Talk:Capella University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capella University article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

1 "schools" section
2 Augsburg dispute:
3 Enrollment
4 AP Quotes
5 Copyright and Link Farms
6 Request for Comment: Controversy Section

[edit] "schools" section

Some expansive lists of every degree program were added to the article, removed, then restored under the rationale: "Restoring the schools section - this isn't "Brochureware", and similar academics can be seen on many entries throughout here (Purdue, Phoenix, UofMN,etc)". I have made a revision reigning it in to just the schools and this is an expanded response to the quoted comment: Firstly, the University of Phoenix article is a bad sample because the article (along with that of ITT and DeVry have been highly contested as flawed under WP:SPAM. Now that's not to say the section is irredemable: certainly the model followed by Michigan State University (one of the finest university articles, gaining Feature status) shows how a good academics section deals with numerous schools/colleges with an university article (although that article was expansive enough to warrant a sub-article on just the academic part of the university). Other examples, like the University of Minnesota, NYU and University of Southern California, only describe as deep as the top-level colleges and schools (sometimes with separate articles on them, ex. University of Minnesota Law School), sometimes going as far as to discuss their rank within the major college ranking systems. Other schools only mention the colleges and schools that have acheived national rank (UCLA). Some do not list individual colleges and schools at all. It is fine to have a section for academic organization, and certainly it's okay to write up detailed information about each school at Capella, much like the aformentioned sub-articles within other university articles (but on the main article until they get too large), however a list that mirrors something that is one click away on the Capella website isn't what Wikipedia articles are about. --Bobak 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you win :P - Haven't done much editing so consider it somewhat of a learning experience. Though perhaps you can give me an answer on this - seeing as I work here in IT, I understand the technology behind the school quite well - shall I speak up on it, or not? I've done some googling, and the software we use and such can be found out there. Plus, when it goes public, the disclosure docs will spill it all as well. Hrmm. --Pavleck 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea for a section, especially considering how schools like Capella rely on it. The trick is to walk the line between explaining how it works and turning it into a promo for the technology. The nice thing about having so many articles on Wikipedia is that there's usually a good example somewhere of how to approach the issue. Citations always help, the goal is to write something that's more informative than a newspaper but with a semblence of its neutrality (although it does not need to be as strict as a news article). --Bobak 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Augsburg dispute:

the summer courses of Augsburg College are now done in conjunction with Capella (which is HQed only a mile away). How is this similar to any other program, and what reasons are there for legitimate removal? --Bobak 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Capella University has the same type of relationships with numerous other colleges and universities - this is revealed by simple Internet searches on similar alliances and partnerships - the Augsburg-Capella relationship is not unique, by any means, and is therefore irrelevant to an article related specifically to Capella. I don't understand why the physical distance between the two has any meaning. I also don't understand your logic as to why the Augsburg-Capella relationship is different than any of the others that Capella has formed and which would justify both its importance and inclusion for the entry. The links I posted on the article to some of the hundreds of alliances between Capella and various entities (on Capella's web site, no less) should have been more than sufficient to help those interested in Capella's "alliances" to find more information. Why is Augsberg so special? --Shac1 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As previously mentioned: Augsburg College is not a community college. Virtually all universities have deal with community colleges/JCs for transfer credit, etc. When a four year institution has its summer programs handled by a separate online four-year school, that is fairly notable --unless you know of others I'm not aware of. Thus citing the CC/JC list does not demonstrate how the "Augsburg-Capella relationship is not unique". I understand the skepticism of any claim by a for-profit school, they all make outlandish claims and I've made sure those haven't stayed (see [1], [2], [3]). However, doing research on the school to beef up its article from being a sub-stub, I found this unique connection. I can say with confidence it's a unique connection because I've created the article for 30 other for-profit universities (and created the category) and this is the only one like it I've seen. Thus, it deserves mention. --Bobak 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, your claim that the Augsburg College relationship is with Capella is unique simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Nor did anyone state the Augsburg was a JC and, therefore wasn't relevant to this issue. While you claim that having a summer program is “fairly notable,” there are other four-year schools and universities that have stronger relationships with Capella - that’s not an endorsement for these other schools either (and it is also not an endorsement of for-profit schools). ; for example, as noted before, simple Internet searches reveals that some of these schools include, but are certainly not limited to:

