Talk:ITT Technical Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias

The person who put in the {bias} tag could have just moved the 'burnout' sentence to a seperate section or pulled it into talk. The rest of the article seems pretty straightforward. I'll pull it and put it in discussion. Chairboy 5 July 2005 15:18 (UTC) BLAH BLAH BLAH Here's the disputed sentence (and what anonymous IP guy should have done in the first place instead of pulling bias tag out) for modification: Although accredited, it is often criticized for offering a low quality education, with grades and credits most other schools and university systems refuse to acknowledge. Since 1990, several hundred thousand complaints against ITT have been registered with the Federal Office of Accreditation and Finance, ranging from the impossible demands of its hours, questionable dealings to qualify for government aid and the hiring of "burnouts" from various industries, many of them foreign to the United States and unable to speak English clearly. I suggest put a 'controversy' section together, and npov the above. Chairboy 5 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Well, an anonymous user just put together a controversy section, but it has some pretty serious NPOV issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ITT_Technical_Institute&curid=489521&diff=18271859&oldid=18195526 I'll go fix it in a bit if the original author doesn't.- Chairboy 6 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

blah blah blah

Hey, yo, what's up? I've been seeing those annoying IIT commercials everyday since my summer has began... and being a computer science and mathematics major at an accredited institution (Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI), I don't overly like the fact that some people get degrees form IIT for basically nothing, and I find the school to be deplorable, a "diploma mill," as is sometimes put. Anyway, I came to this article to actually find out from non-elitists what this school was all about, and I found this article, this is flamebait at best, I've learned little that I didn't already know, and actually dislike the article-writer more than I dislike IIT's philosophy because they are abusing a free encyclopedia used to educate to their own end. Finally, I will leave you with this: flamebait at best.

Hey, yo hombre, feel free to correct any mistakes. I've fixed most of the pov stuff, but I don't have anything to do with ITT, just a wikipedia guy. Please sign your discussion with ~~~~. - Chairboy 05:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I'm left with two pretty sizable disadvantages when it comes to bringing this page up to quota again, and that's that I don't know any wiki-language and I don't know too much about ITT, except for it disgusts me, and that's why I came here anyway. Well, besides that, I linked it back to the ITT website, and if there's anything else that I can do, I'll try to pick that up...

Anon to Chairboy and Friends: knock yourselves out making the article seem as "non-biased" as possible, although the effect you will achieve is just being shills for this corrupt corporation. When something stinks like sh-t, it's very hard to call it roses with a straight face.

As more facts about ITT's legal criminal enterprise are gathered, they will, on their own, validate any supposed bias. The intention of the Controversy section is not flamebait. Since 'Marquette' here avoided the diploma mill trap of ITT, why he 'hates' it is beyond the scope of this missive. If I can save one dumb kid from making the most expensive mistake of his and his folk's lives, it'll be worth it to expose these ITT bastards. The facts support my reporting. The only "abuse" of this 'free' encyclopedia (CAVEAT EMPTOR) other than vandals is turning a valid entry into an advertisement for a crappy non-school like ITT.

I hear you, but keep in mind that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to warn people off or judge, it is to present the known facts without bias. I don't know anything about ITT either, but I do know a little about NPOV. Look at Enron for an example: Here is a company that is quite clearly superbadnumberone villain, but the article works hard to avoid yelling "DEATH TO ANDREW FASTOW!!! AYAYAYAYAYAYAYAAEEEEEE!", no matter how much he might deserve it. It describes, with clinical detachment, what Enron was and what happened during the fall. The ITT article, no matter how legit or not the company is, should strive for the same reporting of facts. The Controversy section is a perfect place to document allegations that can be backed up by news items & facts, and I hope that it develops going into the future, because I've heard bad stuff about ITT too, but I don't have those resources, so my hope is that someone who knows the facts and can keep NPOV intact can document it. - Chairboy 17:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to clear something up here, I'm not saying the discussion page is flamebait, I don't think that's possible, discussion is a person's opinions, but the article should give as unbiased approach to calling IIT ugly as possible. Yes, IIT is a diploma mill, but it doesn't need to be said with biased, is needs to be stated like every other fact should be on this free encyclopedia, and taken into interpretation at face value.

IIT (Illinois Institute of Technology) is not a diploma farm, it's among the better science schools in the nation, but ITT Tech is.

If there is evidence that supports that ITT Tech is not what this article seems to say it is, and it is purposely being left out, then it does not have a NPOV. However, if the controversy section is representative of the evidence of what kind of a school ITT Tech is, then the section has a perfectly NPOV. Daniel 22:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we just revert to before 24.96.25.65's additions, take a deep breath, and start fresh regarding the "controversy," using information that we can source? There's all this crazy talk on this page, and then... nothing. No one has done anything with the NPOV dispute in about a month. This article cannot stay in NPOV limbo forever! --Jacqui M Schedler 14:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, since something needed to be done, I removed the following piece from the article, because there was no source given. I have archived it here in case of a dispute:

Since 1990, several hundred-thousand complaints against ITT have been registered with the Federal Office of Accreditation and Finance, with reasons ranging from "impossible schedules", questionable dealings to qualify for government aid and the hiring of "burnouts" from various industries to perform as teachers.

--Jacqui M Schedler 14:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Real information value of this article(lack thereof)

This article reads like a simplified brochure; not exactly flamboyantly advertising, but doesn't seem to have much substance and is mostly just a laundry list of the school's programs and achievements. Smeggysmeg 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The for-profit college pages all have that problem. Feel free to hack away. See DeVry University or the University of Phoenix as other examples of this crap. Often times they send people to gussy them up --to be fair some don't realize it's wrong and stop when told. --Bobak 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've flagged it as a NPOV problem. Unfortunately, I won't be able to spend some time on it for two weeks, but when I return I will hopefully find the time to help it out. Smeggysmeg 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest changes

Now the article actually has a header section and like information is with like information. I wish each section had more information, though.

