Talk:Academy of Art University

GPA and SAT requirements

I don't know what the GPA and SAT and ACT scores are needed for the academy of arts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.132.140 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You won't find them, either, because the AAU doesn't have any enrollment requirements other than money. I was shocked when I first inquired; I was expecting a portfolio review, SAT scores or something, but all they asked for was the tuition fee. (Don't delete this from the talk page, Lwalt, assuming you still work for the school/Stephens) James Dylan (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AAU has a 100% acceptance admissions policy, they have no selection process whatsoever; which has alarmed many due to the fact that they charge a $100 'application fee', which is for processing, not to actually 'apply. Aeonjoey (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC) newspaper article describing the only requirements being "a checkbook and a pulse", there is not even a portfolio submission required, cited here: http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-09-14/entertainment/17441870_1_art-student-academy-room/2 Aeonjoey (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I come back to visit this page after all these years and see it is even more of a marketing brochure than it was before. No mention of any controversies, negative news articles, accreditation issues, etc. I'll put money on it that they hired Wiki-PR to monitor the page for them. Good job, "Doctor" Stephens. I'm still waiting to hear from Lwalt why she is so interested in this school, despite living on the East Coast and seemingly having nothing to do with AAU, but knows everything (positive) about it. I can say my interest is because I attended the school and discovered what a scam it was. She doesn't say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdylan (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of Dr. title

The school is well-known in the Bay Area as an open-enrollment fiasco, and many articles in local newspapers have been written about the Academy's bruised reputation. I hope that wikipedia will continue to weed out the school's marketing language in its article. Strangely, the Stephenses keep appearing as PH. D.'s, though neither Elisa nor her father has earned a doctoral degree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sak7ura (talk • contribs).

Response to Sak7ura (assuming that you posted the unsigned comment above):

I noted with interest your comment about "doctorate" (as in Ph.D or Ed.D) that I saw in your comment posted here. I also shared this concern with another editor, so I'll repost a portion of my response made a while back to that editor (Dynaflow) here). The comment addressed the use of the title "Dr." by Elisa Stephens. I do not know, and have not researched, the background of her father, Richard A. Stephens. Also, the words in brackets were added to the original message that I had posted to the other editor.

During my initial research some time ago, I did not find a doctorate degree that was awarded (earned) for Elisa Stephens, but did find that she has a law (Juris Doctor) degree. She was once the General Counsel of AAU before becoming head of the school.

Because I could not reconcile why Stephens customarily used the title "Dr." before her name (virtually every reference to her name includes the title "Dr."), I looked up the practice at the ABA (American Bar Association) site to find an opinion on this use. According to an article that appeared in the Ethics section of the ABA Journal, lawyers can use the Dr. title, and that's [probably] why Elisa Stephens uses this title as the head of a college ("the ethics committee reversed course in light of the newly adopted ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Disciplinary Rule 2-102 permitted a J.D. or LL.M. (master of law) recipient to use doctor with his or her name, the committee concluded in ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (1970).") [emphasis mine]. Here's the reference to the article:

Maher, K. (2006, November). Lawyers are doctors, too. ABA Journal. Retrieved on April 27, 2007. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to message: I found that the link provided for the source is no longer working. So, after a quick check on Google, I've found two bar associations that either restate or summarize what I've mentioned about ABA Informal Opinion 1152 concerning the use of the "Dr." title by lawyers. You can find the restatement or summary of ABA Informal Opinion 1152 here (from the Utah Bar Association) and here (San Diego County Bar Association), two of several bar associations that have adopted the practice permitted under this ABA opinion. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, man, I can't even remember where I made that comment. Was it here? Anyway, what I believe I said was that university presidents are assumed to have doctorates, and thus referring to them over and over again in an article as "Doctor" (personal affectations notwithstanding) is redundant and actually begins to grate on the reader after a while. Look at almost any other American university article of not and you will see chancellors, presidents, professors, and researchers referred to in a GIVENNAME SURNAME format without titles -- even though they are almost all PhD's, EdD's, JD's, or whatever (British universities might be somewhat different in this regard). [[User:Dynaflow|--Dynaflow babble 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To Dynaflow: No...you didn't say this; I did. I had posted this message about the Dr. title issue a few months back. Look under Academy of Art University article (or something like that) on your user page. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. It's been a while, and everything has kind of glommed together in my memory. I stand fully behind what you said, then. =) [[User:Dynaflow|--Dynaflow babble 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Lawyers deciding to call themselves Doctors:

I am a graphic designer, and I am going to propose that all us designers use the Doctor title before our names, if it is that easy. Also, since Stephens isn't a practicing attorney, would this apply to her? What are the requirements, anway? As long as you passed the state bar, you can call yourself a Doctor, even if you aren't practicing law? What a scam. I wouldn't have a problem if there was some rank structure, as in you teach law as a professor and actually have a PhD, or are a judge with 40 years service. This is really nonsense, as common knowledge is clear; you have to have a PhD to use the Doctor title in your name. Leave it to lawyers to make their own rules. If they can do it, why can't any group of professionals? Obviously, this isn't a common habit among lawyers, as this is the first I have ever heard of it, but leave it to Elisa Stephens to pull this out of the closet to help give the AAU (and herself) some unearned respectability.James Dylan 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on my earlier post and without getting too far off course in the improvement of the article (after all, this Talk page is not supposed to stand in as a springboard for personal views and substitute as a chat board), the opinion of the ABA (American Bar Association) and state bar associations regarding the "Doctor" title IS what it is -- from my 15 year previous experience at law firms, some use "Dr." (as in Dr. John Doe, lawyer), while others use J.D. (Juris Doctor) designation after the name (as in John Doe, J.D.). I'm more familiar with the latter use. So, the Juris Doctor degree can be looked upon in the same way as, for example, the Doctor of Management (DM) degree -- merely, a business professional degree rather than a medical degree (and we won't even get into the debate that some look at the M.D. degree more as a Masters degree, rather than a true doctorate). And yes...the ABA and state bar associations DO make the rules for both licensed practicing and licensing non-practicing lawyers. I'm betting 100% that Stephens retained her law license as a member of the bar (a licensed lawyer is entitled to do that) - too valuable to relinquish since she can get reciprocity if needed to practice in any court of the land as long she remains in good standing with her own state bar.

Now, I'll get back on topic here...Is there anything that you want to to offer or add about this issue that could be used to improve upon the article? I think the consensus on the Dr. issue some time back was to leave off the title, but not for the reason that you alluded to. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio discussion

Sorry, I did not see that the copyright was on the meta tag. (Unsigned by User:Amorrow).

A replacement article for a copyvio text should be written on a temp page. Anyway, what is there now is still copyvio from [1]. There is nothing in the old article that can be used, as it is all copied from the webpage of the university, and it all has to be rewritten in the temp page. Please restore the copyvio message now. I'll put the template here for the time being. It can then be moved to the temp page. Uppland 29 June 2005 06:28 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. I have not done institutions before, just people. I tried to use the content from my old alma mater, RPI as a model. I will try harder. I did do some work: I have visit the Academy and took their campus tour and stuff, so I am trying hard to get up to speed on it. I really have to wonder if the Academy has a motto. I will contact the Admissions dept. and find out... Amorrow 29 June 2005 23:16 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear before. When there is a copyvio, one is supposed to restart the article at a temporary page, like this: Academy of Art University/temp. Later, when the copyvio version is deleted, the new article will be moved into place at the proper title. That way one avoids having copyrighted text in the beginning of the history of the article. Uppland 1 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

A bit of a puff piece

This is a frankly bizarre list of issues - almost non of which are true. This school, like any other, has it's weaknesses, but 'reputation' and 'placement rate' really are not amongst them. The standard of teaching is quite phenominal, and facilities second to only a few (far more expensive) private art schools in the US.

Some of this sounds like Academy of Art marketing material. They actually have a terrible reputation (a terrible repuation with who?) . The claim: "the Academy of Art University boasts a high job placement rating upon graduation, with 80% of graduates finding employment in fields related to their majors" needs a cite, preferably from some source other than Academy of Art.

The + 80% placement rate is a figure audited every year for their accreditation. If you would like a site - I'm sure Academy of Art University would be happy to provide one.

I went ahead and deleted that section. I considered changing it to read "the Academy claims a high job placement rating" but couldn't find an obvious source for that, even. If anybody would like to add it back, feel free but please provide a source for the 80% figure, which seems fairly dubious for any art school. -- thither 09:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The link to Elisa Stephens saying the school has an 80% to 100% placement is here - [[2]]

Despite their claim to be a "university", Academy of Art is accredited more like a trade school. Compare [their accrediation list] with [this list of major accreditation agencies].

The Academy of Art University is a for-profit college (like a trade school, but they are accredited). This means, among other things, that students are not protected under Educational Law, but only under Consumer Law. Potential students should consider this carefully.

[A CBS story about a for-profit university] Again, bizarre posting - this school has nothing to do with Academy of Art University.