University of Wisconsin

Graduation and Beyond

University of California, Davis

University and College Credit Transfer Agreements

Master's Partners

Master's Partners Transfer Agreement

University of California, Irvine

UC Irvine Extension Announces Articulation Agreement with Capella University

Reading Certificate Program

UC Irvine Extension Provides Unique Benefits to Orange County Teachers with Newly Approved Reading Certificate Program and Partnership for an Online Master's Degree (note course development collaboration with Capella)

ACT and Boston University

ACT Centers to Administer Capella University Exams

Johns Hopkins University Library Partnership

(which, according to Capella's SEC filings, they will no longer be using in the near future)

Library Partnership with Johns Hopkins

Partnerships listed on Capella's site

Capella University Announces 10 New Higher Education Partnerships

University of California, Irvine

Capella University Forms Partnership with University of California-Irvine Extension

Capella University and University of California, Irvine Extension Offer Reading and Literacy Master's Specialization (note relationship regarding course development collaboration)

Welcome UC Irvine Extension students and alumni

LOMA Partnership

Get College Credit for LOMA Coursework with Capella University

[edit] Enrollment

Capella University's enrollment has just been reported (December 11, 2006) as 17,203 students by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education (refer to the bottom of page nine).

[edit] AP Quotes

The quotes you noted come from an AP story and are copyrighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.38.94 (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

The quote did not come from the AP story but from public record - Capella's own filing with the SEC.Shac1 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, a quote, in and of itself, taken from an article and properly cited is not a copyright violation (of course, it's best for fair use to limit the quote the most pertinent parts). Wholesale copying of the article would be a violation. --Bobak 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright and Link Farms

As noted previously by Bobak, a brief quote taken from an article and properly cited is not a copyright violation - such citations are permissible under fair use. Furthermore, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy for articles to serve as link farms and advertisements for for-profit corporations such as Capella University. The section entitled "School and Alumni Awards and Recognition" is a prime example of a link farm. Shac1 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your posts are no different than mine. You clearly want tthe Capella site to express what you percieve as a poor company and you want to post what only you feel is relevant.

How is your negative posts about Capella's audits, APA accreditation, and an article that is clearly an opinion piece meant to deter people from investing in Capella Education Co. any different than noting the achievements of Capella Alumni?

What gives you tha right to say "This fact is a farm link but mine isn't?"

What gives you the right to say "You're information is clearly biased so I am going to erase it?"

Your thinking has no rational explanation. 68.117.38.94 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This dispute will not be easily settled because I do not feel that Wikipedia is not a place for someone like Shac1 to post an opinion article from an investment writer while other factual storied containing no opinion, just facts, are systematically erased.

What relevancy does someone's personal opinion about whether investers should buy Capella stock have to do with fact? It is a fact that some Capella graduates have gone on to win some very significant awards for their work and not the work of the school.

You also post that Capella pulled their APA application because they couldn't get accreditation because of the age of their programs. You have been asked to back up that information with a reference yet you can't.

So don't sit here and tell me that this is that or that is this. The pot should never call the kettle black.

You also post that that Capella is being investigated and make the assumption that they are guilty before any finding by the DOE IG is released.

You clearly are using this post as a means to deliver a message to advertise negatively of Capella University.

I need to check out the site for California. I wonder what the weather is like this time of year?

[edit] Request for Comment: Controversy Section

Once again, an anonymous user 75.134.132.66 is vandalizing the controversy section. By definition, a controversy must contain opinions. The information placed there is obviously controversial as presumably, Capella University and their supporters continually remove it. This section has been consistently vandalized by several users (possibly the same user who is connecting with different computers).