By the way, how does the POV look right now? I added some information in the Controversy section. I do think, though, that there might be a factual way we could go about discussing some students' reaction to going to ITT (though I'm still not sure what it is!). There are enough people running around screaming "diploma mill!!!!1one" that it certainly must be noteworthy. However, simply writing "SCAM" or "DIPLOMA MILL" and blanking the rest of the article is not the way to go about it. Jacqui^★ 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ITT/IIT

I've known many people visit my university (Illinois Institute of Technology) or talk about it, and refer to it as ITT, because of ITT's deluge of TV ads. Very annoying when people confuse it like that. :(

I put in a disclaimer. --68.72.116.129 12:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I placed that disclaimer at the top, like what was done for Rhodes College (a school that also has to deal with a for-profit group with a similar name). --Bobak 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, doesn't seem very NPOV considering you're calling one a school and the other a for profit group, when in fact they are both schools. --iknal 19:20, 16 Sept 2006 (UTC)

Another way is to just adjust the language that troubles you instead of removing it all together. But that was accurate: ITT is a chain of for-profit schools and Chicago ITT is just a old fashioned bricks-and-mortar university. I'll neuter it when I re-add it. --Bobak 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there also be a link on the IIT page leading to the ITT page? Seems like the confusion probably runs more the other way, given than ITT's "student body" is significantly larger than IIT's.

Diploma Mill/Lawsuits?

Lots of talk on this page about ITT being a "diploma mill." I suggest everyone using this term look it up. A diploma mill is a place where you pay a fee, maybe write a paper, and get a degree for nothing. ITT requires students to show up for class for years and do the work just like any other school. MIT it is not, but it is closer to that than it is to being a diploma mill. The lawsuits are a result of the collective integrity, or lack thereof, of ITT's target audience. That being people who couldn't cut it at a traditional college and think that ITT will be a cakewalk. ITT does target these people in recruiting because the majority of ITT's profits come from people who sign up and drop out within the first year, which is the end result of the majority of people who sign up. It it were a diploma mill, the lawsuits wouldn't be happening, and you wouldn't have endless amounts of unsatisfied dropouts who thought it was a diploma mill when they signed up. The people stirring up legal battles with ITT are the same people who will go through life stirring up legal battles with everyone they come in contact with, so long as they don't have to blame themselves for their current situation.

Being a graduate of ITT in Phoenix,AZ, I can honestly say it is not a diploma mill. However, it was the worst mistake I have made in my life. That is personal bias and not appropriate for Wikipedia, though. I do know that the one I went to had mostly substandard instructors who did not seem to display a working knowledge of the subjects they were teaching, yet there were a few who were bright and articulate. I can say for a fact that every single job I have applied for with an ITT diploma has not even called me back; they wish to hire people with "real" degrees, from universities like ASU, even if I scored higher on their entrance test. ITT promised me that upon completion of the associates program for electronic engineering, I would be placed in a job with a minimum of 50,000$ a year starting salary, and of course after a year or so of attending the school, that promise was revoked. I do not recommend ANYone attending ANY ITT program, but I'm not about to add any of that into the wiki article. Rihk 02:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ITT Michigan - I appreciate your views and sympathize with your inability to secure employment upon graduating. It is true ITT does sometimes hire instructors who are not the most qualified, but so do state-run institutions. That said I also know for a fact ITT NEVER promises employment at any salary. I’m afraid you merely heard what you wanted to hear going in.

• Bullshit; that must be the college talking. 60 Minutes did a story on you guys (Brooks College was the guinea pig), and proved that you're all talk and no results. This is the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/31/60minutes/main670479.shtml, and you're on their 'list' (my words, not theirs; they don't have a formal list). I highly suggest this be put somewhere in the article, as it does specifically mention ITT Tech: "And a year ago, federal agents raided the headquarters and 10 campuses of ITT Educational Services, investigating charges of falsified grades and attendance records." -Biokinetica 05:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"You guys." Right, everyone knows that every single for-profit school is run the same way. The investigation stuff is already in the article, anyways. BTW - ITT was cleared of any wrongdoing after that prosecutor on a vendetta against for-profits poured over every inch of paperwork looking for some sort of violation and couldn't find anything.

And your purpose for quoting my reference was what?

Controversy?

Right now the controversy section contains nothing but unsourced information. On the other hand, another user or users have removed the controversy section in the past month or so. However, going back to that controversy pargraph, I notice that all that stuff was unsourced too. So what I'm going to do for now is remove the controversy section, leave the NPOV tag, and add a verify tag. Any questions/problems with this, please reply here or on my talk page. Jacqui ^★ 22:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've created about 20 articles on the various for-profit colleges in the US and abroad (in addition to others for non-profits). You'll find that they, the for-profits, more than any other articles, have this pesky problem of anon-users coming in and removing anything that seems "not-good-PR" )including the very adjective that they are "for-profit") while adding what can best be described as useless info or clear ad copy. It's tricky to keep both sides balanced and it looks like this article's received it's fair share. It's an interesting problem that I've seen with these articles. --Bobak 15:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I pulled this part of the controversy section -> "for falsified grades and attendence records, along with accounting and recruitment practices." Nowhere is it stated that they were under investigation for any of those things specifically. Iknal 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

6th Quarter ITT Student

Yeah, I see the same thing. I am a 6 quarter student, and while I am learning a great deal in my field (CNS: Computer Networking Systems) the labs are as you say very shallow, outdated and the instructors seem to be there for nothing more than a paycheck (as in many of my classes they actually verbalize this). And to top it all off the school is so ungodly expensive, to transfer even after the first term is a huge waste of money (in Ohio the present tuition for Applied Science related degrees is 385$/credit hr.). I have been looking into Continuing from my associates on to bachelors at either Ohio State, or UC and both the schools have rejected a majority of the credits, on top of the fact the ITT offers almost no gened/liberal arts courses so even after two years of school, I will have to start over again.

