes even before you adjust for changes in management. You already see signs of integration with the new programs (Pharmacy and aviation) announced this summer in collaboration with Purdue. Mitch Daniels has a history of aggressive hands-on leadership. He is not the type to just leave an entity alone with less than satisfactory results. As such, to tell readers that the current and future state of PG is identical to the past state of Kaplan is not serving them well. Far better in my view to refer them to the Kaplan article for the history and then zealously document the current state of PG on this article.JA1776 (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

You could be right about a few programs, but at this point Kaplan Higher Education continues to downsize. How do think employees from Walmart and Pappa Johns will be better students than the "nontraditional" students who attended Kaplan University? And how about the instructors, who are mostly adjuncts? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This article needs a few images

Are there any images at all that can be added to this article about Purdue University Global? Not as a promotion, but as a way of describing the online school and its history? Maybe an image of the American Institute of Commerce, and/or its current headquarters and/or one of the remaining campuses or learning centers? If so, can someone upload images to Wikimedia Commons then add them to the article? Thanks.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example, an image of the American Institute of Commerce. https://www.flickr.com/photos/photolibrarian/33016326422 CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's another image, on slide two of this presentation. https://slideplayer.com/slide/3258758/CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of recent changes on finances

The first change I made was to delete the claim that the CFO said "losses would continue for another two years." The source for that statement was an opinion piece in which the CFO was not directly quoted so putting it into quotes is misleading. There is no evidence the CFO would ever use the word "loss". Purdue seems to call it a short term startup investment, using its large surplus in cash. This makes putting it in quotes even more misleading. Finally, the quote is out of date since Purdue now says it expects a surplus in 2020.

I also removed a bizarre statement about a "non-operating loss of $133,416,000 and net assets of -26,591,000." This is a nonsensical interpretation of the balance sheet and laughable to anyone familiar with higher education finance. Rather than rely on Collegemeltdown's lay interpretation, it's better to use a direct quote from Purdue University that's been published in media. I added just such a quote. JA1776 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking issue with your reverts. You seem to be driving an agenda and removing accurately sourced materials in the process.

On the CFO Statements, Forbes reported the following in August 2019 “The loss also comes at a time when Purdue leadership is actively trimming acquisition-related expenses such as canceling leases on property. But more significantly, according to the published piece from Purdue’s Treasurer Bill Sullivan, the losses are likely to continue another year, maybe two.”

The published piece referred to by Forbes was a letter written by the CFO to a newspaper, in which he wrote “in its first year of operation, Purdue Global invested more in startup costs than it offset by revenues, this was a deliberate strategic choice” and “I expect elevated startup costs to continue into 2019 and more modestly in 2020….for the first five years Purdue Global may continue to invest in a successful launch, and even if that means an annual cash deficit, Kaplan, not Purdue, will effectively be on the hook for the shortfall.”

Your argument that Purdue’s CFO would never use to the word loss does not change the definition of an operating loss, regardless of the source of funds.

Your edit also removed factual information reported in the year-end financial report published by Purdue in December 2019. The publisher of the Purdue quote you noted in the publication of: “…the majority of the $90 million non operating revenue is relevant to operations, meaning that the $43 million loss (and not $133 million) is applicable. I disagree, however, with the statement that “only $5.5 million was a loss from operations. The $28.5 million marketing investment does NOT imply that Purdue Global spent only that amount on marketing and will not need to in the future. What it means is that based on internal budgeting Purdue Global spent $28.5 million more than what they believe is a steady state marketing level, and that they believe they can go back down to steady state marketing in FY2020.” (1sheropen (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC))

References

Hiding financial numbers, again?