In addition to removing relevant information, problems have arisen because numerous attempts have been made to link directly to Capella University Press_releases which are nothing more than advertisements. Instead of providing relevant information about the University, the article is being used as a marketing tool. This, of course, is not appropriate for an article about a for-profit school. The controversy section provides relevant information that is consistent with other articles on Wikipedia; especially the section on drawbacks potential drawbacks discussed on the For-profit college article. Shac1 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am that anonymous user. All I ask is this: POSITIVE opinions can also be posted especially when they are sighted from the same article that the negative posts are from. Shac1 from CA should also note that the [for-profit college] also notes postives concerning flexibility and other points.

1. Shac1 wants to post negative-themed investment opinions than positive opinions should also be posted. 2. Articles from media sources that are NOT considered press releases should stay.

That is all I am saying. We can agree to have a balanced page on a level playing field or we can just keep warring.

Once again, the anonymous user (whose undated post appears directly above this) from Minnesota - home of Capella University - displays his/her penchant for attacking others instead of honestly dealing with the issues. This is noted by the ongoing wild accusations, personal attacks, name-calling, and refusal to acknowledge reality. For example:

1. Many, many other users have posted negative information which gets erased by the anonymous user (IP Address: 75.134.132.66). Note comments on his talk page). Based upon his/her consistently poor grammar, bad spelling, wild edits, name calling, etc., it would also appear as if this is the same person has used many different user names, some of which have already been banned and/or received multiple warnings, including:

Pizzaman9233 - In particular, note comments on Pizzaman9233's Talk Page.

Also note Pizzaman’s use of vulgarities on some of his edit comments, especially the one where he states “f*** you” (This is located on the edit he did on 04:48, 19 January 2007 [Edit History]).

IP Address: 68.117.38.94 - Again, note comments on his Talk Page

As the talk page just cited reveals, this Minnesota user was recently banned due to his vandalism.

2. Just as disturbing is that someone (perhaps 75.134.132.66, 75.134.132.66, and/or Pizzaman9233) used a [Capella University computer] to not only vandalise this article but was also warned for making edits to another article that could be regarded as defamatory. In fact, the user from Capella University was warned by five (5) different Wikipedia editors.

3. Contrary to 75.134.132.66's false claims that only one person is reversing his/her edits, many, many others have done the same thing, including:

Arjun01 - note reversal at [[4]]

Kesac - note reversal at [[5]]

RJASE1- note reversal at [[6]]

Seraphimblade - note reversal at [[7]]

Longhair - note reversal at [[8]]

Bobak - note reversal at [[9]]

SamMichaels - note reversal at [[10]]

4. There has never been a problem with articles from genuine news sources. The anonymous user has an established history of posting press releases created by Capella University. A prime example occurred when Pizzaman9233 (who as already noted appears to also be posting as 68.117.38.94 and 75.134.132.66), added a large number of press releases that were issued by Capella University. One such edit may be found [here]

Again, of the twelve excerpts that are listed as articles, all of them (i.e., 100%) were news releases that were issued by Capella University. This is easily verified by viewing these [press releases].

Based upon the ongoing viciousness of Pizzaman9233's, 68.117.38.94's (who has now been blocked by Wikipedia), and as 75.134.132.66's attacks, it’s no wonder that an article just published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Employers Often Distrust Online Degrees - some say they prefer job applicants who earned diplomas the old-fashioned way” by Dan Carnevale, dated January 5, 2007, reports that Human Resources Director,

“Ms. Guzman, who hires people for a range of positions, including publishing, administration, and building engineering [stated,] "It's almost like, oh, you're purchasing a degree."

She mentioned several universities that raise red flags for her when she sees them on résumés, including Capella University, an accredited for-profit online institution, and the University of Phoenix, an accredited for-profit institution that has both classroom and online programs.”

That article may be found here [[11]] Unfortunately, access to this article requires a subscription to the Chronicle in order to view it.