... Though I suppose that is a good thing since the courses are, for the most part, outdated.

Creatox 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What does ITT stand for?

How could the article possibly leave out what the acronym "ITT" stands for? Badagnani 07:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See ITT Corporation

Earlier this week, somebody removed an inaccurate entry saying that ITT stood for "Technical Institute of Technology.. but was renamed to ITT because TIT sounds more like a club"(paraphrased). ITT did stand for International Telephone and Telegraph, however ITT Corp, from what I understand, abandoned ITT/ESI (aka; ITT Tech). ITT/ESI kept the name ITT as it was already a publicly familiar name. Creatox 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Institute of Technical Technology Technical Institute

10th Quarter ITT Tech student

While I wouldn’t call myself an expert on the inner workings or motivations of ITT or any other school, I can tell you for a fact that it is no more a diploma mill than any other school. To begin, I graduated last September with an AAS in Computer Network Systems. Wanting to further my education towards the field of Information Security, I decided to look at other options. The only reason I even looked elsewhere is because of the cost of an ITT education. However, to my surprise, I found that the majority of ISS programs in my region where thrown together at best. Many simply taught out of general security books and exam tutorials. Talking with the teachers and several deans, I just did not feel that they had a well put together program. While this is simply my opinion, ITT had by far the most complete information security program I have seen. At this time, I am at the end of my second semester of my BAS of ISS. While I cannot comment on other ITT’s, every single one of my instructors have at least a master degree and a career in the field. I have taken courses at the local community college and state university, and have found that many of the complaints against ITT are the same ones that can be made about any school in the world. Many of the issues that are brought up against ITT seem to be more a reflection of the person than the school. I am not saying it is perfect, no school is. What I am saying is that I, an informed adult, decided to go to a TECHNICAL SCHOOL for the sole purpose of learning my field. I was not there looking for a bunch of elective or extensive gened classes. I was looking to learn about the tools of the field, and I did (Server, Cisco product, LAN/WAN technology). I want to remind you that this is only one persons’ opinion. I am sure that ITT (like every other school) has disappointed many would-be college students; however, your education is only as valuable as the effort put into it. In my opinion, the comments of drop-outs should really be taken with a grain of salt. 206.107.245.180 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article will hopefully be getting up to Wikipedia standards

Mysteryquest, why did you delete an entire paragraph? More importantly, why that particular paragraph? Seems capricious.

On the day following the raids, one of the law firms filing suit released a press release stating that ITT misrepresented its financial health and failed to disclose that it "had systematically falsified records, such as those relating to enrollment, graduation and job placement rates, in order to artificially inflate its reported operational and financial performance.",

It was an attempt to consolidate some information and trim the amount of text. I joined the sentence I removed with the prior sentence. It was not my intention to delete a reference, if I did, I apologize. I personally think that all the content in the controversy section is bona fide, however, I would like to see it shortened somehow, not sure it can even be done.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

woipwoipwoip, Is your name an onomatopoeia of the sound made by the adults in Peanuts cartoons? (a trombone with a plunger mute opening and closing on the bell to simulate adult "voices")

Veecort (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I bet it stands for "Voice and Video Over Internet Protocol." Amirite?

Veecort (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited the article so that it doesn't present an NPOV. Thank you for disputing the neutrality. I'm going to undo all of my edits for now.

141.158.75.214 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be implying? Joke?

Many entries have a controversy section. I'm just getting started. If ITT ESI doesn't want to get into legal trouble (being sued, being investigated) so often they should have some ethics. ITT ESI is going to have to kill me or frame me for some crime before I stop adding to this controversy section.

Truly, I do feel badly that the formatting is not as eloquent as most articles on Wikipedia. I will eventually get to that if nobody else does. (I know next to nothing about editing a Wikipedia article.) There is just so much content out there. Also, as necessary as this "work" may be, I can't spend too much of my day thinking about ITT Tech because they make me sick. Stay strong fellow victims of ITT Tech. (Money isn't everything.)

That reminds me... What really hurts isn't the money. What really hurts is the broken dreams (and loss of faith in "the system"). Seriously though, stay strong. Stay strong.Veecort (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy seems fine, it just seems backloaded in this instance. Shouldn't the amount of controversy reflect the amount of real content? If not, what's to stop everyone from posting links to every negative article for every page on this thing? If there isn't currently, then there should be some sort of standards to determine how much is enough, in my opinion. Woipwoipwoip (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am a fan of ITT Tech, however, the controversy section is disproportionately large when juxtaposed against the rest of the article. Without passing judgment on the validity of the items in the controversy section, it might be good to find some way of consolidating some items thereby shortening the section. Perhaps a narrative for some of the older lawsuits but keep the references for those who want to read in depth.Mysteryquest (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

