Talk:New York College of Health Professions

Uncited Controversy

An IP address added a large controversy section without a single source. I'm moving it to the Talk page in case sources exist. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncited controversy

Controversy There has been much controversy concerning the ongoing degradation of the school. The scope of which includes (but is not limited to) frequent firing of the most popular and effective faculty, lack of communication, poor scheduling of classes--such as claiming to offer full time day, night and weekend study programs, but not offering sufficient classes to support night or weekend students--, poor pass rates for the national boards (40% pass rate was the most recent number being bandied about, but a citation is needed for this), and opening additional campuses while the main campus in Syossett still needs to be addressed in terms of classes, staffing and supplies. Concern has been expressed that the reputation of the school has plummeted over recent years. Many students are embarrassed to name the school they are attending are unlikely to recommend the school to others. Staff try to "keep their heads down" about things in fear of losing their jobs. The school has a respected history, and is in dire need of resuscitation. There is still much value in the school and some exceptional teachers. Reviews that demonstrate some of the controversy: glassdoor.com vastrank.com The school sought and obtained accreditation by the New York State Education Department. The recommendations of the board of regents as part of the accreditation were the following: It is recommended that the Board of Regents accredit New York College of Health Professions for a period of three years ending on May 22, 2010, with the condition that the College: strengthen the role of the faculty in governance; hire faculty with both research experience and a research agenda that can be fulfilled at the College; add resources to support the research emphasis, especially the establishment of an institutional research function; and take the other actions the report recommends for full compliance with all the standards for accreditation. It should be noted that in the years 2010 - 2012, these criteria have not been in place. There have been attempts by faculty to improve their role in governance--as well as that of the student body--and it had seemed that 2012 might bring clinical studies to the school, but the driving force on the faculty for that was driven out of their position. The school is again up for accreditation in January of 2013. It is unknown if there are recommendations for the renewal of accreditation.

He/she appears to be editing as both 67.83.218.204 (talk · contribs) and Ammendmentone (talk · contribs), both single purpose accounts and now in the process of edit warring. He/she just restored it with no significant changes. I suspect this is someone with an axe to grind. Cresix (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ammendmentone here. Both edits were using this account so not sure why only one would be tagged as me, but I'm new to this so I take it as something to investigate. The restore included one additional external link to a site with more reviews/discussions demonstrating the controversy. Cresix pointed out that those do not qualify as reliable sources, and I am currently reading through the WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE articles to better understand the requirements here.

I believe that the controversy is an honest topic and important for anyone researching the college. There is no axe to grind, but knowledge to bring to light. The issue of weight (that the controversy section was large compared to the rest of the article) seems valid to me. My intent was to provide clarity of the issue, rather than be too brief. I will rethink how to achieve a balance of brevity and clarity.Ammendmentone (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; I accept in good faith that you have no axe to grind. I suggest placing potential changes here first for discussion rather than in the article so that any differences can be settled without having to repeatedly make changes in the article. Cresix (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I made what I felt were the necessary edits based on the sources provided. Glassdoor and other crowd-sourced cites are not reliable sources, however there was some good content in documents from the State Education Department. Ammend, feel free to ask if you need any more help. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that someone (not logged in) mad an edit today which was (rightfully) removed. Please note that this was not done by me. I have been explaining to the student body and faculty which are very upset with the administration about proper citations if adding content (opr altering) the Wikipedia page. Of course I cannot control the actions of people, nor is it my place to do so, but what I am doing is continuing to work to obtain citable references. IN particular there has been a flood of complaints to the NYS Dept of Education and I am attempting to see if those are/will be publicly available and when they are I will try to determine if they will be valid citable sources. In the meantime I will continue to explain in the 'real world' that Wikipedia is not a forum for complaint, but a resource for citable fact. Ammendmentone (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While the current article has many problems with primary sources, I don't think we should make the problem worse by adding even more primary sources. On the other hand, if we can document not just that complaints were made, but that they were recognized, evaluated and responded to by an official government source, we would be getting closer. If students and faculty had an organized initiative or movement - like a protest - that was covered by the media, that would be the kind of thing we would be most interested in covering. The fact that complaints have been made or submitted doesn't by itself meet the bar. User:King4057 18:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

patent for LED lighting

Is there a better reliable third party reference for this? The citation makes no mention of New York College of Health Professions only a Donald Spector?Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think, if one looks closely, most of the article's sources don't meet our expectations for reliable sources. For example, the "Reuters" piece is actually a link to a press release re-published by Reuters. However, I leave it alone because it is basically informative and most of the content does not fall under the category of "likely to be contested." I also find myself lenient, because I appreciate the images that have been donated under a free license. User:King4057 18:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

I just noticed this for the first time "as part of the University of the State of New York." Do we normally have articles on individual colleges within a single University? I wonder if we shouldn't merge it with the University of the State of New York page. User:King4057 23:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New York College of Health Professions. 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/20140314163640/http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/5372638/-holyistic-college-to-open-on-upper-west-side-new-york-college-of-health-professions-to-open-new-location-at-the-world-famous-riverside-church to http://www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/5372638/-holyistic-college-to-open-on-upper-west-side-new-york-college-of-health-professions-to-open-new-location-at-the-world-famous-riverside-church
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426070956/http://www.science-news.eu/health-news/cluster89834 to http://www.science-news.eu/health-news/cluster89834

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) 12:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)