Jump to content

Talk:Kaplan, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MT wKaplan (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 1 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaplan for initial talk. mikka (t) 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of five comments (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaplan), one is in favour of status quo, and four would see 'Kaplan' moved to 'Kaplan Inc', with 'Kaplan' becoming the disambiguation page (including of course reference to 'Kaplan Inc'). I therefore intend to carry out such changes in the next twenty four hours (unless anyone cares to beat me to it). Happy New Year to all btw -

Smerus 19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will perform the move, but I disagree very highly with your methods. Putting the page up for deletion is an example of violation of WP:POINT. -Scm83x 21:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement?

I have created the additional copy for the Kaplan, Inc. page as an employee with a strong knowledge of the company. The copy that resided on the page before I first made these edits held a great deal of inaccurate and outdated information, which I attempted to correct. I also restructured the page to explain how the business is organized.

I was very careful to cite sources, pulling most of the information directly from the recent financial statements from our parent company, The Washington Post Company. I have made every effort to maintain a neutral point of view, and feel strongly that my entry did not read like an advertisement. The entry only included factual statements that could be backed up by numerous sources.

I feel strongly that the recent changes have been made by a biased editor who, rather than making constructive suggestions on how to improve the language, is simply reverting all changes. In doing so, he is reposting inaccurate information that I had previously corrected.

krb2182 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not revert all changes, as you can see from the history and specifically this diff. I did remove some good information, and I have reinserted it. Here are some changes I made, and why:

  • By flighty language, I mean the type you would find in promotional material; for example, "global provider of educational services", which I changed to "education company"
  • Take out in-text link to Kaplan's website — Wikipedia is not a directory of links
  • Shorten descriptions of subdivisions, which were unnecessarily detailed and promotional — e.g., "Score has more than 160 locations nationwide and served over 75,000 students in 2006", and "Each of Kaplan’s individual schools is separately accredited by one of several national or regional accrediting agencies approved by the U.S. Department of Education"
  • Remove "Philanthropic Activities" section — promotional

If there are further inaccuracies, please correct them. Λυδαcιτγ 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raised some good points above; thank you. I reinserted some of the facts about each of our businesses, all of which simply point out the size and scope of the company. Many company entries include such information. I have pulled everything directly from public documents, citing the source of each fact and always maintaining a neutral point of view. The information is encyclopedic in nature and is very important to researchers, particularly in the education industry. I have also included the section on Philanthropy, though I adjusted the language to eliminate a "promotional" tone. Again, many company entries on Wiki include such information. I have consistently maintained a neutral point of view and believe I addressed your concerns. Thank you for your input.

krb2182 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's important to know that "Score has more than 160 locations nationwide and provided services to over 75,000 students in 2006." The words "more" and "over" are themselves promotional, but regardless, it seems unimportant to a general encyclopedia reader. An education industry researcher can find this data on the Kaplan website. Similarly, we don't need to know that Kaplan's universities are accredited — this is filler that should be a given. Otherwise, getting better. Λυδαcιτγ 03:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for the Philanthropy section — please point me to these articles, as I don't think typical philanthropy is notable enough to be part of an encyclopedia article on a company. Λυδαcιτγ 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the Score Educational Centers section should link to this article on Wikipedia. Also, Score has since become Kaplan Tutoring, a change which should appear here and there. Also, TBC, part of my paycheck is associated with Kaplan & KT.

Emmgal8 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit needed?

Was New York City founded in 1938 by Stanley Kaplan? 146.184.0.119 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - have made this edit. krb2182 11:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable content removed

I am removing the recently posted "Current Issues" section of this entry. This paragraph violates all three of Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. None of the claims in the paragraph have cited sources, and the editor is clearly biased against the company. This is even evident in the placement of the paragraph above all other relevant company information. The last sentence in particular ("It should be expected this continued attrition will significantly impact future corporate earnings.”) is a clear violation of WP:FUTURE.

krb2182 11:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think you may have raised valid points, it appears you're a Kaplan staffer, and that presents problems as well. I'd suggest having an unbiased party make such changes. Best, --averagejoe (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have purposely been very candid about the fact that I am a Kaplan staffer. As you can see from the page history, I have always made an effort to maintain a NPOV, unbiased article that provides accurate information about the company. As said on the About Wiki homepage, "Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal." The post that I removed is speculative and unsourced, which is why I took it down. krb2182 09:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased content added to entry

I would like to request some 3rd party assistance regarding the most recent addition made to the Kaplan Wiki entry. The editor has included information that appears to violate the Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV (note also WP:UNDUE). krb2182 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the biased stuff. Thanks for your honesty about admitting to being a past employee. I came to the talk page to figure out why other test prep companies aren't listed (such as examkrackers) but upon reading the kaplan article, I too think someone has an axe to grind, by including a cited complaint. Afterall, Wendy's had a severed finger in a bowl of their chili and that's cited, but it doesn't belong in the Wendy's article. Lets just keep this article focused in a summary style about the company. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overpositive article?

