Talk:Kaplan, Inc./Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Purdue acquisition of Kaplan University

Hello, I work for Kaplan and would like to make some edits to reflect Kaplan's updated structure now that Purdue University has completed its acquisition of Kaplan University.

I'm proposing updating the Kaplan Higher and Professional Education section (now called Kaplan Higher Education per the company's 10-K SEC filing), to say the following, reflecting the facts that Kaplan Higher Education provides non-academic support to Purdue and that "PACE" is no longer a name in use at the company.

Kaplan Higher Education provides non-academic support for Purdue University Global. In March 2018, Purdue University completed its announced acquisition of Kaplan University with the goal of creating a new public university to expand access to higher education for working adults[1]. The institution is now known as Purdue University Global[2]and offers multiple credentials from certificates to doctoral degrees primarily online but also through fourteen campus locations.[3]

Kaplan Professional assists professionals in advancing their careers by obtaining professional licenses, designations, and certifications, including the insurance, securities, mortgage and appraisal licensing exams, and for advanced designations, such as CFA® and CPA exams. Kaplan Professional serves more than 10,000 business-to-business clients worldwide, offering professional development services tailored to their individual needs. In 2017, approximately 491,000 students used Kapan Professional’s’s exam preparation offerings.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to change some of the language about Stanley Kaplan, as his specific cause of death, for example, isn't relevant to Kaplan's business.

Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The citations need to be cleaned up but the first paragraph looks like mostly ok. The second paragraph has some language that is too promotional or corporate for my taste e.g., "tailored to their individual needs," "advancing their careers." The second paragraph also lacks any citations. The text also lacks any historical context and should include some information about the organization's past as it relates to higher education.

Feel free to propose other language for this or other sections including the parts about Stanley Kaplan. ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! For the second paragraph, I agree with you that "tailored to their individual needs" is a bit promotional. I'll change to "offering tailored professional development services." The other language, "advancing their careers," is actually not new language -- it is already in the article. In terms of sourcing that second paragraph, I was planning on using the same source that's already in the article: the 2017 Annual Report.

One more thing for this Kaplan Higher Education section -- as Schweser is actually part of Kaplan Higher Education, I'd like to move the paragraph about Schweser to go under the Kaplan Higher Education sub-head. Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

For the Stanley Kaplan language, I propose taking out this sentence, which seems more relevant to his personal page: "Stanley H. Kaplan, the founder of the company, died of a heart ailment on August 23, 2009 when he was 90 years of age." I'd also like to change the intro to the page to the following, which more clearly states what Kaplan is up front and then describes where it is based, who founded it, and what is a subsidiary of. Almost no language is deleted/added, just moved around in the same paragraph:

Kaplan, Inc. is a for-profit corporation that provides an array of educational services to colleges and universities and corporations and businesses, which include higher education programs, professional training and certifications, test preparation and student support services. Headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Kaplan was founded in 1938 by Stanley Kaplan and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Graham Holdings Company, formerly known as The Washington Post Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MT wKaplan (talk • contribs) 15:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Acquisitions updates

Hello, I work for Kaplan and would like to update the Acquisitions section. Here's the language I propose using, along with sources.

2015 - SmartPros, a provider of accountancy continuing education.[SOURCE: https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/kaplan-to-acquire-smartpros-for-169-million]

2015 - Mander Portman Woodward (“MPW”), a group of private colleges based in the UK. [SOURCE: https://thepienews.com/news/kaplan-moves-into-secondary-schools-with-sixth-form-acquisition/]

2017 - Genesis Institute, a provider of financial services training. [SOURCE: http://www.tradearabia.com/news/EDU_320857.html]

2017 - The College for Financial Planning, a provider of financial services training. [SOURCE: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/12/15/kaplan-buys-profit-college-apollo]

I'd like to add this as well:

In 2015, Kaplan launched Metis, a data science training provider offering full-time immersive bootcamps, part-time professional development courses, online learning, and corporate programs, with locations in New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago. [SOURCE: https://www.amny.com/lifestyle/nyc-data-science-bootcamp-prepares-students-for-in-demand-career-1.9843825]

Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Overall organization

MT Kaplan asked me about the possible of having a separate article for Kaplan Test Prep , which has ben declined 3 times at Draft: Kaplan Test Prep. Some of the problems involved can best be discussed here: 1. Looking at the group of articles as a whole, many of them need to be revised so the entire article reflects the present status--I made a start on changing some of the is to was. The more significant lawsuits need to be included concisely, even if they were dismissed, & it is necessary to say in general terms what was alleged (I made some preliminary adjustments to these). There also needs to be explicit discussion of possible difficulties associated with student loan regulations, even though some of the regulations themselves are currently in an unsettled state. 2. The main article needs to more directly discuss the overall financial health of the company, for which there are many references, including the industry-standard Chronicle of Higher Education. It also needs to be perspective about the relative reputational and financial importance of the various components; the information seems readily available. 3.In terms of organization of the main article, it is sometimes unclear which of the various firms Kaplan iInc. has acquired have been continued, which merged, and which discontinued. The usual way or organizing such an article would be to have one single list, but this might not handle the sequence of mergers clearly. An alternative presentation would continue the two sections, but with the first including all present and past operating units, and the second a list of acquisitions and their fates; this involves considerable duplication, but might be clearer. It would also be possible to separate into major and other units. Any of these can work if done right. 4. As was observed, sometimes we do make separate articles for subdivisions, but there are many thousands of other potential cases where we do not--our clear preference is for keeping material together. (The general guide, as applied to all sort of long and combination articles, is WP:Summary style, which calls for division when the size would otherwise be excessive.) There are no firm criteria for how to deal with these situations. Looking at prior discussions, the best case for an article on a division is if it does something distinctive from the rest of the company, and is also substantial, as is the case for most of those you cited. But if the subdivision is the major business unit, there can be no point in having a separate article; this also holds if the subdivision is quite minor. There will almost always be a number of examples to be found which are not in conformity with the present rules; it cannot be assumed that the existing articles were done correctly. This unfortunately does provide considerable difficulty to the beginner in figuring out what to do, as the actual current preferred practice can only be learned by experience.,and it is certainly true there is more than one acceptable option. 4a. I have looked at the other Kaplan articles: some of them are clearly justified under our customary practice of making individual articles for universities and free-standing law schools, but I think that others perhaps should be integrated. I think it would be clearer for the various tutorial businesses, both those locally developed and purchased, to be discussed together, and the only place to do this is in the main article. 4. There are some specific concerns for the draft, that are also applicable to some degree in other articles of the series--concerns which are typical of many promotionally oriented articles: (In practice, paid COI editors almost always make these errors, both because they wish to present the material in the manner that the employer would like to be presented, and, much more difficult to eradicate, they naturally tend to use the manner of writing characteristic of PR.

a. The name of the company should not be unnecessarily repeated. Usually, "the firm" or the equivalent is preferable; when possible, a plain "it" is even better. Obviously, some exceptions are necessary in dealing with acquisitions or mergers, where several companies are involved, but even here it is usually possible to use abbreviated names.

b. It is not necessary to discuss the background of the industry. That should be discussed in our more general articles; a link to them is sufficient. If outside writing, an article must be self-contained; an encyclopedia relying on hypertext is different. Emphasizing the problems tends to exaggerate the importance of the particular firm; it also is often used to justify references from Reliable sources that may not even mention the firm or just include it as an example-- this is especially misleading when such references are the only truly reliable sources.

c. It is unwise to emphasize cute origin stories that are ultimately based only on what the founder chooses to say, unless they have been widely discussed. It's more or less standard in magazine articles, but not in encyclopedias. It is especially unwise to emphasize the cuteness of the stories--in this case, the first name of the neighbor that Kaplan initially tutored!

d. a list of services can resemble a catalog. If necessary ,they should at least not be repeated in both the text and a separate list. In this case, it can be assumed that Kaplan offers tutoring for all widely relied on examinations: the only people who might want to know just which are prospective customers, and they are best addressed through the firm's website.

e Cultural references need to be sued with care. It's absurd to list those that are essentially product placements. Those that show the firm's general recognition are in my opinion reasonable, tho.

At present, the draft consists mainly of such material . That's why 3 successive reviewers have declined to accept it into mainspace. If properly written it might not be long enough to justify a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive feedback. This is certainly very helpful in terms of getting things up to standards, and I will work to address your points. MT wKaplan (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk: Kaplan Factual Updates Requested

Hi, I'd like to introduce myself to the Wikipedia community. I work for Kaplan, Inc. and am here to assist with any information requests, proposals or factual clarifications needed specific to Kaplan that I can help resolve. As 2010 has come to a close, I've reviewed the Kaplan, Inc. Wikipedia page and would like to request that the following edits be made to accurately reflect Kaplan stats. I've cited sources as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crw wKaplan (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Updates

I have updated the article -- was fairly stale, with old data and old, confusing information. I also remove lengthy section on mergers that didn't seem to add much in the way of meaning to the article itself. I am considering removing lawsuits section altogether -- every business has them; seems like by including this material here we are treating them harsher than others in their field. (I could not find any evidence of competitor's articles including this type of material, even though they have similar experiences.) Comments welcome.Journalist1983 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I removed lawsuits material because none of its competitors have similar content. That said, if anyone wishes to discuss, I request doing so on this talk page.Journalist1983 (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the material. If information is missing from other articles, the solution is to edit those articles and not remove it from this article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)