Again, we face the deletion of crucial financial information. Purdue University Global's FY 2019 numbers did include a net operational loss of $133 million and net assets of $26 million. I won't contest the deletion yet. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Having read the other comments made on this talk page, I'm not convinced that the net operational loss is a crucial figure. I've never seen that particular piece of information reported in any other college's article. Moreover, I think a financial statement could be seen as a primary source. Singling out that particular figure as crucial is an anaylsis, so we should instead use a reliable secondary source that explains why the number is crucial. Indyguy (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The current text says PG had a "non-operating loss of $133,416,000." And yet the primary source document clearly says it is an operating loss. Perhaps the editor meant "net" instead of non? That's easy to correct, but it raises the question, what are we saying with that number? The answer is nothing really and unless you also add the GASB defined "operating loss" of every single university on Wikipedia, it's incredibly misleading and unfair. Frankly, it's an amateurish mistake. As discussed on number 4 above, virtually every university has an "operating loss" of hundreds of millions of dollars according to GASB accounting rules. In Michigan's case, it's a billion dollars. The reason is not because these universities are financially in trouble but rather because it's required by GASB that they omit in that line all government funding, pell grants, investment income, donor funding and other such non-operating revenues.JA1776 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User JA1776 I agree with CollegeMeltdown, your edit has effect of suppressing information and even if Wikipedia didnt have a NPOV policy, your analogy to support that rational is flawed, comparing a Public R1 University, Michigan, with $12 billion dollar endowment to PG, a public-benefit corporation that was designed so that 'it won’t receive state money ... operate more like a nonprofit corporation, and... by design is suppose to be autonomous, be separately funded, have separate and distinct operations, and have the ability to remain nimble and innovate in the sector it serves.'

I would remind you of Wikipedia's guidance on preserving NPOV, "Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge, and censorship seriously undermines that goal".(1sheropen (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC))

1sheropen I mentioned this on another talk page but I will repeat it here for the record: I see you are new to Wikipedia with your first edits made just a couple of days ago and on two articles to date. Welcome. Editing Wikipedia has been a hobby of mine off and on for close to 15 years and I hope you find it an enjoyable distraction, as I do. The articles I've worked to shape the most align with my passions: Roman history and all things Purdue related. As for the specific question about this number, there is a reason the media isn't repeating it and wikipedia shouldn't either -- it confuses rather then illuminates the issue. Your point about state appropriations is correct but keep in mind state funding is not the only source of revenue that GASB excludes. It also includes Pell Grants, fundraising and investment income. In fact, Purdue Global had $90 million in revenue that the paragraph as written by CollegeMeltdown ignores. Frankly, being so insistent to include it feels like an attempt to add a non Neutral Point of View for reasons I don't understand. But I will Assume Good Faith and remain open minded, especially if you can give me a compelling reason why including this will lead to more understanding, not less. JA1776 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Free/Discount tuition

@Indyguy The tuition reduction for in-state students and Purdue employees isn't an example of Purdue's actions following the acquisition. These new policies were approved by the Kaplan University Trustees in June 2017, long before the sale was consummated. (1sheropen (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC))

@1sheropen, I added the source showing this was an action taken once the board transitioned over to being stacked with Purdue University trustees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA1776 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@JA1776, the facts to not align with the source. The Kaplan University Board of Trustees approved these changes in June 2017, and the deal was closed in April of 2018. Your sources includes this description: "The new Indiana resident rate, also approved by Kaplan University’s trustees, will take effect at the beginning of KU’s next academic term". Further, the NewU board had no authority in June 2017, and again your source included "NewU would formally begin operations upon approval from ICHE, U.S. Department of Education and the Higher Learning Commission (HLC)". It therefore not possible for these changes to have occurred under Purdue's leadership. (1sheropen (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC))

References

Enrollment

The Kaplan enrollment history is relevant to the story of Purdue Global enrollment. At numerous points, this article references Kaplan and these details are important. JA1776 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Debts and Liabilities

It's well documented in the sources that Purdue's liability for past Kaplan debt and liabilities is liability on paper only and editors should be careful not to hide this point. Yes, the sources are clear that if an issue came up, the Department of Ed would contact Purdue Global but then Purdue Global would contact Kaplan and Kaplan would be responsible based on the contracts they have signed. The edits I made earlier make that clear. The recent changes by 1sheropen confuse the issue but did add some additional details. I am going to attempt to merge the two in a way that would take the best of both options.JA1776 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@JA1776 "Paper only" liabilities is not a legal definition, nor does the term provide legal protection for the University, and it SHOULD be included for transparency here. USDoE officials went out of their way to create a clear record in requiring Purdue assume these liabilities. The fact that the agreement between Purdue and Kaplan contemplated that such liabilities could arise is reason enough for this. And yes, Purdue can require Kaplan to indemnify them for past actions, however, as far as USDoE is concerned, that does not negate Purdue's obligation. Your edits obfuscated this issue unnecessarily and further removed sources describing the issue. For context, and further reading, I would suggest exploring Kaplan's liabilities for Brightwood College after their acquisition and Kaplan's liabilities for ECA post-sale. Both provide context for why this detail is important, and is particularly notable for a public university system to be assuming. (1sheropen (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC))