--

Also see this article about their business model, this article about issues with firing faculty, and this [[3]] article about the profits they make from student housing].--Larrybob 19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Extensive Revisions for the Content

Not the original author, but decided to clean up and revise content of article to "neutralize" the some of negative bias (in the External links section, most of the links referred to news stories and editorials about same event rather than new information about the school, so I used some of those as references and removed others that duplicate what has been already cited). I've also added sections for some of the content to improve readability (can't find anything on the page if it's a "sea of gray," making the page hard to read) added citations for much of the information mentioned in the article's article original version, and added notes where citations are needed, especially. if I could not find information to substantiate those claims. Finally, I added a Trivia section, and moved one of the links from the External links section to that area. The article should now reflect a bit more balance between information about the school's good and bad points. Hopefully, this article is and will remain in good form for the most part and that its current format is acceptable to everyone. lwalt 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP....

Did a few more things to correct some things in the article (e.g., correct formats of citations, remove duplicate reference), clarify areas (distinguished accredited programs), and so on. Also, corrected the name of the organization that Rushdie was affiliated with from "PEN Faulkner Association" to "PEN American Center" (source: http://penusa.org/go/news/comments/campaign-for-reader-privacy-voice-of-america-press-conference). Thanks to the previous editor who helped improve the article! lwalt 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Article content was heavily redacted during Illustrator12's edits between 19-21 March 2007. Specifically, ALL negative information was pared away, and what was left sounded as if it was written by a PR firm or marketing department. Illustrator12's only contributions to Wikipedia have been those edits of this page.

Without accusing AAU of being responsible for the suspicious edit, I will say that using a Wikipedia page as a brochure or erasing someone else's work in order to bring one's Wikipedia page more into line with one's marketing strategy is dishonest and reproachful. I have reverted the page to lwalt's last edit and sent Illustrator12 a warning on deleting material. Dynaflow 06:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Student Newspaper/Website to Controversy

I was the creator and one of the 6 students that ran the paper and site for 3 years, and I added the section. It is probably too much, so feel free. James Dylan 19:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to present or debate grievances or the reputations of living persons and organizations. See Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. lwalt 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write that section as a grievance nor intend it to be a soapbox. I wrote about a group of students that revolted against the admin and started a website and paper against the admin and wrote about their issues. Just out of curiosity, I noticed that you take an exceptional interest in the AAC entry here on wikipedia, and am just wondering why? What is your connection to the school?James Dylan 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Although you've heavily edited your addition, still need verifiable references for material that you've added. As you can see, the previous info in the controversy has been well-sourced. For help, please refer to the Wikipedia sections that were provided to you earlier. And no...not associated with the Academy of Art University. I take lots of interest in many things (By the way, I'm also a major editor of the James Brown article, but I'm not related to him, to answer your concern about interest or participation in writing/editing articles). I'm a professional editor by trade, and I participate in writing/editing Wikipedia articles as a editor on a volunteer basis only.lwalt 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am working on as many as I can, but I have a question. I wrote that the school doesn't have a student body, and I know they don't, but does that mean I can't write it? The school is a private business and doesn't want one, and they are not obligated to have one. I am sure that every single thing I write doesn't have to be "proven", as I wouldn't be able to write anything! I created the underground paper and website, but took them down in 2002 when I graduated, but how am I supposed to "prove" it with a verifiable source? If this is the case with everything, nothing would get written. yes, the school has a bad reputation among prior students and in the art industry, but how can you prove that? It is almost common knowledge. I am not trying to be a jerk, but there is A LOT of negative news and feelings about the school and resentment amongst ex-students that is important to be put on this page as it is part of the school. I am past it all, but want future student or those looking around, to have the info.James Dylan 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand...your contribution is POV and subject to removal by any editor as I've mentioned, since others might deem your contribution to be sensational, questionable or exhibit apparent bias. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, blog, news reporting source or place to promote personal essays and advance an advocacy for a particular point of view. Some of the information that you've included have been removed previously by another editor as having dubious value within the realm of an encyclopedic article (see the "A bit of a puff piece" section below for this discussion). The information has to be in perspective to events related directly to the school (your contribution refers to an off-campus activity, which suggests that the activity was indirectly related to the school as a consequence of attendance at the school by you and other former students). Most importantly, the information must be verifiable through an independent public, non-promotional source, especially if the content is controversial. These are Wikipedia's guidelines...its rules govern what's permissible for this online encyclopedia. As you've noticed, the material in the Controversies section is well-sourced through independent sources. In spite of that, I've already received feedback in a previous peer review that the article is already imbalanced...that is, little information is given for the university's side of the argument. Therefore, I plan to "neutralize" the article at a future date to further remove POV and evident bias, as suggested by feedback from the Wikipedia peer review. So, yes...if you allege it, then you're required to back up the assertions through credible, public, non-promotional sources. Otherwise, it's subject to removal by any editor.

