Talk:Full Sail University/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Blatant Advertising

Its unacceptable this article gets the slide with the blatant advertising "Full Sail unlike other universities..." This isn't your web-page! Wikipedia should be more harsh on this abuse, if possible they should ban the university IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.232.7 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Marketing piece

Bang on marketing!!! Excellent marketing piece, if I ever did see one. One of the best lay outs of a Wikipedia article I ever saw. Clean and neat and perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.132.225 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Film School Advice

I won't add it myself, but I'm wondering if it's appropriate for somebody to add as an external link?

I have a multi-page article on attending Full Sail on my website, Advice from a Full Sail Graduate. It has notes about the decision to attend, suggestions for current students, and advice for making the most of it after graduation. I created it because of the amount of anti-FS discussion out there by the people who generally didn't give it their all or blame the school for their own mistakes.

Ziemkowski 02:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that I am a Full Sail graduate, gave it my all and everything while I was there. There were things that happened that were out of my control where the fault lies with the school themselves. I have a recording arts degree. During our Audio Post Production project we had to redo the voices, sfx and music for the quidditch match scene in Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets. My lab group had the highest grade in the entire class with a 98% out of 100. That fall I had an interview with Bethesda Softworks(I got it on my own, which is where my complaint with the placement department comes in). The position was for music and sfx producer. They asked for my demo reel. I was ecstatic knowing that we had done Harry Potter and it turned out so well. I had to call Full Sail to request a copy of that project due to the fact that we weren't allowed to obtain copies while we were there. I was informed by the school that they hadn't acquired the licensing rights for the video portion and as a result had to destroy all of the projects upon our graduation. Needless to say that didn't help my demo reel and I didn't get the job. The overall problem I have with this is that the teachers and instructors told my group that this project, Harry Potter, would be a great asset to our demo reel. In turn they had to destroy them.

Now on to placement. After the debacle with Bethesda Softworks I decided to move to Los Angeles and live with a friend of mine that went to Full Sail. Since my placement advisor had talked to me before graduation and told me about the contacts the school had in LA I decided to give the school a call to see what they could do to help a grad. I called them two weeks before I left for LA. I didn't receive any info from them until a week after I moved out there. And they basically handed me a list and said go to it. Didn't help secure an interview, as they advertised when considering going to school there. So I busted my ass and got a job on my own, which I have no problem doing, but what I would like to know is what exactly did my $32000 go towards. I can understand the education, but when you are advertising an 80-90% placement rating and drop the ball the way they did it starts to make you wonder. I also haven't had a call from them for a follow up in years, this was another advertised service they said they provided, follow up calls to see how their grads are doing.

On a side note the majority of engineers out in LA did nothing but put down Full Sail grads, and said that it was always difficult to work with them because of the mindset the school gives their graduates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobadams6 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I am glad I decided to go traditional than go to a for profit school like Full Sail.Umitencho (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Items in "Upcoming Buildings" needs validation

There are always rumors among students and staff about these things--rarely does anybody outside of Administration know what's going on until the blueprints are known.

The "Unknown Building" and "Film Backlot" entries are particularly lacking information.

The best bet would be to email Administration and ask them to verify public projects.

Ziemkowski 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Future construction

Again, saying "like Universal or MGM" is innapropriate. Instead, make a factual comparison if possible (eg. "90% of the size of the current MGM backlot" if such data is available).

Limesix: As mentioned in my previous comment we need sources on future projects. You deleted two thirds of them (leaving only film-centric future plans) and re-introduced unverified claims. Please give reason and justification for your edits... you're practically rewriting the whole article! This is wikipedia not your personal homepage.

Ziemkowski 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

the school its openeing a new program for webdesing and its constructing more classroom for the that degree program they are constructing on the univeristy park shopping where albrestone they have about 3 offices there plus the classrom they are currently building.

Conflict of interest?