As long as 75.134.132.66 continues his/her incessant and unfounded complaints demanding that it's his way or no way, (refer to his statement that, "we can just keep warring"), then it would be best for this article to remain locked. Shac1 02:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that these concerns are not simply stuck with the Capella company, see this very interesting piece dissecting the problems of similar for-profit University of Phoenix that was on the front page, above the fold of the New York Times: Troubles Grow for a University Built on Profits. The point being: to say that there's no room to criticize the for-profit colleges for their problems balancing proper education and the need to drive profits (especially if publically traded) is unfounded, and that article might make a good starting point for writing up the many reasons why these institutions have problems. --Bobak 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. The criticisms regarding for-profit colleges are certainly relevant to Capella University especially since it is one of the only schools that is not only for-profit, but is also entirely on-line. The New York Times article, while directed primarily at the University of Phoenix, did an excellent in highlighting many of the issues. Shac1 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never said that I am not against the negatives of anything. What you fail to see is that when I post something positive, even from an already sighted article, it is quickly erased as being spam or advertising. I have only retaliated AFTER Shac1 has dictated what I can and can not post.

Also in defense of online degrees this article was posted in the October 10, 2005 Financial Post:

COPYRIGHT 2005 Financial Times Ltd. (From Financial Post) Getting a degree online won't place you as far back in the resume pile as it used to, according to a survey conducted by Vault Inc., a New York career media firm. The company's Online Degrees Survey took a look at how employers treat job candidates with online degrees in comparison with those who hold traditional degrees. The result: 85% of employers said they felt that online degrees are taken more seriously today than they were only five years ago. Yet most employers still have not encountered an employee with an online degree -- only 34% have -- and only 20% have hired an applicant with a non-traditional degree. Online degrees -- which are often but not always offered by colleges and universities with traditional campuses and programs -- are gaining more clout on the American workplace landscape. Just over half of the employers surveyed, or 54%, said they would still favour a job applicant with a traditional degree. One employer response to the survey indicated that online degrees were gaining somewhat wider acceptance, at least because of the intense amount of independent study required with Internet courses, where most students have limited interaction with professors. A smaller group of 45% said they would consider the two types of education equally for potential employees, while 14% said online degrees were unacceptable substitutes for traditional education.

On October 19, 2005 Vault Inc., the owners of Vault.com (called by Fortune magazine "The best place on the Web to prepare for a job search."[12])published this article:

Online Degrees More Acceptable in the Workplace, According to New Vault Survey NEW YORK, October 19, 2005: According to career publisher Vault Inc.'s (www.Vault.com)new Online Degrees Survey, 85% of employers feel that online degrees are more acceptable today than they were just five years ago. Vault's 2005 Online Degrees Survey, conducted earlier this month, is comprised of 107 responses from employers representing a variety of industries across the U.S. When asked if they had ever encountered a job applicant with an online degree, 34% of respondents said they had, and 20% said they had hired applicants with online degrees. One respondent who hired a candidate with an online degree said, "The person was tested in all aspects of their field of study with respect to the position and won the position. Great hire it turned out to be!!" Most employers (54%) said they still favor job applicants with traditional degrees over those with online degrees, but 45% said they would give job candidates with both types of degrees equal consideration. One such respondent stated, "It takes a lot of discipline to complete an online degree." Even though the majority of employers (86%) would be willing to accept a job applicant with an online degree, 14% responded that both online bachelor's degrees and graduate degrees are not acceptable. One statistic that should please hardworking online degree holders: when employers were asked what they would do if they found a job candidate who had everything they were looking for, but that candidate only possessed a degree from an online university, an impressive 91% said they would go ahead with the hire.[13]

Other articles supporting online degrees:

Kare11 NBC Affiliate in Twin Cities

I want the warring to stop but I want to be able to post articles detailing positives articles written by third parties. Deal? 75.134.132.66 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

HELLO??!!!??? No reply's to positive input? This is the unbalanced stuff I was talking about! 75.134.132.66 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Capella ROCKS Dude!!! 63.95.176.254 02:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/p/Talk%7ECapella_University_6dc4.html"