I feel that the article is over positive, and does not give enough information regarding the value of their accreditations. I feel that this would be very relevant to the reader. Also I think there should be a section on the massive number of complaints regarding apparently dubious billing practices. Any comments appreciated.

Shadowolf7 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Shadowolf7[reply]

From what I can find, dubious billing practices apply only to Kaplan University, not the test prep or other areas of the company. Agree that it may be an important aspect to be included in this section.

Emmgal8 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan University is a DBA name

Kaplan University is a DBA (Doing Business As) name. See the reference cited. Until they change the name of the corporation, their legal name is Iowa College Acquisition Corporation. --averagejoe (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Kaplan, Inc.

The revenue figure of US $2.6 billion is correct; however would like to update the year from 2008 to 2009. The Revenue date should be updated to US $2.6 billion (2009) Source: [1]

Subdivisions

The sentence that reads "Iowa College Acquisition Corporation, operating under the Kaplan University brand, also offers online programs, and had approximately 37,000 students in 2007.” should be changed to "Iowa College Acquisition Corporation, operating under the Kaplan University brand, also offers online programs, and had approximately 75,000 students in 2010.” Source: [2]

To accurately reflect our non-US businesses, the sentence which begins "Outside the United States..." needs to be updated to accurately reflect our breadth of services: "Outside the United States, Kaplan offers a number of higher education, professional training and English/pathways programs, including Dublin Business School in Ireland, which offers undergraduate and graduate degree programs in business and the liberal arts, and Kaplan Higher Education (formerly called Asia Pacific Management Institute) in Hong Kong and Singapore." Source: [3]

The sentence that reflects Kaplan's breadth outside of the US and Canada should be updated to "Outside of the United States and Canada, Kaplan operates in more than 30 countries, including the UK and France, and also operates Kidum, a test preparation company in Israel, and Kaplan International Colleges, a provider of English language training and pathway programs based in the U.K." Source: [4]

Crw wKaplan (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making your affiliation clear. I'd say that you should just go ahead and make most of those changes yourself as they are not controversial (in my opinion). It would help a bit, perhaps, if the sources weren't almost all from Kaplan sites. Independent confirmation via reliable sources always helps to quell any concern over companies stepping in and modifying their articles. Either way, nice approach to the issue. Transmissionelement (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. Based on your recommendation, I will update the sections referenced above to reflect company accuracies. Future updates will include non-Kaplan sources (if available) as references. Crw wKaplan (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)crw w/Kaplan[reply]

Further Kaplan Factual Updates Requested

Hello, I'd also like to introduce myself to the Wikipedia community. Like Crw wKaplan, I work for Kaplan, Inc. and would like to propose some small changes to the "Kaplan Higher Education" section of this page.

First, the 75,000 students figure should be changed to 65,000 students. This updated figure is noted in the Washington Post Company's 2010 SEC filing annual report (source: [5]).

Second, we'd like to add the following few sentences after the sentence with the enrollment figure: "Kaplan University recently rolled out the Kaplan Commitment, which allows students to take classes for credit during an introductory period without any tuition obligation. If students decide the program is not right for them or if they do not succeed academically, they can leave the school without incurring any education-related debt or tuition charges. The Kaplan Commitment is available at all levels of study (certificate, associate’s, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees)." (source:[6]). --MT wKaplan (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've updated the enrollment and cited it directly to the Washington Post annual report so readers can verify the statement without having to fish through a long index of SEC filings. The text changes you suggest sound like something out of a glossy brochure (see WP:PROMOTION) and are inappropriate as written, whatever the source. --CliffC (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting the enrollment numbers and linking to the annual report. Based on your recommendation, we’ve revised the other language as follows: "Kaplan Higher Education permits students to attend classes for several weeks without incurring any tuition obligation or debt. The company refers to this program as ‘The Kaplan Commitment.’" Is this language more appropriate for Wikipedia? We recommend using the same source as before. --MT wKaplan (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made the changes I refer to in the paragraph above. Our thinking was that, since we hadn't seen a response over the course of a week or so, it was no longer a point of contention. Thank you. --MT wKaplan (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overlooked your post, will look it over tomorrow if I get time. --CliffC (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kaplan Factual Updates and Revised Language Requested

Hello, I’d like to make some changes to reflect updated financial numbers and major acquisitions.

