Talk:University of Phoenix/Archive 1

University in a Box Accolades

Is UofP being heralded by a software product which does not have any kind of academic acceptance and it would seem is using UofP as a shill warrant inclusion in this article? Mysteryquest 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The software company has got to be at least as notable as the Council for Applied Technology Centers and Related Academic Programs (CATCRAP). How do you know that UoP isn't the shill using the software company to bolster its image? It's already doing the exact same thing with a football stadium. Reswobslc 18:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

Here is another article that could be used by the UoP haters. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/education/11phoenix.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print I like UoP, I gained a lot from my education at UoP, I had Ivy League professors and yet for some reason the internet is full of people who just hate UoP and everything this new form of education has to offer. Similar controversy can be found with any new system including Wikipedia. UoP has much to offer or Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs ACBSPelse their product would fail. UoP might have a low graduation rate, but just because UoP makes learning convenient does not make the process easy. Keep the main UoP page as information only, and then right all you want on the UoP controversy page. What is the big deal with having these on different pages if you reference the page from the main section? The only thing I can understand about this issue is that some UoP hater wants all of the controversy posted right up front as to try and scare off as many people as possible. No other university on Wikipedia has a similar section on the main page and therefore it should be separated. Volney 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be a large group of people, that for whatever their reason being, get a nasty taste in their mouth over UoPhx. The problem is that the only people that come in here to try to dissuade the attempts at a smear campaign are either current/former students, or employees of the University. Some of those against the University love to immediately claim WP:COI, although it is just a guideline and not a hard rule, and furthermore, all it really means is that those of us that qualify need to walk on glass. Just keep that in mind.Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so I graduated from UoP, and I am one of the many students that really liked the experience! UoP is a very good step in the right direction for working adults. Education has always been a system where you get what you put into the program. Many people fail at UoP and I think that make them mad. I am not sure why this seems to have become a POV war, but I dislike the fact that there is no neutrality in this article. Volney 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unjust to keep removing the link to uopsucks. I am a current undergrad student there, pursuing a Bachelor of Science in IT. The university is full of serious problems, recently being documented by writers at the Arizona Republic newspaper. Are these reporters "disgruntled students" with an axe to grind? Please, in the name of free speech, stop removing the link to uopsucks. The majority of posts there are from current and former students and faculty. Why is the section on Phoenix's legal woes allowed to stand? They portray Phoenix in a negative light. So does uopsucks. It is a site for the free exchange of information. I have a serious problem with self-appointed content censors deciding what makes it to print here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia was certainly not founded on censors preventing unflattering information making it to the page. The purpose of content monitoring is to prevent and correct vandalism. Posting a simple link to uopsucks in not vandalism. The link is important so that prospective students may see it and follow it. Let them read the posts at the site and make up their own minds. You don't know how deeply outraged I am at the concept of withholding important information via content censors. It appears as a serious conflict of interest. Are the censors on Phoenix's payroll? UPDATE: The indivudual removing anti-Phoenix material, Cascadia, is a University of Phoenix employee. There is no personal attack involved. It is a conflict of interest for him to be censoring/deleting/policing matter related to the University of Phoenix. This is highly irregular.--PhoenixStudent 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have such a problem with UoP why don't you transfer to somewhere else? Posting UoPsucks on the main pages removes value from your degree and is a dumb idea, IMHO. Why is this information valid in relation to UoP? My feeling is that perhaps you also have an axe to grind. Volney 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think Volney. PhoenixStudent has a valid claim. 71.68.17.141 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, great counterpoint! *Rolls Eyes, Smacks Forehead!* Volney 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe this article should be locked down to specific factual information about the university only and any controversy should be moved over to another page.