I don't believe I have ever undone any of your edits; rather I've attempted to work with you on all of them. Please do the same with me and don't just undo my efforts to make this article clear and neutral. I am hesitant to say this because I always try and assume the best of editors but you are obviously an experienced editor who is editing on an a brand new account; you also have only ever edited two articles, both of which are on the same subject; and those edits have always attempted to paint this university in the worst possible light rather than adhering to an NPOV policy. I've been trying to assume your edits are made with a good faith, but simply undoing my edits rather than working with me, combined with these facts leaves me feeling highly suspicious. Prove me wrong here. Balls in your court. As for the specific comments above, it should be clear to the reader that the Department of Ed recognizes that Kaplan will ultimately be liable, and it's fine with that.JA1776 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@JA1776 Flattered you think I'm experienced. It's not my aim to paint any light, but to add a fuller perspective. However, since you raised the point, you've bene editing, nearly exclusively, Purdue related articles for some time now... and I'm not the first editor to take issues with your edits removing sources and NPOV (re: Collegemetldown and M.boli). AFAIK you've not disclosed your relationship with Purdue, mind sharing that here? (1sheropen (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC))

1sheropen, thank you for not just undoing edits and working to improve the article together. I will take a closer look at your changes later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time. Believe me, I would love to return to some of the other topics I like editing but I created this article and I feel obligated to keep it accurate and neutral. I have no affiliation any more than the hundreds of thousands of Purdue students, staff, faculty, fans and alumni in the Purdue community who love Purdue and want it to be successful, but I am able to look past that and I don't object to negative information in the name of knowledge and the mission of Wikipedia, as long as that's done accurately and fairly. I've successfully worked with editors with different viewpoints on this page and others to do that. And yet, since creating this article, I've been shocked at the efforts of one or two editors to try and use this article as a tool to make Purdue Global look like an evil flop in the most non-neutral ways possible. Perhaps it's a partisan dislike for the school's president, a former Republican governor? Or a fear among the anti-for profit crowd that if Purdue Global succeeds, other schools will attempt the same type of transaction? Whatever the reason, I think the evidence suggests the jury is still out whether it will be a hit or a failure and it's important that this article remain neutral as the evidence unfolds. I support broadening the perspective but when an experienced editor has a new account and makes edits that are clearly not-neutrual, I get worried that I'm dealing with someone who has been blocked or is driving a point of view inconsistent with the mission of Wikipedia. For example, there was a while when 1sheropen was insisting that the Mitch Daniels article call Purdue Global's "criticism significant" but the user would not allow a similar claim to also call the praise significant. That issue has since been resolved, but there are other examples on that and this article that have raised a red flag. JA1776 (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your response @JA1776. I am delighted to work with you or any editor to curate a NPOV, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. It's helpful to understand that you feel, as the creator of this article, a duty to monitor edits. Further, I can understand, and appreciate, how the perspective of others might -not- align with how you view the institution. You have, quite artfully, obfuscated your affiliation with Purdue, are you employed by the University? If so, in what capacity?