ITT Tech is a facsimile of a school; ITT is, in actuality, a student loan farm. Students are exploited, as a resource, for their ability to get government money. The admissions reps are salespeople. The real controversy is the tens of thousands of disenchanted students who were conned into attending ITT Tech when they should have gone to a real school or taken up a trade. These trials and investigations (when they make the news) are documented and are able to be cited and referenced.Veecort (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with for-profit schools, fine. I agree with you in part. However, this article is a complete joke. It should be rewritten. Woipwoipwoip (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it for cleanup. I will attempt to add some substance when I have some time. Woipwoipwoip (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Me again. Just wanted to note that my last comment was chronologically before Mysteryquest's. (So not at all in response to it.) Stay strong. Veecort (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I cut out paragraphs where you were talking about the same events with different references. Seems like saying charges are filed and provided some detail is enough, given the detail in the rest of the article. Quoting law firms and ex employees isn't good, unless you're going to quote the company's lawyers as well, or talk about the instance where the prosecutor who brought charges forth was fired within the year for being all hawkish on corporate lawsuits. I think one paragraph per incident is sufficient. Additionally, I think it would be good to drop things from more than 10 years ago. This should help bring some semblance of neutrality to this article. Woipwoipwoip (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that the controversy section could be winnowed and that some incidents are "dwelt" on excessively. However, I don't subscribe to arbitrarily imposing a "statue of limitations" of ten years. I attempted to copy edit the controversy section to a much lesser extent and that attempt was met with shrill protest. Thus, consensus should be reached in talk before any drastic overhaul of the section. I so believe that Woipwoipwoip revisions were too drastic personally, but I would cut back on some of the detail in the section.Mysteryquest (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus among whom, though? Veecort has posted a link to every single negative reference on a semi-respectable site about ITT Tech and plastered the text into the controversy section on this wiki. If this approach were taken with every page on this site, wikipedia would be 80% controversy sections. I'm all for including a controversy section, and even for working with veecort to assemble a responsible one, but I don't see why we should start with veecort's personal efforts, which are heavily skewed. I believe we should start from scratch, and let him, or anyone else, present the "controversies" in a responsible manner. He's benefited from no oversight here, as had anyone been lending a watchful eye to his adds, they would have seen the duplication and deception. Woipwoipwoip (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus among the editors of the article including Veecort (at least to some extent). I understand your position and I'm not saying it does not have merit. I do believe that your version is an extreme in the other direction that his version is. I believe that there is a happy medium and I will propose it as soon as I get a chance to look at the article.00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I had accidentally treated one lawsuit as if it were two. I fixed this. (When Indiana unsuccessfully sued ITT, alleging falsified records.)

The federal agents raiding the headquarters and campuses was national news. It made headlines. The company's stock plummeted. This is the first I have heard about Mike Shelby being fired.

Woipwoipwoip stated, "Veecort has posted a link to every single negative reference on a semi-respectable site about ITT Tech and plastered the text into the controversy section on this wiki." Most of my references are from sec-info.com which is reports made by ITT itself . The information has already been skewed to the liking of ITT. I don't know who writes these reports, but it may be ITT lawyers.

Also, ITT Tech has been sued by a plethora of former employees. I didn't include any of that unless it involved defrauding the government or ripping off students.

Here are some negative references I haven't (yet) used. http://www.thesop.org/index.php?id=10677http://thesop.org/index.php?article=10677 http://ittakestime.org http://ittscam.com/ http://ripoffreport.com/ http://www.studentsreview.com http://www.texastravesty.com/content.php?issueNumber=2004_04&story=ittTech www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Itt_tech The last two are jokes, but they would be references as to ITT Tech's place in popular culture. (It isn't good.) Veecort (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The key phrase being "semi-respectable site." You seem to be missing the point. You have made no effort to improve the article, your only modifications have been to stack crap in the controversy section. I don't know why anyone should take your contributions seriously, when you are clearly working an angle here. Woipwoipwoip (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what was contributed by who. The sources are sound. This article does not even begin to cover the controversy. The high tuition, the low pay of the teachers, the high turnover rate of the Admissions Representatives, the textbooks, the institutionalized cheating, etc. Yes, I told ITT Tech PR persons to burn in hell earlier, so I am obviously motivated by something other than making contributions to better Wikipedia. Whatever my motivations, the truth is on my side. I am not creating a false controversy here, nor am I blowing anything out of proportion. Nearly all graduates and employees know that ITT is a con. They know that there is a GINORMOUS difference between what students are promised and what is the reality. Veecort (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section is too long pursuant to WP:UNDUE, there is too much detail, I believe it can be consolidated considerably by cutting down on the amount of detail in the text about each controversy. The citations would give that level of detail to the readers. I do not believe mention of any of the controversies even need to be deleted, the operative word here is mention vs. consuming detail which has taken up a disproportionate amount of the article. I made some edits in the first entry in the controversy section showing how unnecessary detail can be edited out. Mysteryquest (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the vast majority of the controversy section per WP:UNDUE. McJeff (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Slamjob?

This page appears to be nothing more than a controversy section. Is this really the best Wikipedia has to offer? Maybe it is as much of a joke as it seems to be implying this school is. Woipwoipwoip (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't discover the state this article was in until well after Veecourt apparently quit editing Wikipedia. I fixed it, he has not resurfaced, and hopefully it won't become a problem again.

However, the aforementioned editor was clearly suffering from a conflict of interest - a person with a stated interest in promoting a hostilely negative view of ITT Tech, and even running a website to that end.

There is a page, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, where such problem editors can be written up. McJeff (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Publicly revealed government investigations not mentioned

The controversy section seems incomplete without some mention of the other investigations. I figure it should go a little something like this:

In addition to the federal raids noted above, on March 9, 2004, the company revealed that it was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and by the California Attorney General. The company reported that the California Attorney General had been investigating since October 2002, focusing on whether ITT falsified student grades and attendance records

What do you think? (I have reliable references to cite.)Veecort (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see the reliable sources. McJeff (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Want to add a few sentences but we can't find credible sources.

Critics have argued that giving every student (a verbatim copy of the questions and) the answers to the tests is (institutionalized) cheating. It has also been argued that spending hours in a classroom (eg. a room with chairs, tables, and a chalkboard) is not, in itself, a productive activity.

Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.121.157 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked. There are a lot of posts on http://www.ripoffreport.com about ITT Tech, but I haven't been able to find any sites at all that critically analyze ITT Tech and the quality of the education there. I specifically looked for a source for the claim that ITT Tech credits aren't any good in any other school, but couldn't find anything besides negative consumer reports and forum posts. Neither of these are allowed to be used in Wikipedia, by the way - check the policy WP:V (verifiability) and WP:RS (reliable sources). I was hoping Snopes would have something, but they don't. McJeff (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! you are right. There are none. Not one. Not a single website devoted to said critical analysis. There have been a few such websites over the years. The last one was sponsored by Se7enAlive and it is news to me that it is now gone. I hope Se7en was paid off and not snuffed. Hell, for all I know he is still alive, hanging from a tree in some remote jungle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.121.157 (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Nevemind! Se7enAlive's site is still up. It is at ItTakesTime.org. If Se7en is really who he says he is, then he is my hero. (I DO NOT MEAN THAT LIGHTLY.) But be warned... It is a distinct possibility that that Se7en is a shill for the company itself and that his website is a sort of honeypot (or perhaps more accurately a pitcher plant). Before hiring a lawyer most people will do some research and find out that there is, supposedly, a group of people at ittakestime.org trying to get a class action lawsuit going. Maybe there is no class action lawsuit. Maybe it is a trap for people who plan to sue. Maybe they get your information and "offer" you the chance to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Se7en and I had a discussion on this very talk page where I accused him of that very crime, but McJeff deleted it. Veecort (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

McJeff erased my accusation again! (I undid erasure.) I don't know whether this means it is true or if he is just trying to confuse. HELP --->Is there anyway for Se7en to prove that he is really getting a class action lawsuit together and not just trying to get potential "whistle blowers" to reveal themselves so that they may be neutralized? (I asked this same question in the original accusation that McJeff erased.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veecort (talk • contribs) 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy again

• At the least, I would say that the present details on threatened lawsuits and the like is pushing a POV with original research. I'm going to go ahead and dial it down to a summary. Ideally we would be able to find a secondary source to cite the claim that these sorts of controversies are relevant to a general article on ITT Tech. Inst. --Dystopos (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• (Firstly, it is obvious that you are a more experienced and more active Wikipedian than me. BUT, I am more of an expert on the ITT Tech controversy.) In reply to the above comment... The lawsuits are not "threatened." They were "filed." (Except for that last one listed, which was "settled" before it was filed.) The information I have included is already in the form of summaries. The summaries were compiled, for the most part, by ITT personnel (probably lawyers)and filed with the SEC as required by law. As far as the claims of original research, there is no original research nor any attempted synthesis thereof. There are encyclopedic style summaries of individual controversies, complete with references.

(For some reason I had a very hard time understanding that last sentence of yours Dystopos. I had to reread it a few times.) I believe this qualifies: http://www.studentloanborrowerassistance.org/uploads/File/ProprietarySchoolsReport.pdf

As far as the claims of NPOV:UNDUE. They are simply not tue. Anybody that has firsthand experience with ITT Tech will agree. (In their hearts, anyway.)Veecort (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to try to explain my obscure wording with an illustration. If, for example, a well-regarded objective source like the Encyclopedia Britannica or The New York Times couldn't fail to mention ITT's controversies any time it mentioned the company, then there would be no question that discussion about that subject belongs here. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, one wonders how relevant they are to the general reader. All companies are targets of lawsuits and the documentation is probably just as extensive. Unless major judgments have gone against the company or it has otherwise been forced to overhaul its practices in a drastic and public manner, then it may well be that these controversies are trivial within the context of a general encyclopedia article. Secondary sources would, I think, be the best arbiter of how much weight the subject should be given here -- especially if there is a danger of someone using Wikipedia to push a particular point of view, which seems to be the case here. --Dystopos (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Did you take a look at the above pdf? It is one of my many sources. (Most of the lawsuits against ITT Tech are by it's employees. I only (attempt to) include them in the article when they are about defrauding the government or ripping off students. As that is the entirety of the controversy.) Veecort (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that rather than re-hashing the findings detailed in that report, that we could simply state that the National Consumer Law Center has documented numerous controversies surrounding ITT Educational Services' business and educational practices and then refer readers to that source. --Dystopos (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The ITT Tech controversy and the extent to which it exists

The controversy regarding the ethics and quality of ITT Tech is very deserving of the space that it uses in the article. Granted the section is probably lacking introduction and conclusion paragraphs and there is no mention of when it was (publicly) under investigation by the California Attorney General nor the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nor is there any mention as to the findings of the organizations or what steps were taken to remedy any questionable practices. It is hard to finish the section when editors who do not even claim to know anything about the school just come over say "WP:UNDUE" and click undo. In order to determine if "WP:UNDUE" applies one must have at least some familiarity with the subject matter.

Furthermore, among the present students there is a spiral of silence primarily because every employee is a PR rep and they also give out the grades. Forgive the cliche but the emperor wears no clothes. Don't get me wrong. The only reason I/we haven't attained a consensus is because my "opponents" have millions of dollars on the line and because members of the anti-ITT Tech movement do not seem to have much desire to become Wikipedians. Veecort (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You have said many words, but there is little content in what you are saying to actually respond to. You show a complete lack of understanding about what WP:UNDUE is, and as such your rebuttal is fit only to be ignored. Furthermore you show a lack of understanding about Conflicts of Interest, having not yet responded to the one filed on you.

Furthermore, and I say this in the best faith possible, your paranoid accusations that ITT Tech is actively attempting to "neutralize" criticism suggest that you are incapable of maintaining a Neutral Point of View on this subject. There are no Reliable Sources documenting any of your accusations against the company (I do not consider your laundary-list of lawsuits against the company to be accusations, though they remain unacceptable per WP:UNDUE), only blog posts and unsourced pseudo-anonymous claims.

