Talk:Grand Canyon University

For-profit status and adding ref note

As the article correctly states, the U.S. Department of Education classifies GCU as a "for-profit" institution (due to ongoing contracts and ties with its former for-profit owner, Grand Canyon Education). However, in 2018, GCU successfully transitioned to a non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education, and its regional accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC).[1] I think the Refn template should be added after "for profit" to clarify GCU's unique non-profit/for-profit status situation. Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There was an RfC a few years ago - you can read it in the archives of this Talk page (linked at the top of the page). If you think that consensus may have changed since then, you're welcome to open another RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

A clarification aka a Ref template to give the full details of the "for-profit" classification in the lead paragraph would be a tremendous addition, especially under such extraordinary circumstances. Granted that the sourcing was good. I hardly think another RFC is necessary after all that RFC was held about 4 years ago in 2019. An RFC is usually only a resort for dispute resolution and this reference seems to be a common sense add. I would definitely say adding the reference improves the article and better informs readers of all the facts. @Wikipedialuva I say be WP:BOLD and add it in. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI the reference [a] does not work at all and isn't visible in the references section. Unsure how to fix. wizzito | say hello! 21:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it. The footnote text was added about 2 weeks ago in this edit, but because of a small bug was not showing at the end. -- M.boli (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Substantial re-write needed for some sections

Added copy edit tag to Rankings, recognition, statistics, and accreditation. Review needed for tone and importance. Could consolidate the second paragraph (statistics) with the paragraph on entrance requirements in Academics.

Description and History are well written. Campuses, Academics, Athletics and Rankings all need attention.

Expecting the page to get seasonal traffic since the men's basketball team made the NCAA tournament. Hireddense (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Bowling alley needs removed from recreational activities

Bowling alley no longer exists on campus. It was removed from thunderground to make room for other activities. Funsize3003 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Still not classified as non-profit by the US Department of Education

An unregistered editor has recently been editing this article to claim that this university is now classified as a non-profit institution by the US Department of Education. They are citing this recent court case to support their edits. That source does not support their assertion. The court of appeals has simply ordered that a lower court retry the case using different standards. This may eventually result in a court ordering the department to classify the university as non-profit, an order the department could choose to appeal and drag out for quite some time. More likely, the new executive administration that enters office in January will change the university's classification anyway.

This most recent development in the university's attempt to become a non-profit institution may warrant inclusion in the article (I don't think it does because it's just an inconclusive and intermediate detail). But right now the department still classifies the university as for-profit and that's what the article should reflect. ElKevbo (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

What is your thought on perhaps putting in a reference template/note in the lead for the time being to let readers have the full understanding of what is currently unfolding regarding the status, as stated above? MaximusEditor (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that we should add anything lengthy and detailed as we already have a lot of text about this in the body of the article. But it may be helpful to add a brief footnote that tells readers that this classification is inconsistent among different organizations and is the subject of an active lawsuit with more details in the "History" section of the article. I don't feel strongly enough to add this myself but I won't object if someone else wants to do it. ElKevbo (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of “for profit” designation

The problem with prioritizing the US Dept of Ed’s “for-profit” designation is that it lacks the authority to override the determination of the IRS— the only federal agency which makes the legal “non-profit” designation. Since GCU’s non-profit status is also recognized by the state of Arizona as well as the NCAA, it seems the most accurate presentation would be that GCU is a non-profit with a footnote stating this is disputed by the Dept of Ed. Especially given that the Ninth Circuit remanded the decision back to the Dept of Ed for reconsideration, ruling that the “for-profit” determination was based on inconsistent application of their own standards. BluEyedSoul (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a for-profit university. Any education-related endeavor will be governed by the rules for for-profit educational institutions. The IRS does not govern educational activities.

I guess if you want to donate money to some of the corporate entities which comprise Grand Canyon University, the IRS status with regard to financial regulation could matter. But regarding educational activities it is a for-profit school. -- M.boli (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

>>“It is a for-profit university.”

According to an invalid designation which was set aside by the federal court and returned for reconsideration. Thus any governance as a “for-profit” has been invalidated.

>>“The IRS does not govern educational activities.”

Correct. The invalidated “For-Profit” status is not an “educational activity” but one in which the DOE “invoked the wrong legal standards by relying on IRS regulations that impose requirements that go well beyond the HEA’s requirements…”

From the Ninth Circuit decision (summary):

”The panel held that the Department applied the wrong legal standards in evaluating GCU’s application, and that the Department’s legal error required that its decision be set aside. The Department invoked the wrong legal standards by relying on IRS regulations that impose requirements that go well beyond the HEA’s requirements and instead implement a portion of § 501(c)(3) that has no counterpart in the definition of the term “nonprofit” set forth in HEA § 103(13).”

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/11/08/23-15124.pdf

For the purpose of an accurate entry, GCU is recognized as a non-profit university by the IRS, the accrediting Higher Learning Commission and the State of Arizona. These details suggest that presenting GCU as a “for profit” in the first words of the entry as well as the summary graphic, is not only misleading but conflicts with Wikipedia’s pillar of a “neutral point of view”. BluEyedSoul (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you to view the archives of this Talk page where this issue has been extensively discussed.

In any case, it's only going to take a few months for the Department of Education to be forced to reclassify this institution, whether that's because they lose the lawsuit or because the new presidential administration directs them to do so, so this is eventually going to be changed to comply with your opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Specially being an education scholar and his common sense approach, agree with ElKevbo. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)