If I were in your shoes, I would consider how your affiliation with the University may be play a role in how you perceive and editorialize its actions. And further, how you perceive the 'shocking' behavior of other editors here. Respectfully, many people with positions of authority do not agree with your assessment that the 'jury is still out', and none have made claims it is due to the leadership or fear others will follow Purdue's path. Frankly, it seems you have been working hard to ensure that this article represents the current University's views, at the expense of others. Your contribution history over the past two years is dominated by edits to this very article, with nearly 70 edits, each removing unflattering information, and I am not the first editor to point out your removal of sourced facts and statements. Myself and others have noted that your contributions here seem to closely Mitch Daniels, with 59 edits on his page alone, dating back to 2013. 1sheropen (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Received threat from Daniel Snyder, Wikipedia Editing Services

On 2-23-2020, I received an email "warning" from "Daniel Snyder" of "Wikipedia Editing Services," writing on behalf of unnamed clients. Mr. Snyder said that if I continued to post on Wikipedia, he would "out me" and show a conflict of interest with my editing anything on his clients' pages. He also said that he would also demand that Wikipedia investigate whether I was also editing as "1sheropen," another editor of this Purdue University Global article. I replied to Mr. Snyder asking for his credentials and the names of his clients. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC) WP:HARASS WP:OUTINGCollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What happened to Purdue University Global's FY 2019 financial numbers?

I know I posted the Purdue University Global numbers that were released by Purdue University earlier this year (2020). Was it deleted? If so, what's the explanation for deleting the information? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted a month ago here. The edit summary did not explain it very well. M.boli (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Chancellor Vandenbosch resigns

That the chancellor resigned seems to be supported by the evidence. Purdue put out a press release. I have restored the edit which says she resigns and contains the citation. I reverted the following: following significant financial losses in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, Purdue announced that Chancellor Betty Vandenbosch had resigned from her position

• There was no citation for significant financial losses in 2018-19. I realize this is being debated on this talk page, above. But it is not clearly in the article.
• The citation for her resignation was deleted for no apparent reason.
• There is no citation for any link between financial losses and resignation, which the reverted statement clearly implies.

It might very well be true --- it might be that there were big losses and Vandenbosch resigned because of them --- but as of now that is unsupported.

-- M.boli (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request – new chancellor announced

Requested Edit: Update to Leadership

1. Add the following announcement after the last line in the Leadership and administration section. "On March 26, 2020, Purdue announced that Frank J. Dooley, PhD, previously Senior Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning at Purdue University, would take over as Chancellor of Purdue University Global effective May 1, 2020." 2. Using as the reference: "Dooley named next Purdue University Global chancellor". Purdue University News. March 26, 2020 3. Reason for change being made: Currently the last line in this section reads “On March 12, 2020, Purdue announced that Chancellor Betty Vandenbosch had resigned from her position effective April 3, 2020.” Since that edit was made, a new Chancellor has been announced. This is a neutral, informational update.

Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Indyguy (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request – expand History section

Requested Edit:

1. I suggest adding the statements bolded below to the 3rd paragraph of History section. The unformatted text represents the copy as it currently stands. I suggest moving the italicized statement to the Campus and learning site locations section. In February 2019, Papa John's Pizza announced that all its employees would receive free tuition at Purdue Global. In June 2019, Walmart announced that Purdue Global would be one of six schools in their Live Better U education benefit program. The program is being marketed with the "chance to get a degree for the cost of a dollar a day." At least five Purdue Global physical locations have closed or are in the process of closing since Purdue took over. In June 2019, security services firm Securitas announced an arrangement to cover at least 90% of the tuition costs toward 4 custom certificate programs developed in partnership with Purdue Global. In October 2019, ManTech began offering its employees tuition-free access to Purdue Global's bachelor of science in analytics degree. In January 2020, Disney Aspire added Purdue University Global to its Network of Educational Providers. Other organizations that have announced partnerships with Purdue Global to offer their employees a tuition-free or reduced-tuition college degree include New Balance and Trilogy Health Services. 2. Using as sources: Business Wire (June 12, 2019). [1]. “Purdue University Global Partners with Securitas to Develop Four Security Certificate Programs and Employee Education Benefit”. Retrieved May 9, 2020. ManTech (October 17, 2019). [2]. "Purdue University Global Launches Analytics Degree Program to Meet Growing Demand in Data-Driven Economy". Retrieved May 9, 2020. Business Wire (September 2, 2019). [3]. "New Balance and Purdue University Global Join To Provide Online Education Benefit Program". Retrieved May 9, 2020. Regan, Tim (June 13, 2019). [4]. "Trilogy to Fully Fund Online College for Employees Through Purdue University Global". Senior Housing News. Retrieved May 9, 2020. 3. Reason for change being made: This edit adds additional instances of corporations that have announced employee discounts to Purdue Global degrees to the 3 that have already been added by editors, making this section more complete. Moving the statement about campus closures puts it into a section where it makes more sense for readers, especially with these new additions.