Lastly, you should be informed that Wikipedia is not a place for a user with an axe to grind, nor is it a soapbox for your views. You may wish to read the essay WP:TRUTH and see if you feel it applies to you. McJeff (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but you will probably end up making me a better Wikipedian. I will read all of those and more. I had something "filed on" me? Where do I "respond?" It doesn't officially require a response right? I just need to be more cautious right? (Now allow me to present a hypothetical extreme. Every student who ever graduated from ITT Tech wants to sue but can't because of crushing debt, lack of evidence, and because they work a minimum wage job. In this hypothetical case, would it be okay for the controversy section to be really long?) Veecort (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't give you a simple answer because wikipedia works partially on consensus. In general, though, the answer is "NO", the amount of criticism existing does not influence the length of criticism in the article.

I'll try to use this as an example. Let's say, hypothetically, that ITT Tech really did draft a fake class-action lawsuit so that they could find potential suers and then pay them off one by one, and then they got caught doing this and were sued for this. Such an event would definitely justify a (well sourced) paragraph, but this event would not make any other legal action taken or threatened against ITT Tech notable, nor would it justify adding non-notable legal cases just to add length to the criticism.

Look at articles like Osama bin Laden. His article is not a laundary list of every atrocity he and/or his followers have committed, it is biographical. Or Michael Jackson, whos article notes all the strange and disputably strange things he has done biographically rather than place them all in a section called "Why Jacko is weird". For a good example of how a decent article about a school handles criticism, check out Harvard. McJeff (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation does not have anything to do with its preceeding sentence.

ITT Tech is nationally accreditedby the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools; it does not have regional accreditation, though individual campuses may.

I do not believe that the MHEC is an accrediting body. And even if it was, nowhere in the cited press release does it state that they accredited anything. Furthermore, in the event that there really are regionally accredited campuses of ITT, please please please tell me which ones. It is common knowledge among ITT Tech students that we are all promised that we can attend classes for free at any campus after we have graduated. If there really are regionally accredited campuses that means that I may still have a chance at actually having a real education in the field for which I have "earned" a degree. (Sounds too good to be true.) <--forgot to add a sig. ~~~~

I am not questioning your motive nor (at present) the validity of the statement. I am saying that I have read the press release that you used as a reference and nowhere in it does it say anything about regional accreditation of anything. (Maybe you got it confused with another press release.) 151.201.117.169 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC) <--DOH! The preceding two paragraphs are me.Veecort (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen proof that the Owings Mills, Maryland campus has state accreditation, as I was shown a list of schools in Maryland with state accreditation and specifically that campus' name on it. However, I've been uable to locate that website on my own. I have tagged the sentence with , which should be sufficient until school campuses reopen after Thanksgiving break. McJeff (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot confirm the validity of the statement until after Thanksgiving break. Once we do confirm that it is true... If there really is a single campus of ITT Tech with regional accreditation what will we use as a reference? The phone number of that campus? I really don't know. If they could release a press release stating which campuses are regionally accredited that would be great.

On to the matter presently at hand... We need to come to a consensus regarding whether or not the citation belongs there. I do believe that this is a no-brainer. (There is a fact followed by a citation. This implies that the cited reference proves the validity of the fact.) I read the reference. It is actually very very very short. Veecort (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Concensus discussion regarding refereneces in the controversy section.

I believe that these 12 should follow the first sentence that is presently in the controversy section. Here's the article with them in itVeecort (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(Also we need a consensus regarding the reference in the accreditation section. (Number 18 in the Contents section of this talk page. (I guess we should restrict that discussion to that section since it has no relation to this one.)))Veecort (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should have the sources listed and at least 2-5 more lines explaining all of the lawsuits and investigations ITT has undergone. This is valid and truthful information and sources are cited. I agree with veecort. It looks like the only one who has a problem with it is McJeff (personal attacks redacted) I said this before and i will say it again. Stop removing content and start adding it instead, the original disputed article of veecort's edit with descriptions for each controversial issue is not WP:UNDUE since it is public record and not providing wild accusations. The sources are valid. McJeff's reason for WP:Undue is not justified. It's like calling WP:Undue on Hitler, Bin Laden, or Nixon and the scandal. They are all known facts and should be listed in this wikipedia entry. Wikipedia's goal is a free encyclopedia to provide information, not censor it McJeff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.149.252 (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IP, I'm going to assume you came here in response to Veecort's posting on an anti-ITT forum. To let you know, the talk page is to discuss the article. Your post mentioned your feelings on the sources, and then went on to make personal comments about McJeff. Here at wikipedia, we comment on edits, not editors. Your attempts to disparage McJeff are not appreciated, and I would suggest you strike them from the above post. I would also suggest for the purpose of discussion, you strike the analogy where you basically compare ITT to Hitler.

I have my own feelings on the matter, but I'm going to wait to comment right now. I still hope the editors involved can work this out here on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that I have virtually nothing to work with. Veecort has expressed a willingness to learn more about wikipedia, however, 70.190 remains a meatpuppet despite Veecort's apology for having sought meatpuppetry. He has no knowledge of wikipedia policy, as seen by his utter and absolute failure to understand WP:UNDUE. His hostile attitude is of course obvious in his comments. And all these things considered I am not sure how one would go about working with such an editor, nor, honestly, do I have any interest in doing so. McJeff (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry mister IP address. You will be treated as a nonperson for the forseeable future. Well not a non-person, but you and I will be considered to be the same person having one single opinion. Also, any new and unregistered editors will be grouped with me as well. (Provided they appear to hold the opinions that ITT Tech does not benefit its students and defrauds the government and that the average informed person is aware of these two things. That is an over simplification of my position, but that is pretty much, in a nutshell, the viewpoint that I have obviously been attempting to promote.