This article has been extensively edited by someone using the IP address 66.192.104.10 (talk · contribs), which is registered to Full Sail Technology, Inc. in Winter Park, FL, which apparently operates the venture described in the article. This clearly violates the guideline Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas, and appears to violate the policy stipulating that Wikipedia is not a directory or a resource for conducting business. See also WP:NPOV-WP:VAIN-WP:AUTO among others. ---CH 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That IP is for the student wireless network, and is used mainly by Full Sail students and not one person. There are probably a few other IPs belonging to Full Sail that are for their networks, and are not necessarily used by the administration. As such, I don't think it would violate any of Wikipedia's rules, but I'm not an expert. For clarification: I'm a current GDD student at Full Sail and have edited Wikipedia on that IP while at school before (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Full_Sail_Real_World_Education&diff=prev&oldid=53751333 - Sorry, I don't know how to inline that sort of link) -JNighthawk 09:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Occasionally I pull this article up and any edits that any other user besides a specific few have done get reverted. Wikipedia is not your homepage, it is a community based website. Anything that might cast Full Sail in even a slightly negative light is generally reverted the next day after the edit. Yeah, it's annoying that people will post things about how numetal all the students are, I understand getting rid of those edits but when people post things about how much the school costs or things that might pertain to actual student life, it is immediately changed so that it casts Full Sail in the most positive light. I'm starting to wonder if certain users work in their sales department and are trying to make sure that no one sees it in a negative light. Has anyone else noticed this? If you are the perpetrator of such edits, will you please stop and remove only vandalism from this point forward? Macaroni2222 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)macaroni2222

Can you please point out those edits? I'm a maintainer of the page, so I'm guessing some of what I've done you might consider problematic. Numbers about the cost of the school have not been removed, and the only thing that I can remember being removed/altered about student life was a long list of apartment complexes that didn't need to be listed. - JNighthawk 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

From Talk: Full Sail

If this is the case, why does the page still refer to FSRW as a "College?" The article even mentions the ACCSCT accreditation and what that entails. Referring to this school as a "College" is blatant misinformation. on May 7 2007 by 65.33.181.67

Full Sail refers to itself as a college, is accredited (even if not by a regional accreditor), and offers traditional college degrees. How is that not a college? - JNighthawk 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

After looking at a few other college's entries on Wikipedia, and the entry on private university, it most definitely fits within the realm of "private university." From the page: "Both private and public universities can be nationally accredited." - JNighthawk 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading however, to compare this school, which *more accurately* should be referred to as a "Vocational School" or "Carreer College" or "Technical School," especially since the degrees offered by Full Sail are not considered equivalent to traditional Undergraduate or Graduate degrees. I feel that your edits, especially the removal of a section outlining exactly what ACCST is and that Full Sail credits do not transfer to University reflects a bias. Just because Full Sail can be considered a private university (after people from this talk page changed the private university and vocational school articles to more vauge definitons) that still doesn't mean that this term is the most accurate for defining what the school is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.204.222.155 (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Admittedly, I'm most likely biased, as I'm an alumnus of the school, but I do my best to try and maintain an even keel. I didn't remove the section in criticism where it defines the ACCSCT and explains that the credits are mostly non-transferable, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Regardless, as it is accredited by a recognized accreditor, even if not typical regional accreditation, I feel that it should be marked as a college. I would definitely appreciate some third-party opinions on this, though, I will say this: those that disregard the degree, or treat it as less than a typical undergraduate degree either haven't seen the programs at Full Sail first-hand, or maintains a bias towards tradition for the sake of tradition. I understand that Wikipedia is not the place to change someone's mind, so I've tried to keep that out and just record the facts. - JNighthawk 04:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Full Sail is accredited by ACCSCT, an organization focused on the accreditation of career schools, a.k.a. "Vocational Schools". A highly specialized non-traditional school focused on preparing students for a specific career path, such as Full Sail, is better classified as a vocational school or career school as opposed to "colleges" which are primarily avocational in nature and offer students a wide variety of general education options or majors. If I may quote from ACCSCT's website FAQ:

"Only private, postsecondary career schools and colleges with trade, occupational or technical educational objectives are eligible for accreditation. ACCSCT may decline to consider for accreditation otherwise eligible schools if it determines that the programs offered by an applicant school fall outside of the Commission’s primary scope and competence or there is a lack of standards necessary for meaningful review. Please note that schools primarily directed toward avocational or general education objectives are ineligible for accreditation with ACCSCT."