As for your concerns, see Wikipedia: Citing Sources, Wikipedia: Reliable Sources, Wikipedia: Attribution and Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. You can also consult with a Wikipedia administrator for clarification and further assistance about issues raised in your replies. Hope this helps. lwalt 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I maintain a website, and I plan to put back up the "student issues" pages that I ran before, but I will clean it up and modernize it and make it more presentable, but all the emails sent to me will be posted, and my entire experience will be on it, and I will put a link to it at the bottom of the AAC page. I'm sure you or Wiki Admin won't have an issue with that. I also have or saved several articles from credible newspapers in SF that are critical of the school and I don't see those links listed below, and I plan to add them. Also, I read your previous post about your interest in AAC, but it puzzles me as to..why? If you are not associated to the school, never attended it and are not related to Stephens, then why do you have such an interest in maintaining such attention to detail such as the accreditation status, application for, etc. You don't even have a Wiki user page. Sorry to be paranoid, but I don't trust it's president to not hire somebody to tediously maintain the AAC page to make sure nothing (too) negative is posted, seeing as how the school generates over $100 million a year for her. It just seems like there are too many (negative) issues with AAC for them not to be listed in Wikipedia. I also plan to work on the "controversies" page with credible sources.James Dylan 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to offer an unsolicited third opinion on this subject, because it seems one is needed. James Dylan, several lines of thought in which you seem to be indulging -- particularly in implying that a member of the editorial community, who strives to help the Wikipedia project by bringing a controversy-laden article into line with Wikipedia's accepted guidelines, must somehow be in league with whichever "side" of the controversy s/he makes "look better" -- strike me as being exceptionally paranoid. One of Wikipedia's core tenets is to assume good faith, and you seem to be doing the opposite.

This page has been "subverted" suspiciously before (it was actually lwalt's work that was erased in this instance), and it definitely bears watching for vandalism and other violations of Wikipedia policy. However -- Wikipedia is not a forum. It is not an extension of Consumer Reports or the Better Business Bureau. It is an encyclopedia, and it needs to keep as neutral and objective a viewpoint toward its subjects as it can. By loading the article with controversy and bad noise, one takes the article just as out-of-balance as somebody who, as in the above-referenced edit, blanks the page and inserts AAU marketing copy. Please familiarize yourself with what, exactly, Wikipedia is (start with what Wikipedia is not) and don't be so suspicious of good-faith editing or editors. We're just trying to make the encyclopedia better, one edit at a time. We welcome your input; we just wish you'd trust ours. --Dynaflow 07:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO JDylan - Information that is POV will be removed from the article as failing to follow the Wikipedia NPOV (Neutral Point of View) guidelines. In certain cases, inclusion of this material against Wikipedia policies might be viewed by some editors as vandalism.

As for inclusion of info about "student issues" pages that you manage or were managing -- an activity not sponsored by the subject university, along with inclusion of information about your personal experience with the school, links to other unrelated information such as email messages, the Wikipedia administration will likely view your actions as violation of its policies. From all appearances, you imply that you plan to use Wikipedia articles as a personal platform to present yours and other's negative experiences with the school. This activity is considered advocacy, which is definitely not a neutral point of view and certainly inappropriate in the encyclopedia context.

Again...'Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia.' As I have and now another editor have already mentioned to you, Wikipedia is not an avenue for venting, staging personal attacks, a forum for discussing or debating personal grievances or issues, nor is Wikipedia a soapbox, a blog, a linkserve used for disseminating news, a newspaper, your diary or journal, personal web site or personal platform for advocating a particular point of view. Wikipedia is also not an extension of Consumer Reports or the Better Business Bureau. In addition, using the Talk page for these same purposes would also violate Wikipedia's guidelines. Talk pages are to be used for conducting discussions about improving articles. Improving this article does not include advocating your personal point of view based on your personal experience for an event held off campus that was not sponsored or directed by the subject university. You have already stated that you had created the web site that will become the subject of the section, which means that you are using Wikipedia articles as your personal web page to disseminate information related to your (and others) personal experience.