I think we all have an okay understanding of WP:UNDUE. The only disagreement is just how prominent a particular viewpoint is in the real world. 151.201.117.169 (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC),<---- this was meVeecort (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Back to the issue at hand, I think it's more appropriate to cite the third-party summary of the individual actions (Loonin & Devanthéry - 2005) rather than to cite primary or secondary sources for each of them. That distances us from rehashing those authors' original research. --Dystopos (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you are saying what I think you are, you want to have no links within the references section, but only names of court cases. I believe that your belief of what is appropriate is unprecedented. Furthermore, it makes it impossible for an interested reader to investigate further without attaining records from several separate courts in different parts of the US. These are reliable sources and all we want to do is include a few little footnotes in the article. Also, several of the references cited are authored by ITT Tech themselves and submitted to the SEC as per law. (Also, this IS the _controversy_ section that we are editing here.)Veecort (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, what I am saying is that if we use the individual case citations to form an argument here, we are engaging in original research. If we cite the 2005 summary, then we can credit Loonin and Devanthery for the notion that ITT is the subject of extraordinary legal controversy. If the reader is interested in reading up on the individual cases, most of the ones proposed as footnotes here are cited in that document. --Dystopos (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Look buddy we don't all watch Frasier. Next time use smaller words.Veecort (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oh. I'm not sure how I misunderstood that. Thanks for clarifying.Veecort (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

a non-publicly/sealed Qui Tam (False Claims Act) filed against ITT

Hi guys, I stumbled over this https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Qui_Tam_against_ITT_Educational_Services%2C_3_Sep_2008http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/Qui_Tam_against_ITT_Educational_Services,_3_Sep_2008 - it reads about that ITT collected illegally over 350 million USD in Federal U.S. grants. If that holds true, its going to be very expensive for ITT. On the other hand, the whistleblower appears to be a former employee of ITT who was employed there from 1996 till 2006. Why did it took almost two years ? Employee a disgruntled one? Hoping to make a "get rich"-schemed lawsuit (Considering that The False Claims Act provides incentive to relators by granting them between 15% and 25% of any award or settlement amount. In addition, the statute provides an award of the relator's attorney's fees, making qui tam actions a popular topic for the plaintiff's bar.) Any advanced wikian's willing to put this up on the main-page? Archangel Michael (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• WIkileaks is probably the best forum for that. --Dystopos (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• (I knew when Wikileaks was first created that ITT would be in it. Though I was thinking that it would be internal documents from within ITT.) I'm pretty sure the document does not officially exist yet so there is no way it will make it into the Main article. I am very proud of the whistleblower. Veecort (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Urge for civility

I urge all editors to be civil and to stop using sarcasm in arguments. This is far from productive and could be class as uncivil and at instances even a personal attack.

If I understand, Veecort believes the article should contan information on criticism of ITT Tech whilst McJeff does not.

There seems to be a significant amount of criticism of ITT Tech online (search 'ITT Tech joke'), but it is difficult to weigh it because how many people discuss positive things? However, there still remains a lot of criticism so can a comprimise not be reached?

You might want to consider taking this to WP:3O or WP:RFC. Computerjoe's talk 15:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Learning Site"

Some of the campus locations are marked "Learning Site", but there's no indication of what this term means. Is it significant? If not, and if there's no definition we should delete the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly how I know this, but a learning site means that it is not a fully fledged "campus." Now that I stop to think about it, I am not sure how that would work. Is there a difference in accreditation and/or licensing? What exactly is the difference? "Learning Site" is a name invented by the company itself so it may be a nice way of saying something bad. Veecort (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

More inane questions

What does it mean to "double-list" a source? And once the term is defined I will ask how it is used to extend an article and to what purpose? I am referring to the comments made by McJeff in his edit to the main article( at 00:01, 9 December 2008 ) Veecort (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do I have a Conflict of Interest with the subject of this article?

More importantly, when did I confess to having a COI and did I say what it was? I do have a degree from there and I was a witness to some illegal (and unethical and immoral) business activities. It is my opinion that many of my classmates and I were lied to about the "value" of an ITT Tech education and the accompanying degree. I know that I appear to have a COI; saying matter of factly that I do is perhaps perfectly appropriate. (IDK) I am not saying I don't have a COI. I am saying that, in my ignorance, I don't know exactly what it is.

ITT Tech breaks laws as a matter of course. (Who doesn't?) The key here is that they are hurting people (by advertising themselves as quality schools and employment agencies, when each campus is actually a very good facsimile of both. )Veecort (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The guideline on conflicts of interest is here: WP:COI. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is justification for the COI tag without e.g. WP:NPOV violations... WP:WHYCOI? -- samj _in^out 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were to examine the edit history of the article and the behavior of currently inactive User:Veecort, you'd see why the COI tag is up. On the other hand, Veecort has been inactive since mid December, so perhaps the tag can be removed. McJeff (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok so let's move it to the talk page - that way editors will know to look out for problems but readers will not be bothered by the tag. Thanks for the quick response. -- samj _in^out 05:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Please note that the degree programs of regionally accredited (traditional, non-profit) Colleges and Universities are significantly different than nationally accredited (vocational/technical, for-profit) programs. Traditional Universities require extensive general education courses such as science, history, foreign language, and physical education in a 4 to 5 year degree program. Vocational/technical programs are designed to teach students the skills required for a certain profession with minimal general education requirements, often as a 2 year associate degree or a professional certification. Credits generally do not transfer between the two types of institutions due to the differing nature of the courses.

Many nationally accredited schools must provide statistics for job placement and beginning salaries of graduates as part of the accreditation process. This safeguard protects potential students from enrolling in a program that fails to produce sufficiently skilled graduates. Regionally accredited Universities are not required to provide this information because they are non-profit entities.