I have zero interest in getting into a battle over semantics, I was merely trying to more accurately reflect the specialized nature of Full Sail's programs. Classifying Full Sail as a "college" in the strictest sense of the word is a bit of a misnomer. - re: revision to "College" on 30 June 2006 by 66.192.104.10

The school offers degrees for all its and is accreditted to do so - "College" is the more appropriate term. - re: revision to "Vocation School" on 23 June 2006 by 71.234.83.67

Accreditation

Deleted third paragraph of accreditation explanation under "Criticism" - it was basically redundant, and was also starting to turn the entry into an argument for/against regional accreditation, with assumptions and extrapolations concerning what Full Sail would need to do to be compliant. The link at the end of the second paragraph explains things sufficiently.

You yourself (or someone on the same Full Sail IP address) added the line "though the school is actively working on changing this" to the paragraph, and the section you refer to above and which you removed only expanded on that statement with a well documented source which involved no "assumptions and extrapolations". Therefore it was relevent to the discussion on accreditation. So as I understand it then, you want to claim Full Sail will be changing it's accreditation standards to be acceptable to regionally accredited institutions but offer no insight as to how or what that would entail. If you were to actually read the PDF that was linked to the section you deleted (and included here again for your personal education), you would have found everything documented right there. Let's face it, whether you agree with their policies or not, regionally accredited institutions of higher learning (colleges) only accept credit from other regionally accredited institutions of higher learning (other colleges). - 71.234.83.67 SACS Principles of Accreditation

You are entirely right. I understand the OP's point about it seeming like it's a debate, but it's not. It was good information, and explained why Full Sail hasn't been able to do it yet, and if it would, how it would do it. - JNighthawk 12:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's actually not true that regionally accredited institutions of higher learning only accept regionally accredited transfer credit. Some accept nationally accredited transfer credit, others do not. Here's a site with a list of those that do. In addition, many if not most will accept programs that have been evaluated by ACE as transfer credit. And the trend is toward greater acceptance. I'm not planning to edit the article, I just thought I'd make the point here in case it comes up again. --Steve Foerster (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments! Use four tildes at the end. - JNighthawk 12:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, I removed the addition "thought the school is actively working on changing this" by 66.192.104.10. Upon a review of the Full Sail website and an inquiry (by myself) regarding accreditation to the admissions office, there is no basis for the assertion FS is seeking credit transferability to regionally accredited institutions on their own terms. To 66.192.104.10, don't take this personally but I believe that something as serious as accreditation needs to be completely accurate with absolutely no conjecture. If you can provide information that shows what FS is doing to achieve transferability please do so. Since my previous post explaining things was obviously unacceptable to you, the burden of proof is on you. Believe me, as someone with a ton of FS credit that cannot be used for anything in traditional academia I hope you are correct. You might be able to make the claim that ACCSCT is seeking to make credit transferable, but that is neither here nor there because they've been trying to accomplish that for the past 20 years. - 71.234.83.67 6:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The information on what regional accreditation would require should still be there, as it explains why Full Sail is nationally accreditated, rather than regionally. Debbie Mills, Director of Student Affairs, said on Propeller (the internal school forum) "We are not changing our accreditation . We are working to acquire articulation agreements with other schools to facilitate easier credit transfer to regionally accredited schools. Nothing more." I would take that at face value, and revert. - JNighthawk 08:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Followed your advice JNighthawk and rewrote the paragraph in a way which I think says it all. Thanks. - 71.234.83.67 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I changed the future tense to present on the articulation agreements, as per the quote saying that they are actively working on it. - JNighthawk 21:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better thanks again. - 71.234.83.67 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement about Full Sail working to aquire articulation agreements with regionally accredited schools for credit tranfer on the grounds that A)I couldn't locate a link to a source citing this. B) After reading through the discussion.. This statement is not published anywhere on their website or on any credible source and I would hardly consider what someone wrote on a forum to be a citable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.120.6 (talk)