I added the controversy section. Look at any other controversial topic on Wikipedia: there are sections discussing the controversies surrounding the topic, along with counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments. Intelligent Design is but one example. Additionally, a lawsuit against UoP and UoP's settlement of that lawsuit are actual events, and reporting on them is reporting factual information about the university. --Verbalcontract 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

UoP is the Rorschach test for your opinions about the changes in higher education in this country. In addition, I love the fact that all of the people removing the controversy section fail to even log on to Wikipedia. These anonymous postings lack any credibility. If you have a biased opinion or point of view you can hide behind your IP address. My point is that UoP is a lighting rod for criticism in a changing world. I went to the UoP for my Masters program (MSCIS). This was an excellent program, I work for a large company, this degree has helped me in promotions and IS valuable. I find that in most cases the anonymous critics are upset because they failed to pass the grade at UoP. In my experience when someone signs up with UoP and is weeded out in the first class they are upset. They blame UoP for their own failings. My personal experience is that everyone I have had experience with and that has graduated from the UoP is an excellent, focused, and motivated professional. I find it is easier to be upset at an institution for being a ‘diploma mill’ than it is to admit you failed to make it through UoP. In my opinion, education is as valuable as the amount of effort you apply to the experience. Failure to succeed or gain value at any accredited higher education endeavor is a personal fault and not one that should be listed in a Wikipedia article. I do not have any working relationship with UoP. I enjoyed the experience so much more than my traditional undergraduate program. I encourage others to experience the advantages of becoming a scholar practitioner. In other words, I believe that education is most valuable in practice. UoP allows for interaction with other working professional, while you still maintain your current career. UoP does have problems, but it is the wave of the future. I believe that this dynamic progress intimidates traditionalist who wallow in static conventional education grounded only in theory and not practice. Volney 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever....Evidently, in the process of becoming a 'scholar-practitioner, you failed the learn the difference between 'excepted' and 'accepted'.

Thanks for proof reading my posting on a discussion board! Your amazing and compelling counterpoints have TOTALLY changed my mind! Do you have any practicial opinions on my comments other than how I should proof read before postings an off-hand comment? Perhaps you would like to comment on how you post without indentifying yourself? Quality work all around...perhaps you need to go to UoP. Volney 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

and you forgot to close your single quote around "scholar-practitioner". We can nit-pick eachothers use of grammar and spelling on a discussion page, or try to offer value to the discussion...

Totally agree! Volney 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that this article is completely biased against UoP; hence why I deleted the controversy section. Every university has controversies but the question is does it warrant a separate section when describing the university and its purpose in an encyclopedia. I opine that only if it's a unique event or situation to that particular institution and in this case it is not warranted. UoP is "cut and dry" in what it offers. For once a university offers degrees that you can actually use to get a "real job" instead of spending years in a "traditional university" only to find out you can't find a job as an "anthropologist" for example. However, traditional colleges are now mimicking what UoP first established, the online programs and accelerated programs. Notice that many "traditional universities" are now offering "Executive Degrees" sounds a lot like UoP now doesn't it? Wonder why? This is because at the end of the day a University is a business and it can only stay in business by attracting students of all ages, walks of life, income levels that come to their campus and pay exorbant tuition's that keeps the universities going. The difference is that UoP gets you there much faster without spending time taking useless classes that only line the pockets of the faculty. It is a fallacy to think that earning a degree from a traditional college will get you a better job unless of course you're talking about the top universities. At the end of the day your degree has to be in demand, otherwise you'll be just another unemployed or underemployed citizen, except in your case you'll be in deep debt, frustrated and applying for more college loans to get a degree that can land you a "real job". --68.70.10.165 01:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is a bit too anti U o P, and could perhaps be edited for point of view. If it is an academic racket that swindles underachievers and desperate nontraditional students, it is no more of a racket than the vast majority of private universities, graduates of which (including myself) wallow in debt, shunted into the real world by institutions that declare a student's ability to find a job, or remain jobless, the result of that student's individual disposition, and not of the school's ability to select and prepare that student for life after graduation. Unfortunately, it is a hallmark of the American education system to take people's money, run, then blame the victim. U of P is different only in that it operates explicitly for a profit. I can't say I find such candor to be a bad thing. --71.195.88.71

