From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit reduction

This used to be a pretty good sized article with college history and locations. It seems to have been pruned down over the years, so I'm reclassifying it as a Stub until it can be brought back up.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Proposed update and expansion

Greetings to anyone who is watching this page!. As the comment immediately above (from just over a year ago) mentions, this article is currently a stub, and I would like to help expand it. Worth stating right up front: I am a consultant to Education Management Corporation (EDMC), Brown Mackie College's parent company. As part of my work for EDMC, I have researched and prepared a new draft for this article which I would like to present for review. Because of my financial COI, I will not add it directly; my goal is to find consensus for this new version. You can read it at User:WWB_Too/Brown_Mackie_College

My draft retains all of the current information in the article, however I have located sources to support the current details, and add new information based on what I was able to find in available sources. Here are the major changes I have made:

  • I have added a History section to the article, which covers the development of the school since the foundation of the original Brown Mackie College in 1892. Since the history of the school extends back so far I have used a few sources I was only able to find in the Nexis news archive. I'm happy to provide the relevant text from the articles for any editors who are unable to view the full text of the source. Just let me know.
  • I have also added in a Schools and programs section which provides a brief overview of the degrees available, areas of focus and current enrollment figures.
  • I removed the current External link to Brown Mackie's Twitter page because social media websites are included on the WP:LINKSTOAVOID list.
  • The userspace version has a {{user page}} tag, and both the non-free logo and categories are currently disabled; all of these should be changed when the article is moved to the mainspace.

Thanks in advance to anyone who this request., and let me know if you have any questions. If there are any edits you would like to make to the draft in my user space please feel free to do so. And if you have any questions, I've got this page watchlisted. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 23:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I left a few comments on your draft's talk page. Overall, I think it's a credible and value-added draft. I hope others will leave feedback as well. Let's give it about 2 weeks. If you've responded to all feedback appropriately at that time and there are no outstanding issues, I'll make the edits. I'm an admin. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 14:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Oh, nevermind. This page isn't protected. You can make them yourself after 2 weeks! Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 14:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Hi Acdixon, thanks for the quick review of my draft! I'll look into your feedback today and let you know when I've made updates. I'm in no rush, so two weeks is no problem at all. Also, even though the page isn't protected I am still looking for another editor to carry out the update to the live article once we finish revising the draft. As a COI editor I follow Jimbo's proposed WP:BRIGHTLINE guideline and strongly prefer to avoid any direct edits to articles, even when there is a clear consensus. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 17:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply
No problem with that. I'll make the edit once you've gotten and responded to the requested feedback. Just drop me a line on my talk page when you feel like it's ready to go. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Review

Collapsed box includes feedback on my proposed draft, originally posted by User:Acdixon to User talk:WWB Too/Brown Mackie College. To consolidate discussion, I've copied it here, and my reply follows.

Feedback from Acdixon
This looks to me like a credible attempt to expand the article in a neutral way. The authoring editor clearly and appropriately identified a potential conflict-of-interest and has asked for feedback before moving to the main space. Would that more folks would operate this way. A couple of minor comments.
  • I'm a little concerned about the neutrality of "career-focused programs". I work in education, so I know what is meant here. Where I am, we make the distinction between "transfer" programs (AA and AS) and "technical" programs (AAS in X). I think "career-focused programs" is referencing the latter, but it ever-so-slightly sounds like "these programs will get you a job", which we know isn't a guarantee no matter where the degree comes from. You might consider dropping "career-focused" and just say the college offers bachelor's degrees, associate degrees, and certificates in programs such as X, Y, and Z. Clearly, the focus of those programs is getting a job in those fields. On the other hand, this is by far the mildest of my concerns, so it might be OK to leave it as-is.
  • "For the transition to iPads, Brown Mackie invested more than $2 million dollars in technology upgrades and training, part of which was in partnership with Apple Inc." This is the sentence that concerns me the most, particularly the word "invested". We know from present political discourse that one man's investment is another man's boondoggle. Plus, this sentence appears to be based on a quote from a Brown Mackie official in a RS, not the reporting of the RS itself. I'm not sure the sentence is all that helpful in understanding the overall encyclopedic concept of Brown Mackie, anyway. I suggest dropping at least the first part of the sentence. The fact that the transition to iPads was made in partnership with Apple could probably be salvaged and integrated into previous sentences, although some detail about the nature of said partnership would be even more helpful, if it is available.
  • Obviously, it would be great if we could eliminate the sourcing to the Brown Mackie and EDC web sites in favor of third-party sources, but I know, especially with educational institutions, that can be difficult.
  • I notice that the founders' names are in the present article, but not this revision. Were they not sourceable? Would be nice to include, if possible.
That's it. There's certainly room for expansion and added detail if it can be found, but this revision is value-added as-is. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Acdixon. I've looked over your feedback on my draft and I understand your concerns. I've put my replies in the same order as your feedback.