I strongly recommend that you refer to Wikipedia: Citing Sources, Wikipedia: Reliable Sources, Wikipedia: Attribution and Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View or consult with a Wikipedia administrator for clarification and further assistance. lwalt 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

One question, guys, I saw that under the Accreditation title, lwalt changed my comment about the AAU lacking WASC accreditation. He changed it back to "AAU has applied for" it. AAU has been applying for and has been declined accreditation since I first attended 10 years ago, which is a reason some schools won't accept transfer credits from them (which I found out the hard way). This is why I feel lwalt is a hack for AAU. They won't get approved because they would need to have full-time instructors, which AAU does not have. Lwalt is sugarcoating it to make it look like they have applied and will get it, but that has been going on for who knows how long, at least since 97. You guys don't feel this is noteworthy? Also, how do you know all this, lwalt? Also, how do you know all the minute details about their application status? I tried to find this out too, but couldn't. I also couldn't see why lwalt deleted my comment on the school revenue in the intro, I didn't see that as controversial or one-sided. Thanks. James Dylan 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

James Dylan, please DO NOT remove other editors' contributions from discussion pages. That is considered vandalism and is also perceived as intellectually dishonest. Also, talk of "hacks" constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. I have restored the last version of this page saved by lwalt and pasted in your latest response (above). This version necessarily includes both contributions of lwalt's and of your own which you redacted. --Dynaflow 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just removing lines I put in, repetitive, etc., no vandalism intended. I didn't think removing comments form the discussion page was bad, as lwalt already wrote me to not use this page for discussion. I will leave it alone.James Dylan 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that that's taken care of... James Dylan is correct, I think, in wanting to add AAU's difficulties in getting WASC accreditation to the article. That has been AAU's major albatross for at least as long as I've been in the Bay Area and have been aware of AAU's existence. Not including it would be like doing an article on Bill Clinton without mentioning Whitewater, and I think it can be mentioned without this article degenerating from an encyclopedia article into a smear piece. If possible, whatever information we use (and cite!) should come from WASC itself, rather than questionable (in the literal, not the pejorative, sense) secondary sources, in order to avoid venturing too close to the frontiers of Libel Land. We should also make sure that it does not become the obsessive focus of the article, but retains its proper station as a part of the whole. --Dynaflow 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[Addendum (response to a response written while I was writing my own response): This page is for discussion. What it is not for is attempting to circumvent the editorial process by assuring that things that have been deemed improper for an article are included "somewhere, anywhere" in Wikipedia. I was not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, by the way. I was just pointing out how such redactions are generally perceived by the Community. --Dynaflow 21:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)]

Thanks for putting up with me, I AM a little new here and learning boundries. I will back off and just observe for now and discuss first without making changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdylan (talk • contribs) 15:22, 12 April 2007 (PDT).

Restored content deleted from Controversies section

I'm recording my rationale here for rolling back the deletion.

I restored the content about the expulsion of a student that was deleted from the Controversies section. The person who deleted the content stated the reason for removing the content as the "section does not have any relevance to the controversy "rapid growth and acquisition of numerous buildings throughout San Francisco." However, the subsection "Controversies" did not state or imply implicitly or explicitly that the content referred to acquisitions of building for expanding the school. Also, the deletion of the the content about the expelled student (and the instructors who were fired) could lead the reader to wonder whether the a point of view was expressed through the removal (i.e., prospective students who might form opinions about the school perhaps?) -- especially given that the incident was widely reported and framed in the context of reaction to other violent events, such and the Cho killings at Virginia Tech and the 9-11 tragedy. The deletion of the content about the expelled student, dismissal of instructors connected with that incident, and shutdown of the school newspaper are controversies connected to (and are part of the history of) the Academy of Art University. And yes, these events were indeed "Controversies" as indicated by its subheading. Therefore, the deleted content is right back where it belongs under the subheading Controversies -- relevant controversies surrounding actions by the school that generated much public debate and discussion on both sides. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060903045751/http://www.academyart.edu/majors/accreditation.html and other pages of the website of the school. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In order to be sure of removing the substantial copyright violations from more than seven years ago I have been obliged to revert to an old version of the article. This means that some valuable later additions may have been lost, and will need to be restored (with reliable independent sources, of course); I'm sorry about that. It also means that a mass of later WP:COI edits have been removed. I am particularly curious as to why the removal of the entire Controversies section was allowed to stand; while it was (in my personal opinion) disproportionately large and detailed in relation to the rest of the article, it was apparently well referenced and relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Academy of Art Urban Knights

Not enough here to justify a separate article, and probably insufficient notability also (teams need to satisfy WP:ORG) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree - I believe this article can be expanded if someone took the time to do it. Corkythehornetfan^(talk) 02:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, there is so little reliable information, it is hard to see how this is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaconaFrere (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Land Use & Building Permit Violations

The Academy of Art University has a history of unresolved building violations with the City of San Francisco. The Academy owns more than 40 buildings throughout the city. SF city officials and community members have raised concerns about the safety and living standards in the Academy's converted dormitories. For decades, the city was unaware of how many structures the school owned, let alone that it had, repeatedly, illegally converted structures into student housing without bothering to obtain city permission. In 2012, SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera advised the Planning Department to issue notices of violation and penalties.