Seems to me that placing the material on controversial practices right toward the beginning reflects an anti-UOP bias. The article should first simply describe the university and its programs, and then explain any relevant controversies. I suppose that including the controversies right up front sans "Controversies" header represents a middle ground, though still has an anti-UOP tone, IMHO. Anyway, my two cents. I won't move the controversies to the end since I do recognize that the most recent placement (controversies up front with no header) represents a compromise on an issue over which reasonable people can disagree. (Full disclosure: I am a UOP employee.) --wwheeler

I agree with you about the controversy section, but each time it is removed someone adds it again. I was just trying to balance out the information with other information on the same topic. UoP is a hot point for online discussion and everyone seems to have some sort of opinion. Perhaps this should be another page? My point was not to remove information that other users added but rearrange and add balanced information. Unfortunately, you cannot just remove this information without first discussing the topic or someone will add the section again. I added the POV so that we can discuss and come to a consensus. --Volney

"Controversy section has to stay after introduction for easier transition". What the heck does that mean? Sounds like someone with an agenda. As with any article, the introduction should should give a brief overview of the topic, and the more formative information should be broken up into separate and distinct paragraphs. Therefore, the stuff dealing with criticisms and controversy should be under a separate header. --68.80.241.225 05:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone seeking to decide for themselves if UOP is a poor institution or not needs only to look at recent news regarding their actions. Read it all and judge for yourself.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2000/03/27/daily15.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/06/14/daily41.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/07/19/daily75.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2004/09/13/daily18.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/10/25/daily17.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/10/17/daily37.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/education/phoenix_doe.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/education/phoenix_aid.html

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special42/articles/0914apollo14.html

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/a09e0015.pdf

I am a former student and left because of their inability to conform to governmental standards for employers and education institutions. I strongly desire to see the Controversy section replaced as it is a true depiction of the school. --anonymous

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a blog of opinions and newspaper articles. I have been an employee of UOP a long time during all these accusations and settlements. The information shared is opinionated and best reserved for a blog or other wiki. This site is a encyclopedia and as such should be limited to information regarding a topic not opinions on a topic. Such articles would not be written in any encyclopedia.

As long as the information is factual, it belongs in the article regardless of whether or not it makes them look bad --66.177.136.114 11:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As a compromise to NPOV, I have tried a placement of the Controversy section that follows the placement of the Controversy info in other debated topics. The text in the Controversy section hasn't changed one word, but the article as a whole reads a little more balanced in my mind with the new placement. As suggested by wwheeler and 68.80.241.225: First the overview, a description of the modalities followed by the class list THEN a delving into the critisms. If you look at a lot of the religion articles, they follow this pattern. --Bryce byerley 14:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I find that although I do not agree with the contreversy section it is acceptable for the purposes of this website and its purpose. --204.17.26.4

You can also add rebuttals(sp?) to the arguements in the controversy section. That is exactly what that section is for. It doesn't have to be all anti-UOP. --Bryce byerley 07:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The history section was added and the controversy section removed to mirror that of other entries of other schools. After reviewing many university articles on this site not one has a controversy section. I have reviewed articles from other schools who have been fined and who's practices have been questionable and that of other highly noted schools. In all my findings this is the only entry with a controversy section. as such I have removed it and added a history section. Irregardless of personal feelings concerning UOP this is in accordance with the rest of wikipedia and articles concerning schools of higher learning. --204.17.26.4

The lack of a controversy section in other university articles is not a basis for wholesale removal of it from this article. However, the history section is a good addition. Bryce byerley 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user removed the Controversy section. I have reverted the change for the time being, and indicated where citations are needed to back up the “facts” that are presented there. As for the removal of the section, if actual citations cannot be found for the information, then it should be removed. I am going to make an effort to find such data to back up the claims made, and if I cannot actually find any data then I will go ahead and remove the section again. However, if the data is there to back it up, the data that is mentioned within the article is relevant data to someone who would be doing research on attending the school, and so it should remain. fd0man 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A controversy section does not belong in an article about a university. Find just one other Wikipedia article about a University that has a controversy section. All universities have questionable practices. Most state universities have questionable practices and I could cite several instances of persons with whom i associate. A controversy section is not needed or appropriate. If someone wishes to attend UOP they can find that information other places. Again this is an encyclopedia not a blog for expressing displeasure or hanging up any schools dirty laundry. Private or state.