The company’s revenue, located in the box in the upper-right corner of the page, should be changed to from $2.3 billion (2009) to $2.9 billion (2010). Our source for this is the Washington Post Company’s 2010 Annual Report, which is available at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-reportsAnnual and can also be found under citation number 5 on the Kaplan, Inc. Wikipedia page.

Our Acquisitions section should be updated to include the following:

2007 – EduNeering Inc., a provider in compliance and knowledge management solutions. 2011 – Structuralia, a leading provider of training and education in Spain. 2011 – Carrick Education Group, a leading vocational and higher education provider in Australia. 2011 – Franklyn Scholar, a leading national provider of work-based vocational training in Australia.

These changes shouldn’t prove to be controversial, so I’d like to just go ahead and make them myself. If no objections, I’ll plan to make these changes by Oct. 3rd.

However, I would also like to revise some language around the “False Claims Act” section to accurately reflect the current status of lawsuits referred to in that section.

In the first paragraph of that section, we’d like to take the last three sentences out. The latest on that lawsuit is reflected in the text below, which we would like to propose as the new end to this first paragraph (see citation below):

On August 17, 2011, a US District Court judge dismissed with prejudice these allegations, finding that the former employees involved in this case had failed to sufficiently allege any violation of the False Claims Act. [CITATION - http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2009cv20756/333112/262/]. The judge declined at this time to dismiss claims brought by two of the former employees under the accommodation provisions of the Rehabilitation Act and federal employment law, respectively. [SAME CITATION].

The second paragraph of the “False Claims Act” section should be removed entirely, as it is misleading. The Department of Justice has declined to intervene in any case against Kaplan, and the Chronicle of Higher Education article cited to back up this paragraph is factually inaccurate: the DoJ submitted its own view on how a statute of limitation should be construed, not that any “whistleblower” suit against Kaplan was well-taken or should be permitted to continue.