True enough, Propeller is internal and access is granted only to current students and staff. As an alumnus, I don't have access anymore. The statement, however, was not written by "someone" on a random forum. It was written by Debbie Mills, the director of student affairs, on Full Sail's official internal forum. The internal nature of the forum makes citing it near impossible, though. I'm not sure what to do here. I'm adding an "According to Debbie Mills" thing on that part, but I dunno. If you still feel it should be removed, feel free to do so. - JNighthawk 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It may have been said on an internal forum but the school itself has never made any public mention of attempts to do this. Im not saying that Debbie never said this but it is misleading and pretty much hearsay because it's on an internal forum that can't be cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.139.63 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but the word "commonly" sounds a little strange here so I removed it. Before we add the adjective "commonly" to "transferable", I ask that someone prove that ANY regionally accredited university accepts ANY credit from Full Sail..... - 71.234.83.67 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.83.67 (talk)

My recent edit

I removed some of what I felt were POV comments in the costs section and updated the cost (that's about what my GDD degree cost). I re-added the Full Sail catalog as a reference, as it is, contrary to User:Bobak's thoughts. The article, nor the reference, is neither spam nor advertisement. It's information on the school.

My question would be why was the type changed from Private college to Vocational school? I don't know what the official classification is, but there was no information as to why it was changed. Ah, just read some of the discussion that I moved over from the old Full Sail page. I'm going to research that a bit and see which fits more, as Full Sail is specialized, but does offer general education classes and a degree, not a certificate. - JNighthawk 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Full Sail alumni projects

I like it, but I have two issues with it. I'm not sure if it belongs on Wikipedia (I'd lean more towards yes than no) and the alumni that worked on the projects aren't listed. When I get a chance, I'll look for which alumni worked on what (I personally know of many more game projects worked on by alumni that I'll add). - JNighthawk 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The alumni projects section is starting to get very long and the citations could use some cleaning up. possibly using the inline citations or however those kinds of citations work. andyzweb (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited the cost of institutional fee for game development as currently the laptop is in the institutional fee as of august 2007 its a hp laptop and the institutional fee its 1,900

Honestly, it seems to me like the list is only there at the behest of full sails PR department, intended to prove the legitimacy of their degrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.66.125 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wade Walker"

In order not to violate the 3R rule, I'll be requesting an admin's help in removing Wade Walker and seeing he isn't re-added to the list without a source/citation. - JNighthawk 12:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

List of projects

Following up on the comment above - I've begun the somewhat daunting task of finding references for the alumni projects listed. I'm not removing any unless I can't find any backup for them, but I am adding some relevent ones as I find them (such as Tim Naylor's other projects besides Star Wars - Hulk, PotC, Transformers). I'm adding references for all, and am strongly considering eliminating the "Notable Alumni" section once i've researched all of them, as it's redundant information to the "Alumni Projects" section.

Limesix 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

*claps* Well done. A great addition to the article. - JNighthawk 04:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Organization re: Industry recognition and criticism

When reviewing the article, I felt like it was odd to have the industry recognition stuff up front with the criticism following the alumni credits - they're really two sides of the same coin. So I put them together under a master header of "views of full sail", and just added a small bit to the front of the criticism sub-section to better relate the two topics. Limesix 15:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Though, we still have a problem. While I disagree with the opinions in the criticism section, there are enough who hold those opinions to warrant its inclusion. However, I highly doubt there are any reliable sources that can be cited for the criticism. I'm not planning on touching it, because, like I said, it belongs in the article, but it's something to think about. - JNighthawk 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was looking over this article, and the first two statements in the Criticism section are totally uncitable (as you said), but also largely irrelevant. All colleges have teachers who vary in their ability to convey information - even large, well-respected universities (of which I have knowledge) are hardly immune from this, so what's the point of mentioning it here? Just because someone had a bad experience with a couple of teachers doesn't warrant that fact's inclusion in a Wikipedia entry. As for the second point, it states that admissions is a problem because of x, then says that x is being mitigated by y, neither of which are verified in any way. If the school's admission process needs to be detailed, the article should do that in a separate section about "Admissions", but it doesn't belong here. The criticism of the accreditation is the only relevant information about the school in this section.24.50.17.99 09:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the first section, but I'm not sure about the second. It passes the "I've heard about it" test, but you're right, it's impossible to cite. Thanks for helping out on the article :-) - JNighthawk 13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying... I'm not saying some of the information isn't relevant, though it would be nice if it was at all citeable, just that a) the point of that statement(that open admissions is a problem) is rendered moot by the (somewhat more verifiable, I'd guess) statement that there is now admissions testing in place for the programs that need it, and b) that if the admissions process is of particular interest here, as opposed to at other schools, then there should be an "Admissions" section that lays it all out clearly and equitably.24.50.17.99 16:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shooting the Messenger link