That would seem to be against the NPOV policy—it fails to appropriately, and objectively, depict the school in question, regardless of it being UoP or another school. If the data is there, it would seem to be relevant. Given that bias can be positive, negative, or neutral, the bias for any article should be neutral. It would seem that by omitting facts which cast a negative light on the subject, the bias is then tilted towards the positive, no longer meeting requirements for objectivity. From NPOV: “NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias [emphasis added].” I could be wrong, and if I am, please point it out. However, claiming that UoP's article should not have a controversy section merely because other college articles do not have one is a fallacy which only helps to support a non-neutral point of view. —fd0man 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is really ridiculous for Wikipedia to not have a controversy section on this topic. The fact that my employer (state government) routinely throws out each and every application that has the University of Phoenix listed on the resume should say something about how they're viewed in the real world, wouldn't you say? At the very least, it needs to be linked to the "Diploma Mill" or "Degree Mill" articles. -- John

I have made extensive changes to the article for public approval. I feel the outline covers in a NPOV all the aspects of UOP those who truly desire to have a controversy section to expound on their distaste for UOP have a section to do so. Those who support the university as an educational institution are satisfied. This I feel is an article merely stating fact with no correlation to either view. I Herby request that all controversy be directed to the controversy article to maintain the dignity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and the UOP entry as its own entry. -poweroverwhelming -7-11-2006

The article as it stands right now, without a controversy section, is a clear example of a one-sided argument -- no matter how "neutral" the pro-UoP language is. The facts are simple: it is a fact that the University of Phoenix has been sued by both the Department of Education and the Department of Labor over recruitment practices. It is a fact that they settled these suits out of court. To not discuss them in the article about the University of Phoenix is a clear one-sided argument situation in favor of the University of Phoenix, hence is in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. And to address your reasoning for removing the controversy section:

• To maintain the dignity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia..." -- It is not Wikipedia policy to maintain dignity; it is Wikipedia's policy to be neutral. Also, this argument presupposes that a controversy section will somehow mar the dignity of Wikipedia. This is not substantiated by any evidence or Wikipedia policy.
• Find just one other Wikipedia article about a University that has a controversy section...
  • Bob Jones University
  • University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
  • Harvard University -- "Views of Harvard" discusses controversies
  • Yale University

Having said that, I'm going to reinstate the controversy section, and if you think this violates the neutralness of this article, then you can (a) edit the controversy section with rebuttals and counter-arguments, (b) claim that the article does not hold NPOV, or (c) complain to a moderator.

I will concede to the idea of the article as it stood before your addition was in violation of the NPOV policy. However it had been changed from the version that I had revised. My original major revision included these points in the history, in addition linked to a page designed for UOP controversy in detail. I believe if restored the article would maintain the NPOV policy. Poweroverwhelming 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal Issues

I recently removed part of the history section that talks about the legal issues UOP has and is currently facing. I have removed them because these points are already covered in the controversy section. Poweroverwhelming 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"University of College"

Surely that's a typo. Anyone? Dan Lovejoy 05:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not a typo. That is the awful name for one of their "colleges". --Vizcarra 09:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure it's clumsy. But it's no worse than the "University College" that many "real" universities created to house their night schools. And University of Phoenix isn't the only outfit to have a "University of College" - there are a bunch in the British isles, and the one in Cork fought to keep the name after it was taken away. RossPatterson 15:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It may have been a legitimate name once, but the current U. Phoenix catalog (http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/publications/university_catalog/Catalog2005-2006.pdf) lists it as "University College" now. User:Dave Murphy has already corrected it. RossPatterson 11:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Academic programs" section comment