Thank you! MT wKaplan (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the factual edits and would like to make the edits to the language around the False Claims Act by the end of today. Thanks!--MT wKaplan (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some proposed changes, plus others, made. --S. Rich (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the edits! We appreciate your help as we try to keep the page updated and accurate. There is one change we would still like to make, which is to delete the final paragraph. This paragraph is misleading, and it is a bit biased to say that the Department of Justice "sided" with "whistleblowers". To simplify things, the DoJ gave an opinion about how legal procedure should take place, and this procedural interpretation happened to benefit the people suing Kaplan. This was not an endorsement of the position of the plaintiffs, so there was no "siding" with anyone except in the interpretation of procedure. Also, calling them "whistleblowers" makes it seem like they were correct, which of course is unproven. Please let me know if you have any questions. If we cannot delete this paragraph, we should try to revise to make it more neutral and factual. Thanks again! MT wKaplan (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having the last paragraph there doesn't even make sense chronologically. Furthermore, now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, I'm going to go ahead and remove the paragraph in question. MT wKaplan (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What it really needed was a rewrite and a move to make it less biased and more fitting with the chronological order. Done. --averagejoe (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at the paragraph. Can I suggest that we change the sentences to:
In the summer of 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had filed a memorandum which argued on procedural grounds that the False Claims Act lawsuits against Kaplan Higher Education should not be dismissed. In the memorandum, Judge Patricia A. Seitz of the U.S. District Court in Miami was urged to permit the lawsuits against Kaplan to proceed, though the Department of Justice took no stance on the substance of the purported whistleblowers' cases.[1]
Thanks again, MT wKaplan (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that sound OK? I'd like to make the change by end of day today. MT wKaplan (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you're recommending isn't backed up by the source cited. Instead, the cited source says that Justice's filing stated that the "parade of horribles" that Kaplan predicted if the case were not dismissed was "entirely illusory." I've edited the paragraph to so reflect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRStutler (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the edit we recommended is a fair one, as the position of the DoJ is in fact interpreted by the Chronicle of Higher Ed as being similar in nature to its position in the lawsuit against the University of Phoenix. The Kaplan-related article in the Chronicle links to the Phoenix-related article, which says that the purpose of the DoJ's filing to permit the lawsuit to proceed is to avoid "impair[ment of] enforcement of the False Claims Act". The DoJ was arguing that the precedent created by not allowing the application of the False Claims Act would be detrimental to cases against fraud in general, NOT that the purported whistle-blowers were correct, though they should (DoJ argued) be given a chance to prove their case. Also, the details of the memo, in terms of actual quotes like the "parade of horribles", seems out of place in a high-level overview of a single court case in the encyclopedic history of the company, and should be removed. If you recommend we do maintain that language, which paints Kaplan in a negative light, perhaps the language in the article about the government being entitled to a portion of the proceeds in case of a proven fraud case is also relevant for balance. MT wKaplan (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my comments above, can we remove the "parade of horribles" edit, as well as make the edit I referred to above on the 7th of October? MT wKaplan (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source being cited doesn't state what you are alleging. I don't see an issue with including that the government would be eligible for a portion of the proceeds, but I don't see it as necessary either. --averagejoe (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe we can agree on minor changes. First, we think it makes things more clear if we change "a US District Court judge" and other references to Judge Seitz in the last paragraph of the False Claims Act section to simply say "Seitz" or "Judge Seitz". She is mentioned right before, but then for some reason it's as if she is unknown in the next paragraph. In fact, the whole section could be updated to reflect that the three paragraphs are telling one story. As currently written, they seem disconnected - perhaps they were written by different authors? We'd like to make the changes about Judge Seitz today and could try to tighten up the three paragraphs this week. Thank you!MT wKaplan (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We just made the changes described above. The three paragraphs in the section now tell a cohesive story. The first introduces the case, the second describes the federal government's positions, and the third details the outcome. Thank you. MT wKaplan (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I hadn't responded to this yet...it's been a busy week. ;-) I just read the revisions you did and it looks fine to me. It's good to see someone associated with Kaplan not trying to peacock their image all the time, but instead addressing issues in a matter-of-fact manner. Has senior management at KU changed in the past few years? Under Sigmon and Spivey the "college's" (and I use the term loosely) reputation was atrocious in the community.--averagejoe (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While back-handed, this was a complement. It prompted me to look at educational performance by students taking on-line courses. Here is one of the first results that I found: Research in Higher Education Journal "Success rates of online versus traditional college students". While not related to Kaplan per se, I offer it as a starting point for article/section development that discusses how well Kaplan (and other on-line/for-profit schools) does when actual data (vs. reputation) is examined. Given that this article has so many digits devoted to the non-empirical and isolated law suits, some academic analysis of Kaplan's achievements/non-achievements would be welcome.--S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the revenue figure under the section headlined "Company" to match the summary box in the upper-right corner. I thought this was a straightforward update, thanks. MT wKaplan (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK. Cheers!--averagejoe (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another change I'd like to make - our Test Prep division contacted us and asked us to change their description. Under the "Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions" subheading (which will be changed to ("Kaplan Test Prep"), the text will change to the paragraph below. The Kaplan Kids and Schools subhead will probably be erased outright (also erased from the box in the upper-right corner of the page). Finally, the existing last sentence describing international courses will have to find a new home. I'll keep you posted on where we'd like to place that sentence, but in the meantime I would like to make the changes I described here.
Established in 1938, Kaplan Test Prep sells preparation for standardized exams through tutoring, on-site
classes, asynchronous and live online programs, print books and digital products. With programs for
individuals, schools and businesses, Kaplan Test Prep offers preparation for more than 90 standardized
tests. These include admissions exams for secondary school, college and graduate school, such as
the SAT, ACT, Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT),
Graduate Record Examination (GRE), Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), Dental Admission Test
(DAT), Optometry Admission Test (OAT), Pharmacy College Admission Test (PCAT) and others. Kaplan
also provides preparation for professional licensing exams including state-specific and Multi-State
Bar Review for attorneys, U.S. Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) prep for physicians, and NCLEX prep
for nurses. In addition, Kaplan’s K12 Learning Services business offers individualized live tutoring
and customized online programs for children from kindergarten through 8th grade, as well as online
instructional and professional development resources for teachers. Kaplan Test Prep also licenses
material for some of its courses to third parties and a Kaplan affiliate, which, during 2010, offered
courses at 51 locations in 11 countries outside the U.S.
Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes noted in the paragraph above. Thanks. MT wKaplan (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to make a few edits to reflect 2012 data released in the Washington Post Company's 10-K form released this year.[2] I'll check back in in a few days and then make the edits. Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions update

