Talk:2U, Inc.

History section is getting overwhelmingly large

Can someone take a look at the History section and determine what is unessential and can be deleted? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The History section continues to grow. Some of the minutiae has to go. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@CollegeMeltdown: Good idea - I'll take a shot at removing some of the info to shorten it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed some excessive detail and minutiae, including info about a program that came and went. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Business model sources from 2014?

Has anyone noticed that the "Business model" section has sources from 2014? This is 2021 and many things have changed. Are the numbers even valid? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The business model is further complicated by the edX acquisition. 2U's programs had completion rates of 84 percent, but MOOCS like EdX have completion rates in the single digits. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@CollegeMeltdown: I did some updates last night and removed the update template. The business model section only refers to 2U. The subsidiaries are listed separately. Since edX has its own article, there's no need to put more detail about them here - you can add it to the edX article. I get what you're trying to communicate, but you're veering into WP:POV and WP:SYNTH territory by applying criticism of the MOOC industry to put edX in a negative light, Unless you have a source that specifically criticizes edX versus MOOCs in general, you'd be better off just adding any general negative industry info to the MOOC article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

References

TimTempleton, thanks for your help. The Harvard Magazine article was particular to edX. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)