The previous version listed every, single degree. That is not necesary and borders on turning the article into the brochure (which someone is one "external link" click away from). In light of the way other major university articles handle it, notably the feature-status Michigan State University article, I have reduced the skeleton to just the schools and colleges. Now, this may be a basis for information about the individual schools, but not each and every degree. --Bobak 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cause Celebre

This looks like an article from somewhere. Shouldn't there by quotes and citations, not a reprint of the article? PeregrineV 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And strangely wasn't this added by the only person actively editing this article who insists on removing the controversy section repeatedly? Binarypower 08:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't me. I write from work and so as such it is probably someone here at work.

And which unsigned uop user are you? Binarypower 04:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the person who added the history section to more closely align with other University articles. even those of for profit universities.

Please sign your comments by using the 4 tildes ~~~~ Binarypower 06:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Axia College

Axia College is not a division of University of Phoenix, rather it is a subsidiary of UOP's parent company Apollo Group. Poweroverwhelming 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Axia College is a division of University of Phoenix. It is one and the same. If you go to Axia College, you can easily transfer credits (without having any transcripts sent) to a new program. It is like changing from a Bachelor's Degree (taken at a school) to taking a Master's Degree (taken at the same school). That simple

Cleric 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Although you can transfer credits very easily and without a transcript it does not mean they are the same school. They all reside under the educational umbrella of Apollo Group. As such you could just as easily transfer credits from Western International University (also an Apollo entity.) Axia is Axia collage OF University of Phoenix, previously know as Axia collage of Western International University. So in a way you are correct in that they are both under Apollo and credit transfer is almost seamless, however they are acutely different entities. (Poweroverwhelming 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axia_College as the issue of whether it is actually an accredited college is answered. Also, I did my own research and called and spoke with both Axia and University of Washington to verify if it was an accredited institution. 75.92.166.105 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)megaman5@gmail.com

Advertisement

This looks completely like an advertisement. 67.188.172.165 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So do all other university article on here. If you have complaints about the university there is a page for that

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_University
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Of_Washington
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Nevada%2C_Las_Vegas
  You get the point?

(Poweroverwhelming 22:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

• • I love this logic - "all are corrupt so why try?" At the very least the article's wording can be toned and outside soyrces can be brought in so it feels less like a brochure and more like an encyclopedia article. - Plasticbadge 22:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Spy-ware

The articles and citations supporting this claim are not viable. A discussion board or blogg is not factual and represents the experience/opinion of a handful of individuals. To associate this as a practice of the school is irresponsible at best. UOP sends all of its advertising to third party companies to create only banner adds. Had one of these third party companies created an add such as the one cited, they would have been quickly dealt with and no longer used as an advertising company. If you wish to make further accusations on baseless material please put your additions on the UOP controversy article.

    * A collection of UOP horror stories and criticisms
    * UOP spyware tactics
    * Sue a spammer campaign against UOP

Poweroverwhelming 15:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• University of Phoenix does not now, or has it ever been the sender of these emails. UOP contracts advertising out to third party companies which use questionable tactics to generate the contacts they then sell to UOP.Poweroverwhelming 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This argument does not hold water. UoP is not a victim of circumstance; they are free to contract with advertising firms who do not use "questionable tactics", and they choose not to do so. Holding UoP blameless for the spam they fund is like holding a TV advertiser blameless for a controversial ad--Oh, it was our ad agency's fault; we had nothing to do with it! Of course they don't compose and mass-email spam themselves. Neither do the thousands of internet Viagra purveyors who contract with spammers to fill the nation's inboxes. N6 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation

Information about UOP's regional accreditation and lack of professional accreditation for specific programs and majors is pertinent information. If anyone has more that can be added, please do so. I do believe it would be wrong to remove information about accreditation.

