Talk:Purdue University Global

Explaining Reversions

1. Purdue Global is part of the Purdue University system. All Purdue campuses have their own accreditation. Purdue Global is not unique in that fact as a recent edit suggests. 2. An important part of understanding what Purdue Global is, is knowing that it targets working adults. This was removed without justification. 3. This particular editor has, for years, been attempting to include the claim that 12.5% (this time 13%) of revenue belongs in the lede. Dispute resolution has been attempted. Requests for Comments have reached a consensus that it does not belong in the lede for various reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA1776 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I support maintaining the current lede of the Purdue University Global article as it stands for several reasons:

1. Relevance of Financial Information: The inclusion of the detail that Purdue Global returns 13% of its revenue to its former for-profit owner, Graham Holdings Company, is permanent and pertinent and provides critical context about the university’s operational and financial structure. This information is not only factual but also helps clarify the unique public benefit corporation model under which the university operates. Given the public interest in the financial dealings of educational institutions, especially those that transition from for-profit status, this detail enhances the reader's understanding of the institution's nature and governance.
2. Accreditation and System Membership: The statement that Purdue Global is a separately accredited part of the Purdue University system is accurate and necessary. It informs the reader about the university’s legitimate place within the broader Purdue system while acknowledging its distinct operational status. This distinction is vital for clarity, preventing any misunderstanding about its accreditation compared to other Purdue campuses.
3. Historical Context: Including information about Purdue Global's origins, specifically its creation from the acquisition and rebranding of Kaplan University—a former for-profit institution—adds essential historical context. It explains the university's current structure and operational strategies. Furthermore, mentioning Kaplan Higher Education's role in providing non-academic support services underscores the ongoing relationships that shape the university's operations, which is critical for a full understanding of the institution.

In regards to the editorial concern mentioned, while it is important to ensure that no single editor unduly controls the narrative, consensus against including the revenue share in the lede was not reached, and further, does not inherently invalidate its relevance as its included in multiple parts of the article. The lede's purpose is to summarize the most noteworthy and defining aspects of its subject, and Purdue Global's financial model, given its public interest and uniqueness, merits such a position.

Therefore, I posit that the lede, as currently written, appropriately captures the essential and defining characteristics of Purdue University Global, providing a balanced and informative overview for the reader. It should remain unchanged unless new, consensus-driven discussions suggest substantive reasons for modification. Ushistorygeek (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not your article. You are edit warring with multiple editors. If you continue, you will likely be blocked. You need to convince other editors that your version of the article is preferable or come to a compromise around which a consensus can form. You cannot simply impose your preferred version of the article on other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

please see the comment below. Ushistorygeek (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Further I would point editors, including the helpful @ElKevbo, to this historical comment on the now archived talk page.

1. Editors can confirm themselves by reviewing the talk page archives and edit histories. They may be interested in your prior claim "I have never objected to including the 12.5% in the lede and am not attempting to remove it.", despite doing so on multiple occasions:

• You removed it from the lead on April 7.
• You removed it again on April 8.
• You removed it again here on April 10.
• And here on April 11 you removed it yet again while seemingly ignoring two comments on the talk page.
• And here on April 14 you added "as payment for these services", which was incorrect as Graham/Kaplan is reimbursed for direct costs first, and the 12.5% contributor fee is in addition to the reimbursement.

2. Multiple sources have been cited to support the assertion, including the transaction documents that created the public-benefit corporation that is PG, it is user JA1776 who refuses to acknowledge them. For the benefit of you and other editors, here are sources that support the current language.

“Kaplan will essentially run the new university, providing the administrative backbone, and will be entitled to a fee equal to 12.5 percent of the new institution’s revenue”

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/purdue-u-is-expected-to-buy-mega-for-profit-kaplan-u-turn-it-into-a-public-university

“After that payment, Kaplan is entitled to reimbursement for its own cost of providing services, plus a fee equal to 12.5 percent of the Purdue affiliate’s revenues.”

https://www.ibj.com/articles/63625-kaplan-paying-50m-to-partner-with-purdue-on-new-university

“In return for those services, Purdue will pay Kaplan 12.5 percent of the new institution’s total revenue a year.”

https://www.chronicle.com/article/purdues-purchase-of-kaplan-is-a-big-bet-and-a-sign-of-the-times/

“Kaplan will continue to run the university, collecting 12.5% of the new school’s revenue for 30 years.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/27/purdue-buys-kaplan-university/100990102/

“After Purdue covers operating costs and collects $50 million in tuition, Kaplan is entitled to 12.5% of Purdue Global’s revenue.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2018/09/11/mitch-daniels-is-making-purdue-more-affordable-and-upping-enrollment-higher-ed-purists-are-aghast/?sh=1dac5a726eee

“Eventually, Kaplan will receive reimbursement for its costs of providing support to the school, as well as a fee equal to 12.5% of New University’s revenue”

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/28/purdue-university-buys-for-profit-kaplan-university-but-is-it-a-good-idea/Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The 12.5% is of course relevant to the article and it's true that some sources have simplified how they describe it as indicated by the sources shared by USHistorygeek. However, others sources, found in the talk history, make it clear that those payments are conditional on certain criteria being met. To my knowledge they never have been met so it inflates the importance of the 12.5% by putting it in the lede. The talk history shows other users, including those commenting in an RFC, have agreed that the 12.5% does not belong in the lead because it is nuanced and minor to the larger article. JA1776 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

References