News media coverage of AAU violations is extensive, hence this issue merits inclusion in the main article. Other citations follow:

ABC News , San Francisco Chronicle-SFGate , San Francisco Weekly , San Francisco Examiner The last citation to the The Examiner article includes, in part:

"The for-profit Academy of Art University's 2295 Taylor St. location appears from the outside to fit in nicely with the two- and three-story buildings in its North Beach locale. But the building is a thorn in San Francisco's side.

That's because it was illegally converted from a 5,000-square-foot commercial space, and garage, into a 20,000-square-foot school site.

When the building was inspected by the Planning Department, there were still parking stall lines painted on the ground, said Scott Sanchez, The City's zoning administrator.

"It's very clearly a garage, but they were teaching kids in a garage," he said.

The property -- which received its latest violation notice April 25 and will be assessed daily fines of $250 unless things are rectified -- is just one of the university's more than 22 properties across The City that have had code violations for a litany of issues stretching over a decade..."

Theaternearyou (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the sources; I don't think the blog can be cited, but the others seem to me reliable enough. There seems to be ample material to start a Criticism or Controversy section, with due care to keep it neutral and not disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article. Then we can sit back and see how long it takes for another COI editor to show up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

COI editing

AdamNisbet has made a large number of edits here recently, all more or less promotional in intent. A recent edit summary reads "This is a minor edit to include Tom Bertino with 3 citations and linking to his wikipedia page which already links to us". Can we take it, then, AdamNisbet, that you are editing here on behalf of the school, and that you receive financial reward of some nature from that school? If so, please read our guidelines on conflict of interest editing with great care, and most particularly where they read:

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question. Wikimedia's Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation".

There's more about paid editing in the FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions. You are of course welcome to suggest improvements to the article on the talk page, this page. You can use {{Request edit}} to attract the attention of other editors, who will then decide whether or not the proposed edit should be made. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User Justlettersandnumbers forgot to sign his discussion with four tildes AdamNisbet (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC). AN AdamNisbet (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The faculty additions are verifiable and accurate. There is no conflict of interest in reporting these facts when they have been properly documented and follow the guidelines presented by Wikipedia. I will present images only offered within wikimedia commons and that each new entry is backed by reputable sources. All of the individuals either have their own Wikipedia documentation or have numerous sources confirming their relation to the university, as well as to the notable projects they have worked on.

I see that there is a bit of opinion and assumption aired out here on the discussion page, I hope that none of these personal opinions or bias go into denying factual updates to the page or policing the right of individuals to present factual evidence for the public benefit of access to factual information and or educational information that would certainly be found as helpful to the public at large. There will be ongoing edits and I look forward to working with the admins to ensure nothing on this page is published that hasn't passed a three-fold factual analysis based on the citations from reputable sources within the public domain. 4Tildes AdamNisbet (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

AdamNisbet, have you understood that if you are connected to the school you have a conflict of interest as it is defined here, in Wikipedia? It doesn't matter whether you see it as such or not. Have you also understood that if you receive financial reward for editing here (as would be the case if you were, say, a marketing officer), then you are obliged under our terms of use to declare it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Citing Forbes articles by Katia Savchuk

For all concerned users, I have removed a reference to a Forbes article by Katia Savchuk. The reason for this is that this author has demonstrated an ongoing obsession with the university in the wake of her article entitle "Black Arts: The $800 Million Faimly Selling Art Degrees and False Hopes". See at https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aforbes.com+katia+savchuk+academy+of+art+university&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b a list of her articles for Forbes about the university - all of which cover the university in a less than positive light, and all of which reference back to her original article. Certainly, I feel that using other references which have not shown such a clear agenda would be more appropriate moving forward. Feel free to weigh in here if you feel differently.185.104.185.19 (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And I've put it back. Forbes is an independent reliable source by our standards, I believe (if you disagree, you could raise this at the reliable sources noticeboard. Ms Savchuk may indeed have some prejudice against the school and/or its owners; if so, from what I can see, she's very far from being alone in that. We weigh sources on their reputation, not on their goodwill or otherwise towards the topic of the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Car collection