  • No problem removing "career-focused" from the draft; I've reworded it to simply say "degrees".
  • I've revised the paragraph that discusses the transition to iPads, removing the mention of how much Brown Mackie spent, and clarified how Apple was involved in the partnership, based on the information in the second to last paragraph of the Campus Technology article. Let me know if these changes are what you were looking for. Feel free to make any adjustments to the draft as well.
  • I very much agree: I always prefer to use independent sources, and I think it is particularly important when presenting suggested revisions as a COI editor. That being said, I wasn't able to find third-party sources for several pieces of information I felt should be included. I am primarily using EDMC or Brown Mackie sources to support unexceptional details; I felt like it was better to rely on a primary source then to have a large gap in the school's history.
  • Related to the point above, I was probably overzealous in cutting their names because the only source I could find was the Brown Mackie About Us page. It's back now.

Let me know your thoughts on these remaining issues and I can make any necessary changes to the draft. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I touched up a couple of things, but I think it's in decent shape now. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Your edits look great—good catch on the A.B. Mackie page! I'm sorry to say I didn't even think to look. Ready when you are. WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply
This is now  Done. WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 13:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Requesting help with Controversy section

Hello, I worked with editors last year to improve and expand this article on behalf of Education Management Corporation (EDMC), and I've been monitoring edits here since then. On April 15, an IP editor added information about ongoing investigations to the article's lead. The sentence was quickly moved down to a new Controversy section by another editor. I agree that the sentence does not belong in the article's introduction (this IP editor has a history of editing the article ledes of schools owned by EDMC), but I'm not sure that a controversy section is the correct placement for it either.

Wikipedia guidelines state that controversy sections should be avoided unless the information can't be placed elsewhere. The reasoning is that it puts undue weight on critical views, rather than balancing both negative and positive points (see WP:CRITICISM).

Since it is just one sentence, I'd like to suggest incorporating the information into the History section. Another idea might be to rename the section Investigations. Either way, I'd like to propose including a date in the sentence and supporting it with secondary sources, like this one from Forbes and this one from the South Bend Tribune, rather than the current references which are a press release and a government website. I've made those changes here:

Revised wording
In 2011, investigations into the recruiting practices of the school were launched by the Attorneys General of Kentucky and Indiana. [1] [2]

References

  1. ^ James Marshall Crotty (16 January 2013). "Kentucky Attorney General Takes Spencerian College To Woodshed Over Phony Job Placement Claims". Forbes. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
  2. ^ "Indiana joins suit against Brown Mackie College parent firm". South Bend Tribune. 15 June 2011. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
Markup
In 2011, investigations into the recruiting practices of the school were launched by the Attorneys General of Kentucky and Indiana.<ref name=Crotty13>{{cite news |title=Kentucky Attorney General Takes Spencerian College To Woodshed Over Phony Job Placement Claims |author=James Marshall Crotty |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2013/01/16/kentucky-ag-sues-spencerian-college-over-misrepresentation-of-job-placement-rates/ |work=[[Forbes]] |date=16 January 2013 |accessdate=23 April 2014}}</ref><ref name=SouthBendTribune11>{{cite news |title=Indiana joins suit against Brown Mackie College parent firm |url=http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2011-06-15/news/29664032_1_brown-mackie-college-suit-indiana |work=[[South Bend Tribune]] |date=15 June 2011 |accessdate=23 April 2014}}</ref>

Due to my financial COI, I do not make edits myself, so I'm hoping an editor here will be able to make these changes. I'm interested in hearing other editors' thoughts as well. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 16:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I quite loathe Controversy sections myself. Based on my experiences with other articles, they tend to attract "critic-cruft". It's amazing what some folks consider a "controversy". With only the information we have right now, I think the sentence could go either in the History section, or we could rename the section "Investigations". If there is any substantial fallout from the investigations, I suspect the latter will be the better approach going forward. If not, the former may be the better route, with a single follow-up sentence saying no wrongdoing was found, or whatever. Either way, the secondary sources are to be preferred, I think, to the extant ones. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 13:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Hi Acdixon, thanks for taking a look at this for me. I agree completely with your assessment. As of right now, there hasn't been any conclusion or fallout from the investigations, so perhaps the sentence will work best in History until there's more to say? Since I don't make any direct edits myself, I was wondering if you would mind making the edits in the article as you feel appropriate? Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 15:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply
 Done Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 14:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply
Very cool, thanks for handling! WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Brown Mackie College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Brown_Mackie_College&oldid=1212580712"