Read through the linked article and felt like it was irrelevant and not particularly insightful to the Full Sail article - the case it references has obviously been settled one way or another (neither website is still in existence), but there's no follow-up information that gives any insight into the school, the guy who created the websites, and what (if any) bearing this all has on the education, the school, its students, or anything else. Just seems like an unnecessary link. Fallout14 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mr. 72.188.57.6: Yes, what you're trying to add to this article IS vandalism. The purpose of a blog is to state your opinion. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state verifiable FACTS. You've obviously had a bad experience at this school, and that's unfortunate, but based on any objective study of the facts, it would be difficult to impossible to make the case that what you're trying to add to this entry could be classified as factual and/or relevant and/or representative of everyone experience with the school. If you're looking to work out your frustrations, do it somewhere other than on Wikipedia - the web is full of places to make your case.Fallout14 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. He knew my name. I wonder if he just looked at my userpage or actually knew me at Full Sail. *shrugs* With that type of vandalism, the most common thing I've seen is changing the degree names, changing the tuition costs, and changing the class sizes. Just common things to look out for. - JNighthawk 13:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

Does anyone else see this as being quazi-advertising? --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 20:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No more so than any other article related to a for-profit business. Do you have any particular concerns? - JNighthawk 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Costs

Not trying to be a Full Sail apologist, but the fact that the computer costs money is reflected in the tuition numbers earlier in that paragraph, and is explicitly stated a sentence later (as well as in the provided citations). It seems to be amply covered.Limesix 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Full Sail is now a University (as of 3/24/08)

See their article. This means that the Accreditation section is now outdated and untrue. Will someone edit this? I don't know enough about the subject. Thanks Crh0872 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed a long section regarding criticism of Full Sail - it may well be that some of it has merit/is verifiable, but it was written with encyclopedia weasel words ("it has been noted", "it has been claimed", etc.) before closing with "while none of the above could be proven." Undoubtably the discussion the post implies has a place on the Internet, but not on Wikipedia. 66.192.104.10 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC) can —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.48.217 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that this should be re-added. There has already been a lot of criticism mentioned on this talk page, and I have seen many, many good sources on the internet that bring up the negative aspects of this school. I actually attended the school and left after 7 months in the Film degree. I'm interested in getting some sources together to put up a good, unbiased summary of the criticisms and the responses to them. See [1] for some students' opinions, this is enough to convince me that some effort should be put into this...what do you guys think? Crh0872 (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The danger here is that the wikipedia page becomes a forum for airing grievances (and responses), rather than an encyclopedia entry. By definition, there's just no way to have an unbiased section about negative and positive student opinions. If you review similar pages, the only time there is a legitimate Criticism-type entry is when there are negative items from the public record. I've seen some of the same thing you have, but generally there are as many people defending as deriding, and that's those forums exist - to hash that out. But I don't think it belongs here. Limesix (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It SHOULD be added, there is criticism of this school all over the internet and plenty of students would say something, but unfortunately they sign a contract which forbids giving such opinions, simple googling will give you hours of material to read, but I guess there are requiremnts before someone is an official critic or a trusted critic. Personally a lot of it will be biased, so that is a problem, but if it was all rubbish, why do you think an institute that is FOR profit has such amazing facilities but can seem to survive on students fees, if the industries they 'teach' and 'prepare' graduates for are so ripe and full of jobs? It is a business to draw in plenty of students with money to burn whilst giving them no chance of seeing that money ever again. Sure there are 100 hall of fame faces notable. But what about the near 40,000 other graduates? That's like almost 1 in 400 graduates that lands a respectable job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.107.191 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the major criticism was the accreditation. Which I believe up until recently was made by an organisation that also had 'The school of Taxidermy' on it's register, and worse things. Also, it's noted that many other colleges locally don't actually see Full Sail as an institution than can grant degrees, in such a short period of time too. But I am unable to get anything hard in plain text on this. If anyone comes across something, it would be very useful to this section's implementation.