I first slimmed down, and then removed completely, a section on a car collection. The article said it belonged to the school, but Forbes is quite categoric that it belongs to the family, has 250 cars, is worth $70 m, and was financed with profits from the school and from real property. Is there any reason to doubt Forbes on this (see, for example, the section above this)? Because I don't see what relevance it could have here if that is the case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are numerous reasons: 1) The text below the video says what you asserted above, but if you actually watch the video itself, it shows that the cars are on display at AAU and that the students in the car design program were the impetus for the collection. 2) This article directly contradicts the hastily written video subject line on Forbes. The writer spoke directly to the museum's coordinator who clarified that "more than half belong to the Stephens family; the others are property of AAU." 3) Whether or not the cars themselves belong to the university, the museum is called the "Academy of Art University Auto Museum" and has been made available to students as part of their studies (though, admittedly, how much access the students typically utilize seems to be a matter of contention). For now, I feel it is legitimate to re-add the scaled down version which you worked on before removal. If you disagree, please let me know why. 89.249.73.163 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Courses Section

I have re-added the recently deleted courses section to this article. While I agree with Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) that such a list of courses offered would normally violate WP:LAUNDRY, this seems to be the standard for universities in this niche:

• Rhode Island School of Design
• Ringling College of Art and Design
• California Institute of the Arts
• Pratt Institute
• Savannah College of Art and Design
• Maryland Institute College of Art
• etc.

In fact, when compared to these and other universities, this section seems like it should be given *more* weight, certainly not less. After all, when considering a university, presumably one of the greatest areas of interest is in the programs of study. If any editor disagrees, please feel free to explain why. 89.249.73.236 (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Fashion Week Reference

Since Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) did not respond or revert the edits that I re-instituted per the two sections above, I thought it prudent to revisit some of the other edits that he/she previously reverted for unclear reasons. My first objection is with regard to his/her reversion of the edit to the following sentence: "In 2005, it became the first art university to be invited to exhibit student work at New York Fashion Week biannually."

The sources cited were the university's designer page on Fashion Week's website and Fashionista. The designer page on Fashion Week's website shows links to different galleries for the university's collections in the Fashion Week shows clearly labeled for Fall & Spring for every year since 2008 other than 2011. This clearly proves the biannual claim. While the text on the side was presumably produced from university marketing materials as the editor claimed, the galleries look to be photos taken by the show's photographers and should constitute a reliable source.

As for the "first" claim - consider the Fashionista page which states that the university is "The only fashion school that shows during New York Fashion Week." Now obviously this page is out of date since it was written as there are now other schools which show during Fashion Week as well. However, While the editor who reverted this edit claimed that this page was "reproducing the publicity materials of the school itself", a simple Google search for any of the quotes provided will prove that this is not the case as these quotes are not used anywhere else on the web.

I look forward to discussing this matter with my fellow editors in case I have missed something! 89.249.73.83 (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Online Courses Reference

As per the section above, I'd like to raise the issue of another edit which was reverted for unclear reasons by editor Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs). In this instance, the editor removed the following sentence: "Courses are offered online with part or full-time options." The sources used were the university's listings on Peterson's and US News & World Report. The editor's reason for reverting in this case was that "neither of those sources says that teaching is online."

Once again, the editor seems to have missed the relevant references. On Peterson's, if you click "More..." in the Overview section, there is a subheading labeled "Flexible online learning". Similarly, on the US News & World Report listing, there is a button in the right column which directs to their online programs overview here. This page allows you to browse the options for bachelor's degrees or graduate education via the menus in the left column. These sources could not be more clear to me, but I would love to hear if another editor feels I have missed something here as well. 89.249.73.83 (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Accreditation Reference

Continuing the trend from the previous two sections, I'd like to raise a final issue surrounding another edit which was reverted for unclear reasons by editor Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs). In this instance, the editor removed the following half of a sentence: "while the Bachelor of Architecture program was granted a 3-year term of initial accreditation as of January 1, 2015." The source used here was the university's listing on the National Architecture Accrediting Board. The editor's reason for reverting in this case was that the edit was "not in the source cited."