Obtaining and maintaining legitimate accreditation status is a meticulous process that enforces strict educational requirements verified through continual on-site audits. If ITT is/was doing anything illegal, they would not be accredited through ACICS. Indy Author (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Continual on-site audits? Go on. (I am particularly curious to know how these "audits" prevent fraud from taking place. Also, how do these "audits" force the instructors to actually do any instructing? I am also curious how these "audits" stop the dean from lying about credit transferability. What does an "audit" consist of? Also, has anyone ever misreported statistics for job placement and beginning salaries of graduates? Ever?) I humbly and in all seriousness beg you to please expand on these "strict educational requirements."Veecort (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Campus locations

The "Campus locations" sections seems unnecessarily detailed. An editor proposed changing it to just a sentence like "ITT has 34 locations in several states." Looking at the ITT website I see it now says there are over 100 campuses, so this list must be incomplete. Wikipedia is not a directory. We don't list the location of every McDonalds or other chain. The article would be more accurate if we simply link to the webpage with the latest list of campuses.   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The list of campus locations adds very little to the overall article. The significance of the individual locations is somewhat lost when ITT has over 100 locations across the country and is constantly adding new campuses each year. It only makes it look more like an avertisement.--Pchov (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

irrelevant external links

I have removed the following external links:

http://www.distance-education.itt-tech.edu ITT Online Student Web Page

https://studentportal.itt-tech.edu/Pages/ITTCampusHome.aspx ITT Tech Student Portal

http://library.itt-tech.edu/default1.asp ITT Tech Virtual Library

These sites are only accessable to students and faculty. They add nothing to the content of the article and serve no purpose for the gernal public. Regardless of the difficulty of finding these particular websites, Wikipedia is not a collection of links and therfor the links should not be included in this article.--Pchov (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I hadn't really noticed those were there. McJeff (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember those websites. Going to them and clicking the Print button in our browser earned us a "free A." Other than that I have no idea what they are. I know how to take part in institutionalized cheating though. Shit is so cash.

Are GEDs expectable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.178.167 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Some references. A work in progress

I'll just leave this here. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veecort (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100419/BUSINESS/4190391/ITT-Educational-enters-another-lawsuit-over-grades It is nice to know that this corporation may cease its criminal activities before our Sun supernovas. Anyway, so I am just gonna go ahead and add this to the controversy section if no one else does. Thoughts? Veecort (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. It disappeared. Here is a copy cached by the good robots at Google. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZS8Upvhh7uAJ:www.indystar.com/article/20100419/BUSINESS/4190391/1150/local0101+itt+educational+services+lawsuit&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And here are some more about the exact same thing.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-21/itt-educational-changed-test-scores-ex-employee-s-suit-says.html

http://www.ibj.com/itt-educational-altered-test-scores-exemployees-suit-says/PARAMS/article/19479

http://www.wopular.com/itt-educational-new-lawsuit-over-grades-0

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_I/threadview?m=tm&bn=6333&tid=7818&mid=7818&tof=20&frt=2

Veecort (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have not added this latest controversy to the article yet. ( I am too busy trying to find a minimum wage job and a place to sleep at night. The only reason I am typing in the discussion page is that I need to vent.) Most of the controversies I have added (complete with reputable references) have been repeatedly erased by ITT Tech propagandists posing as Wikipedians and it has been widdled down to the remaining three. (YOU assume good faith.!) I had to add the words "the most famous of which are listed below" several times before it was left alone.

I find it hard to believe that I am the only Wikipedian that has witnessed the travesty that is an ITT Tech education. Sellouts and cowards, all of us. "If you can't beat them, join them," I guess. All I wanted was a to attend real classes and be given real assignments. I wish that I could say "NEVER AGAIN," but it is still business as usual at ITT Tech Institutes all over the country. Maybe one day we will be able to say it. I may not get to the promised land with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will. Once the Dept. of Ed. caps the tuition, (or whatever) it is very important that the viral Public Service Announcements are spread as aggressively as possible. Think about how aggressive the ITT Tech "student representatives" are. Do not do the crime if you cannot do the time. Chewie! Listen to me! Listen to me… The princess… You have to protect the princess, all right? Keep the message highly visible and yourselves in the shadows. Collect your evidence and blow your whistles. We are in for the fight of our lives. Veecort (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just kidding. I plan on leaving the fate of potential ITT Tech students to the professional policy makers. It is what we in the Milky Way refer to as "Somebody Else's Problem." We have served our purpose. Seriously though collect your evidence and blow your whistles. Veecort (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This Article Totally Stinks

Come on people. The discussion page is literally 20 times longer than the actual article. Not only does this need a stub tag but it needs a complete and utter rewrite. Sixthcrusifix (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation for [Federal] Government employment

Concern

I believe the following statement to be inaccurate;

"Furthermore, government agencies and many companies will not honor degrees from a Nationally Accredited Institution"

Explanation

I added to give an opportunity to support this claim. I have found other reliable sources that would disprove the statement above.

• USAJOBS [the Federal Government job website] states the following; "To be acceptable, all college level courses must have been completed at a college or university that has obtained accreditation or pre-accreditation status from an accrediting body recognized by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education."

• The U.S. Department of Education website recognizes the ITT Technical Institute [multiple campuses] accreditation Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. This can be discovered by using the search tool provided.

Proposed Solution

If sources cannot be provided to support this claim, I will proceed with changing this content to match the sources I have found. Please let me know who agrees or disagrees with this and a brief explanation. Thank you.

Onetwoalpha (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My personal experience

I have a degree from ITT Tech. My degree is a joke and I am a joke for choosing to believe the lies of ITT Tech PR people. Going to ITT Tech is the worst decision that I ever made in my adult life and I will never forget what was done to me. May God have mercy on your soul. In short, my degree is a complete and utter joke and everybody who knows anything about it and says otherwise is lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.186.16 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Reference links need updating on the article, they have expired/moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.36.115 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For-profit college operator accused of fraud

McCoy, Kevin (12 May 2015). "For-profit college operator accused of fraud". USA Today. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

ITT TECH FRAUD

http://www.sueeasy.com/join-emerging-class-action-lawsuit-ITT-TECH-FRAUD-scam-complaint.php Pepper9798 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)