@Ewqwdqemdh:  Done; except I gave them their own section, and I didn't add Trilogy as they seem to be a non-notable corporation. In future, please sign your messages. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Thank you for making this improvement to the organization of the entry. I apologize for forgetting to sign my edit request. I was so concerned with formatting the sources correctly! Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Three Edit Requests – – Updating Offerings, Enrollment and Academic Sections

Requested Edit: Offerings

1. In the Offerings, enrollment, and student body section, after the bulleted list of schools, I suggest the following addition about expanded offerings. In May 2020, the University announced it would be offering a stand-alone course in COVID-19 contact tracing. 2. Using as source: Foresman, Betsy (May 22, 2020). [5]. “Purdue Global launches free COVID-19 contact tracing class”. Edscoop. Retrieved July 8, 2020 3. Reason for change being made: This edit reflects an expanded academic offering related to the growing need for contact tracing skills amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Requested Edit: Student activities

1. At the end of the Academics section, I suggest adding a subsection labeled Student activities. This would start by noting the university’s cybersecurity team and student honor societies as follows: Purdue Global students are active in cybersecurity competitions via the Midwest Regional division of the Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition and National Cyber League. The Purdue Global team placed 41 out of 100 in the Spring 2020 School Cyber Power Rankings of the National Cyber League. Honor societies Alpha Beta Kappa Honor Society Alpha Phi Sigma Honor Society Delta Mu Delta International Honor Society in Business Golden Key International Honour Society National Society of Collegiate Scholars Psi Chi International Honor Society in Psychology SALUTE Veterans National Honor Society Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society in Nursing The Society for Collegiate Leadership & Achievement Tau Upsilon Alpha National Human Services Honor Society 2. Using as sources: Indiana Tech Cyber Warriors (February 9, 2020). [6] “Cyber Warriors win 6th consecutive CCDC state title”. Retrieved July 8, 2020 Cyber Skyline. [7] The National Cyber League Cyber Power Rankings Spring 2020. Retrieved July 8, 2020 “Student Organizations”. [8]. Purdue University Global. Retrieved July 8, 2020 3. Reason for change being made: Information about student life, student led publications or radio stations, or other traditions are common components of university Wikipedia entries. Clubs and organizations further the networking and academic benefits of education, and can define the experience of attending. See examples: Southern New Hampshire University | University of Central Florida | University of Minnesota | Ashford University

Requested Edit: Reorganize content for readability

1. Deleting unsourced or duplicate information and suggesting rearranged content in the Offerings, enrollment and student body section to improve readability and bring disparate bits of content together as follows: In the bulleted list of schools, after Concord Law School, I suggest deleting the sentence “Concord Law School is not accredited by the American Bar Association, which does not accredit online universities. As such, California is the only state allowing Concord's graduates to take the state bar exam.” This sentence is a near duplicate copy of another sentence already present in the Academics section “Purdue Global's law school,Concord Law School, is the only fully online law school in the country. Given that the American Bar Association does not accredit online universities, the school is unaccredited but students may still sit for the bar in California, or pursue an executive JD, designed for executives and others who seek graduate level training in law but do not wish to become attorneys. In the bulleted list of schools, after Concord Law School, I suggest moving the sentence “Concord's pass rate for the July 2018 sitting of the California bar exam was 29% for first-time takers and 9% for repeat takers, compared to 55% and 16% overall pass rates, respectively.” to the Academic section where Concord Law School is covered in more detail. This could immediately follow the above-referenced sentence. In the bulleted list of schools, after School of Nursing, I suggest deleting this sentence “Purdue University Global has a 68 percent NCLEX pass rate.” This statistic is not dated, and is not supported by the linked source. Nursing graduate pass rates are discussed in Academics section with a more recent source. 2. Reason for change being made: To increase readability of the Enrollment, offerings and student body section by removing duplicate, outdated or unsourced content and making minor rearrangement to bring like subjects together.

Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Hi Ewqwdqemdh. In my opinion, this edit request would hide information that harms Purdue University Global's image. Accordingly, I am declining it. The description about Concord Law School in the "Offerings" section is much clearer than the description in the "Academic" section. The former says Concord graduates can only sit for the California bar, while the latter says they can sit for the California bar. The latter minimizes the problem with Concord's unaccredited status, and it fails to mention that anybody can take the California bar if they've read law under an attorney. As for the NCLEX pass rates, it would be better to properly source the statement than remove it entirely. For these reasons, I decline this edit request. Best, Altamel (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Altamel, thanks for taking the time to review these suggested edits and for the attention to rigor in your NCLEX update. I understand your perspective on the proposed reorganization of content, though that was intended to clean up, not remove any content. In rejecting this edit, you did not reference the suggested new offering for Contact Tracing or adding the student honor societies. Can you either revisit those suggestions or if you prefer, I can reframe this edit request just to include those items. Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You need to file a new edit request for those sections. I'm not entirely convinced that a list of clubs/student honor societies would remain on the page for long. Such entries are regularly removed when they appear on articles for secondary schools. Best, Altamel (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead: accreditation

Should the lead clarify that some (all?) of Purdue University Global's do not offer degrees from programs that are accredited, such as the Law degree from Concord Law School? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to find a reliable source that explicitly makes this point especially if you think it belongs in the lede. Otherwise there are issues of due weight and potentially POV and OR. ElKevbo (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I reverted the edit you made to the lead a mere 7 minutes after posting here because if you had enough doubt about adding the information to ask about it, then you need to wait to get some feedback. Otherwise it kinda looks like you're gaming the system. Indyguy (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies in recent edits

A user active on this page made 2 inaccurate edits recently.

On January 27 CollegeMeltdown added "Purdue Global's student body in 2020 included about 7000 servicemembers and 5000 veterans." Citing https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=purdue+university+global&s=all&id=489779#service. This is an inaccurate representation of the source material. The source cited reports the number of students who received benefits from the Post-9/11 GI Bill and DoD Tuition Assistance during the 2018-2019 academic year, and does not accurately reflect the 2020 student body. Also, this NCES source is not reporting those who receive benefits from the Montgomery GI Bill or take into consideration the transfer of these benefits to family members.

On February 1, the same user added "In the February issue of Emergency Medical News, two doctors questioned the vetting process of Purdue Global's emergency nurse practioners program, a program that reportedly admitted all 500 applicants." Citing https://journals.lww.com/em-news/Fulltext/2021/02000/After_the_Match__Boosting_Profits_Drives_NP.6.aspx. This is factually inaccurate and a misreading of the source material. Purdue University Global does not offer an emergency nurse practitioner program. See source: https://www.purdueglobal.edu/degree-programs/nursing/

I will also alert this editor on their talk page (User talk:CollegeMeltdown) requesting corrections or removal. Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge Purdue University Global and Kaplan University Articles

Rationale

I would like to propose the merger of the articles on Purdue University Global (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_University_Global) and Kaplan University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_University) into a single, unified article. The reason behind this proposal is that both articles essentially represent the same institution, with Purdue University Global being the new name and continuation of Kaplan University after its acquisition by Purdue University. In the interest of providing clear, accurate, and comprehensive information to Wikipedia users, it would be more efficient and appropriate to have a single, merged article that reflects the entire history and evolution of the institution, instead of having two separate articles that may cause confusion.