Again, I'm not sure what source the editor was looking at because the page clearly states that the school's Bachelor of Architecture program has been accredited since January 1, 2015, and is scheduled for their next visit in 2018 (3 years later). I once again formally request that if I've missed something important here, could someone please let me know? 89.249.73.83 (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That page is 404 [4], which together with the fact that in your edit from today (I assume it was you, feel free to correct me in case that is not true) you gave the access date as "May 22, 2016" raises the question whether you even looked at the source. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi HaeB (talk · contribs), thanks for your feedback. I apologize for the miscommunication and would like to clarify my position here. 1) I am not sure what happened to the NAAB page since I posted, but if you look at Google's cache of the page from August 26, you will see that the information I mentioned was present there as recently as a couple of weeks ago at least. It seems that the website is currently undergoing changes, because other similarly structured URLs for other schools are also showing 404 errors. Any idea how I would go about citing this source given these website changes? 2) Regarding the access date, I apologize if I did not follow protocol. I simply copied the edit from May when the source was presumably accessed, because, as mentioned, I felt that this edit was reverted without proper merit given Wikipedia's guidelines. If you can help me solve point #1, I am happy to update the access date when re-posting this edit. 89.249.73.80 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

More than one contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolving issues on the Talk page

I have raised what I believe are legitimate issues on the Talk page concerning:

• Car collection
• Courses section
• Fashion Week reference
• Online courses reference
• Accreditation reference

Instead of responding to what I believe are logical arguments presented in cooperative language, @Justlettersandnumbers: ignored me completely, until he/she finally dealt the “COI” card. I believe this is an “ad hominem” attack, as per Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, if not actually name calling, going against the fundamental Wikipedia policy of “assuming good faith.” Perhaps it has been a problem that I have posted anonymously, and therefore have not gained respect, so I am now a registered user, to ask one more time, for Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) to address my concerns, which I feel are legitimate, before I take these issues to Dispute resolution. Freespeechman (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your dismissive comments about "the 'COI' card": Does this mean that you reject the advice given by Justlettersandnumbers in #Conflict_of_interest above, including the request to respect the Terms of Use? Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @HaeB:, thanks for your reply. I fully accept the advice offered by @Justlettersandnumbers:, however the advice does not apply to me. I am not sure why this advice was offered to me in the first place, since (as noted previously) I feel that all of the edits that I suggested are relevant to the article's subject and are firmly rooted in reliable sources so as to comply with Wikipedia' guidelines. In fact, if anything it seems that the reversions being continually made by Justlettersandnumbers suggest something of a vested interest in censoring any non-negative information about the subject, violating WP:NPOV. I'd be more than open to any specific feedback and/or tweaks to edits that I've made, but the editor in question refuses to participate in any sort of productive discussion on the matter. Please advise if you believe there is a route that I have not taken in resolving this disagreement. Otherwise, I have no choice other than formal WP:Dispute Resolution." Freespeechman (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Program of study

Added this new section to keep this Wikipedia article in sync with other similar articles such as Maryland Institute College of Art, Savannah College of Art and Design, Pratt Institute, California Institute of the Arts, Ringling College of Art and Design, Rhode Island School of Design and many others. The names of the programs are capitalized as they are the names of the programs and are written that way in both sources. Please enjoy this new section which makes the Wikipeidia more informative and useful for readers. Thank-you. Freespeechman (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

On-line courses

I added the following statement to the "History, accreditation and teaching section": "Courses are offered online with flexible scheduling options for students." It is backed up by two independent, reliable, third party sources. Freespeechman (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Fashion Week

Added the important information that AAU has been participating in New York's extremely important Fashion Week event since 2005. Although AAU was the first, and for many years they were the only fashion school that participated in this event, I did not include that bit of information because it was difficult to prove it with the sources at hand. However the fact that they participate, and the year they began, 2005, is well-documented and should remain a part of this Wikipedia article. Freespeechman (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about Changes to Lead

I have a concern about the second paragraph of the lead where it mentions the hearings. It seems to me that unless a controversy is of such major proportions that it has become a defining event in the subject at hand, it should not be in the lead. Especially now that the lawsuit has been settled, it seems it should just be mentioned as part of the history of the school, and not a major event worthy of the lead. I took a look at some other art schools' wikis, and I wasn't able to find even one other case where a controversy such as this was placed in the introduction. There was one particularly serious case, (California Institute of the Arts), where a university was the subject of a federal investigation concerning how they mishandled *rape* allegations made by a student, and yet even this was not placed in the introduction. Reading the Wiki manual of style, the footnote next to the guidelines for the intro section cautions editors not to give undue attention to less important controversies in that section. I am asking if other editors (such as @HaeB:) therefore agree that the sentences about the controversy should be moved down to the History section? Cornflakecraze (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academy of Art University. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160406060713/http://www.gwangju2015.kr/IRS/eng/zb/engzb_athletics_biography_overview_n6309327_ajomale_mobolade_abimbola.htm to http://www.gwangju2015.kr/IRS/eng/zb/engzb_athletics_biography_overview_n6309327_ajomale_mobolade_abimbola.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/project-runway-all-stars/season-3/designers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)