I was the one who removed your comments because regardless if they are factual or not the method in which you posted your comments was derogatory. Using quotation marks for a legitimate accreditation in an attempt to disregard the current accreditation of the school. If you can provide a fact based addition to the article I for one may not like it but if the information is factual then it must be included. It is also pefered that if you wish to make significant changes to articles that you create, log in, and sign all of your comments Poweroverwhelming 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "derogatory" quotation marks. Made paragraph as a whole more NPOV. Added link to AACSB website and Wiki article. Also, logged in to and signed my comments. If I had to guess, I would say Poweroverwhelming either works for UOP, or got his degree there. tamu02aggie

What does it matter if Poweroverwhelming works for UoP etc? If the article is NPOV it will stand on it's own. Volney 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from inserting these comments again. The comments you are inserting are not suitable for the article. The intent of having an article is not to describe in all ways why you may not personally like UOP. UOP may not carry this professional accreditation you are seeking but that has nor relevance on this article. The point of the article is not to state what UOP is not. I, nor should anyone else go about stating what a computer is not or what a certain model car is not. In similar fashion I do not go around to every article in wikipedia to explain my personal desires for a school, product, service, individual or organization. Your displeasure for UOP is understood and best serviced at a blogg not a wikipedia article. Please do not continue to post this addition on this article. Once again it does not have relevance to this article. If you have some kind of other controversy to add to the article please post it in the controversy section. Poweroverwhelming 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Volney 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Poweroverwhelming, aka UOP employee, the content of the Accreditation section that I posted is relvent and does belong in an encyclopedia. You don't like it because you are a UOP employee and a UOP grad. However, the section is NPOV because it presents facts, and it does so using multiple points of view. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia's section on what NPOV actually is. What a topic is not is often just as important than what it is. So, I totally disagree with your assesment. Tamu02aggie 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What is with the personal attacks Tamu02aggie? Your personal attacks againstPoweroverwhelming is a clear indication that you have a POV against UoP. Volney 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of posting the fact that the online consortium has issues w/ UOP?? This is an encycolpedia, not a personal b*** session for people this school wronged...I think the business information should be removed and this article should be locked for further editing....

WP:Assume good faith. I have edited this article with the specific intent of restoring a neutral POV. I have no relationship and no bone to pick with UOP. If you think a statement from a neutral third party based on published research is "slander", I don't know what to tell you.

Posting the contents of a UOP statement that claims employers do not care about professional accreditation may or may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you think it is appropriate, you certainly have no grounds to claim that an expert rebuttal to the statement is inappropriate. I would go so far as to say it's grossly inappropriate to include the one side but not the other. My personal preference would be to include neither.

The ACBSP absolutely does accredit business schools and specifically lists UOP as an unaccredited member. The article previously stated that UOP was a "candidate for accreditation" with the ACBSP, a claim that is not supported by any source provided here. I simply changed "candidate for accreditation with" (an unverified claim) to "unaccredited member of" (a designation supported by the ACBSP's website). If you object to calling UOP an unaccredited member of the ACBSP, you're free to remove that sentence altogether. If you want to call UOP a candidate for accreditation, please provide a source for this claim. N6 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair. I had only found the western regional page previously, and it just says "No" in the last column.

In the future, please sign your comments with four tildes. Also, it's not appropriate to suggest contacting somebody to verify a fact. Wikipedia deals only in published information. Please see WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. N6 05:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this has become an issue on accreditaton practices in the US. What about community colleges? By this standard Oxford would be an unaccredited university. AACSB is very good but this would also increase the cost of UoP. I am sure someone would also complain about this issue. AACSB is the new marketing campaign used by the traditional universities to promote their own failed policies; lack of flexablity. AACSB also has similar problems because it fails to provide support to new educational formats. How does AACSB provide value to UoP and the students? --Volney

They have recently become accredited by ACBSP:

http://www.acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_025about&stpg=141&par=4237

Will someone please update the website? The "reads like an advertisement" comment is utter nonsense; if it's an advertisement, why is there a controversy section???? This crap is why wikipedia cannot be used as a viable source for anything.