Proposed Merge Strategy

To ensure a seamless merger of the two articles, I propose the following strategy: Article Title: The new article should be titled "Purdue University Global," as it is the institution's current name and branding. This decision is in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions, which generally prioritize the most recent and commonly used name. Lead Section: The lead section should provide an overview of the institution, including its current status as Purdue University Global, its history as Kaplan University, and the acquisition by Purdue University. History Section: The history section should comprehensively cover the timeline of the institution, including the founding of Kaplan University, its growth and development, the acquisition by Purdue University, and the subsequent rebranding to Purdue University Global. This section should provide clear context and continuity between the two stages of the institution's existence. Academics, Campus, and Student Life Sections: These sections should be updated to reflect the current information about Purdue University Global, incorporating relevant information from the Kaplan University article as necessary. Criticism and Controversy Section: This section should include any controversies or criticisms related to both Kaplan University and Purdue University Global. Presenting this information in a single section ensures that readers receive a balanced perspective on the institution's history and practices. References and External Links: All references and external links from both articles should be combined and properly cited in the merged article, ensuring that all information is verifiable and properly sourced.

Request for Feedback

I kindly request feedback from the Wikipedia community regarding this proposal. If there are no major objections within a reasonable timeframe, I will proceed with the merger as outlined above. If there are any concerns or suggestions for improvement, I am more than happy to collaborate and make necessary adjustments to ensure the best outcome for the Wikipedia community and its users. Thank you for your consideration. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I am skeptical but ultimately it would depend on the execution and intent. I do not believe a significant portion of the Purdue University Global article should be dedicated to Kaplan University. Kaplan University not only got a new owner, it ceased to exist in the eyes of regulators and a new university with new accreditation was created as a public and non-profit, Purdue Global. It would be inaccurate and a disservice to readers to confuse that point by dwelling on past controversies or to hide that Purdue runs the school and Purdue Global and Kaplan University are not the same thing. If merged, I think the entire Kaplan University page should be abbreviated into a single and brief history section. There obviously is already a history section in Purdue Global but it's a bit of a mess. It's been a while since I worked on this page and think it could use some cleanup. I think it makes more sense to focus on cleaning this page up and updating it rather than folding another university into it. JA1776 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that the institution ceased to exist is factually incorrect. The institution itself does still exist in the eyes of the accreditor, and in fact, the HLC approved a change of ownership application as part of the purchase of Kaplan University. https://www.purdue.edu/senate/documents/meetings/Kaplan%20Pre-acquisition%20Letter%209.13.17_Redacted.html Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Kaplan University is not an accredited operating university. It has ceased to exist. Purdue University took over the assets (sold much of it), changed the leadership and created a new university that had to go through a new accreditation process. As such, Kaplan University should have a part of this page, but it should be as part of it's history, not as part of what Purdue Global is today. JA1776 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, Kaplan University, as a legal entity is no more. However, it no longer exists because it become Purdue University Global. The application for the change ownership spelled it out clearly:

"KU is seeking approval from HLC for a change of ownership resulting from its acquisition by Purdue. After the acquisition, KU will be a separately accredited, non-profit, Indiana public benefit corporation (“NewU”, for the purposes of this report) within the Purdue University system."

While I understand your concerns, JA1776, the proposed merge is intended to provide a comprehensive view of the institution's history and evolution. The proposed merger strategy specifically includes separate sections for the history of Kaplan University and Purdue University Global, ensuring that the distinction between the two is maintained. Additionally, the proposal suggests keeping controversies and criticisms related to both institutions in a single section, which helps maintain a balanced perspective.

It's important to remember that Wikipedia aims to provide clear, accurate, and comprehensive information to its users. By merging the two articles, we can create a more coherent presentation of the institution's history, avoiding potential confusion caused by having separate articles, while providing context and continuity throughout the merged article.

As the proposal is open for feedback and collaboration, we can work together to ensure that the merger is executed in a way that addresses your concerns while maintaining accuracy and clarity. If you have specific suggestions for improvement or would like to contribute to the merged article, your input would be greatly appreciated. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the articles should merge but if they do merge then it would be completely unacceptable to simply erase most of the history of Kaplan University. ElKevbo (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Logo Update

It appears as though a potential COI user is attempting to update the Purdue Global logo on this page. That attempt was removed by another user and I am not necessarily opposed to that but it does appear as though the current logo on the page is not up to date. This isn't my expertise, but I would think a COI user actually may be one of the only users that can make such a change given that they are likely to be the one who owns the rights. As such, should we permit this change? Does anyone have any expertise on this matter?JA1776 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)