Hello, I'd like to update the way Kaplan's subdivisions are laid out. The company is more accurately described as split into Higher Education, Test Preparation, and International. I will take language from the 2012 Annual Report of the Washington Post Company (http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-sec) and use it to describe the three subdivisions. I'll leave in the language about specific businesses that already makes up the bulk of this section. Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am reversing the last few edits made re: the teachers union as they are not sourced and represent opinion only. Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still planning on updating the subdivisions! As I have been looking over this page again, I noticed that we should update the Lawsuits section. Each of the three False Claims suits (which were combined into one qui tam suit) have been dismissed as of July (see http://www.law360.com/articles/457625/kaplan-escapes-ex-employee-s-fca-suit). With that in mind, I would like to take out the False Claims Act section, since all allegations were dismissed. Thank you. MT wKaplan (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add a short section called something like "Recent History" to the History section of the page, which does not reflect many recent developments. These will be short and factual. I'll also take a look at the language about Concord Law School, which doesn't reflect what is most interesting about it - that it was the first online law school. Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating the information reflecting company leadership, as Rosen will remain our Chairman but Leppert has become our CEO. Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another edit I would like to propose! The racial discrimination suit, which has its own heading on our page, has been dismissed, and that dismissal was upheld by a federal appeals court. Furthermore, the appeals court sharply criticized the EEOC case. Here are a few quotes from the court's decision:
“In this case the EEOC sued the defendants for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses.”
"We need not belabor the issue further. The EEOC brought this case on the basis of a homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, administered by persons with no particular expertise to administer it, tested by no one, and accepted only by the witness himself."
In light of this harsh rebuke of the EEOC's suit against Kaplan, I think it makes sense to remove this lawsuit from our page. Please see Forbes for more detail: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/04/09/appeals-court-slaps-down-eeoc-over-disparate-impact-suit/
I will remove this lawsuit from our page in a few days unless there is a compelling reason to keep it here. With that gone, there will only be one lawsuit on the page. It might make sense to move that to the History section, which I plan to expand a bit. Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the subdivisions, I think it makes sense to condense the third paragraph under Kaplan Higher Ed into the second paragraph. Much of the information (say, about the Kaplan Commitment) is redundant, while other news is outdated. I would also like to add a sentence or two about the Kaplan EdTech Accelerator (an incubator for edtech startups) to the History section, while removing a few acquisitions from the History section that are rather minor/unknown. Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the original point of this conversation, I will update the company subdivisions to mirror the actual company structure as laid out in the Graham Holdings Company annual report as soon as it becomes available in March! MT wKaplan (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time to update, per my earlier note. The GHC Annual Report was issued earlier this year and has updates to Kaplan's revenue and structure. See http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NTc0NDEzfENoaWxkSUQ9Mjc3NDcxfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1 Thanks! MT wKaplan (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading sentences added to intro

Hello, I work for Kaplan and noticed that two new sentences were added to this page's introduction. They talk about allegations Kaplan hired unqualified teachers. I would like to erase or move these sentences, as they are about only a small part of Kaplan's global business and belong with the discussion of its US higher ed businesses if they belong anywhere.

I would like to refer editors to this link, which is the actual Department of Justice press release about the settlement that came about as a result of these allegations: http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtx/pr/profit-college-kaplan-refund-federal-financial-aid-under-settlement-united-states


As you can see, the government's press release states, "Kaplan fully cooperated with the government’s investigation and negotiated the settlement in good faith, stated Acting U.S. Attorney Durbin. The settlement is not an admission of liability by Kaplan or its affiliates."

This would be useful context to add. No evidence of wrongdoing has been found, and Kaplan cooperated in good faith. I plan to erase the new sentences from the introductory paragraph next week.

Thank you! MT wKaplan (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference justice20080530 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3VybD1hSFIwY0RvdkwyRndhUzUwWlc1cmQybDZZWEprTG1OdmJTOWtiM2R1Ykc5aFpDNXdhSEEvWVdOMGFXOXVQVkJFUmlacGNHRm5aVDA0TnpZd01qQTJKbk4xWW5OcFpEMDFOdz09JnR5cGU9MiZmbj1UaGVXYXNoaW5ndG9uUG9zdENvbXBhbnlfMTBLXzIwMTMwMjI4LnBkZg==
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaplan,_Inc.&oldid=665052452"