Also the fact that Full Sail itself has been proved to be editing the page. That says a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.107.191 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable Graduates

I'm currently in the process of tidying up this section, but I was wondering... Should this list even exist? These people are not notable to the rest of the world, unlike other college Wikipedia's lists like UMich and Chapman's, for example. These Full Sail graduates are just normal people in their industries, they are not really significant at all...I think this all should be removed and replaced with a link to Full Sail's list of graduates on their website, and maybe a summary. If nobody disagrees, I'll do this in a few days. Crh0872 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of your edits, but removed the line about being a vocational school in the intro, as even the structure of the sentence suggests it's an opinion. The school has business degrees, marketing degrees, programming degrees, etc, etc. - you could argue that their core competency once upon a time was vocational education, but at this point I think the vocational school reference is limiting at best and badly inaccurate at worst.

As for the graduates, I agree that the graduates themselves are not notable, but the project they work on are - unlike a Yale or Chapman or whatever, the people that graduate from Full Sail are unlikely to be household names, but the stuff they end up working on is. Maybe there should be an independent page for Full Sail Graduate Projects or whatever, and that page can have a more comprehensive list that can be fleshed out over time - that way it's not a huge list in the middle of this article. I think the information is valuable, but maybe just misplaced. Limesix (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to delete the section myself, but I figured it would be restored. It definitely needs to just be a summary. These people aren't notable and if every college/university did the same thing their wikipedia pages would be extremely long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.214.174 (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

there has been a lot of discussion about deleting this whole section I am going to make a page called List of Full Sail University people and move the contents into there. andyzweb (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Hi there - went in and edited the formatting of the reference links so they are fleshed out in the References section. Just wanted to make a note here, since I made several changes. Also fixed a few broken links and added a few references. Fourbuttons (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another note - just made a larger update to the introduction section. Small amounts of the content can be found elsewhere in the article, but the introduction seemed out of proportion to the rest of the article and didn't seem to give a thorough enough overview. Fourbuttons (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Academics and Online Sections

I'm working on this article a bit, based on some information that's missing - adding an online section and working to fill out the Academics section. Fourbuttons (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Its unacceptable this article gets the slide with the blatant advertising "Full Sail unlike other universities..." This isn't your web-page! Wikipedia should be more harsh on this abuse, if possible they should ban the university IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.232.7 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Recent Edit

It claims that 'most' of it's graduates have worked on award winning films etc. when this is blatantly untrue, and has no source ANYWHERE that I have looked. Only the Full Sail site itself. Which leads me to believe it's still editing this whole page. A break of Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislpp (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is this claim? I'm having trouble finding it. --Onorem♠Dil 18:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazing

Is there a a legion of trolls and socks that defend this horrendous article? Good heavens.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

If you are a FS alumni, it is, perhaps, best that you do not edit this page. You should consider bringing up points (with sources) on the talk page for neutral editors to sort through and include. Having attended an academic institution leaves you with some strong feelings about it, and Wikipedia is not about feelings. If you feel that FS is the greatest school ever, the article should not reflect that. If you think that FS sucks, the article should not reflect that. The article needs to contain factual and sourced information about the school.

Please review WP:Conflict, WP:Not, and WP:NPOV before making any edits to this article. There seems to be a good deal of criticism and praise for FS readily available on the internet; however, please keep in mind both WP:IRS and WP:V. Jmclark (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4