Talk:London School of Business and Finance/Archive 1

[Untitled]

It should be noted that all the degrees are supplied by other bodies.

The London School of Business and Finance is not authorized to offer UK degrees and the former wording might have been taken to indicate that it did (that would be a criminal offence in the UK). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.51.72 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

But it is recognized by British council: http://www.educationuk.org/pls/hot_bc/bc_profile.page_pls_profile_details?a=52&p_lang=114&p_prof_id=16001&x=342960362104&y=0&z=21634 What additional notes should be added in your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashedvolk (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of intentional confusion

From the link of both schools, their websites are looking quite different. Per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, a source supporting such statement is needed to justify it not being WP:OR. MythSearcher^talk 06:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment

The London School of Business and Finance is a London based private education institution and is a different institution to the London Business School. www.lsbf.org.uk

The London School of Business and Finance is not currently authorized to offer UK degrees but works collaboratively with UK universities to validate their courses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bones2608 (talk • contribs) 13:47 (UTC), 8 June 2011

Controversies section

Blogs are usually not reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS & WP:USERG), so I have removed the section. If you want to add it back please let's discuss it first. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

These are not blogs, but valid public fora to discuss the many problems that beset teachers and students all over the world. The criticisms are also valid, as the LSBF is currently under invesgations by the tax authorities and the UK's education accreditation agencies. So please stop deleting this sectione, as it provides valuable guidance for prospective foreign students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.71.8 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide reliable information regarding the allegations you are making both in the "Controversies" section and on this discussion page? Forums are useful leads, but they do not provide enough reliability to be used as sources on Wikipedia. Also, please try and keep the standard on the Wikipedia tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finchly87 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it again. blogs (especially in this case) are not considered to be reliable sources (see the links in my first comment above). If you want to add it please find a reliable sources (have a look at the link) and suggest your addition on this talk page first. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Although all of the sockpuppetry used to try to remove the controversies and add promotional content to this article has been deeply tiresome, and it is a constant battle to keep this article from becoming a (messy and badly written) PR piece for the LSBF, this particular content needs better sourcing.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are LSBF students and teachers themselves, posting their concerns on valid and independent fora - not blogs. What more 'authority' can you possibly want? If you are happy to collude in the college's malicious and wanton exploitation of foreign students from developing countries, sure - let the college have its way. But remember that the colleges is trashing the UK's reputation for providing quality education, and you are helping them to do so. I hope you feel happy with yourselves for that!

Postings on a forum are, if anything, even more unreliable than blog entries. All sorts of nonsense is posted on Dave's ESL Cafe every day, plenty of it inaccurate, racist or distorted. Are you suggesting that we should update Wikipedia articles on Chinese culture based on some random TEFLer's rant on Dave's? The seriousness of the accusations against LSBF are a reason to be particularly careful in making them. If they're true, find a sources that's up to Wikipedia standards and let's get them in, so that everyone can see what LSBF are up to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.15.94.35 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument holds no water at all. Firstly, the information on fora are provided by participants in the process, who are also stakeholders, and not just the employers, who will be keen to maintain falsehoods if they serve the purposes of the company or college. Secondly, clearly nobody would believe a 'rant', as it is easy to recognise such a 'genre' of communication. Thirdly, your assertion about rants on Chinese culture on educational websites is a deliberate attempt to perversely ridicule the matter and fudge the issue, as nobody would take seriously a rant about a nation's culture (or any subject in which the ranter is not a specialist) from a teacher on a website designed for teachers. However, remarks made by participants in the education process about their own field of work or specialisation on a website set up especially for such professionals should definitely be respected. Finally, you choose to downgrade the adviceforyou website as a mere ranters' blog, when it is an independent (yes, INDEPENDENT) source of information for students who wish to study in the UK. They describe themselves as such...

Welcome to UK Education News and Events, the blog of Advice For You.org.uk. Through this blog we will keep you up-to-date with all the latest developments and hot topics in the UK Education sector, delivered with a focus on student issues.

Advice For You.org.uk is a new, exciting and dynamic education consultancy. We provide in-depth, personalised consulting services for a whole variety of different types of student. Advice For You provides specialist help and advice for those students wishing to study English as a foreign language, those who wish to study a language overseas and those who wish to further their education by, for example, going to University. We help people who wish to continue their studies in the UK and we are also able to assist with worldwide placements too.

Is that still not good enough for you? Or, even now that your arguments have been exposed as the hollow assertions that they are, do you still prefer to hide behind your blanket dismissal of these sites as mere blogs and ranters' corners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.65.30 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are not adequate sources for "controversy" content such as this in WP. That's just the way it is. If what is going on at LSBF is as bad as you claim then no doubt it will generate coverage in sufficiently high quality sources in time.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated LSBF academic standards as predicted the QAA published a report recently (Inside education (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

I believe there is some misinformation on the "QAA assessment" section and we should discuss it before re-edition. Please see below: 1. The entire report refers to a visit at FBT and to a now historic relationship with the University of Wales; 2. The report refers to historic issues at FBT, not to "standards and quality of higher education offered at LSBF"; 3. In the entire report, there’s no mention that LSBF or FBT were found "guilty of fraud". This actually can be considered as a defamatory and liable statement; 4. There's another potentially misleading sentence: "It found that in one intake 54% of the students had complained about the poor quality of LSBF education." – The report says that there were complaints at FBT (not LSBF). The online summary doesn't specify that the complaints were about education standards. Finchly87 (talk)

Interesting analysis. The validation of courses by Wales was for delivery at FBT and LSBF. The publication clearly references the fact that the management of both organisations is the same. Hence the use of LSBF/FBT throughout as the validation agreement is with the core LSBF organisation. A quickly search on any of the directors will show their links to all associated businesses. Any issues at FBT relate to LSBF as they are two branches of the same organisation. The report states "FBT/LSBF had a common framework...the investigation examined whether...quality and standards". "The report did not seek to attribute responsibility within the commonly managed FBT/LSBF organisation". To address your point 1. The report refers to concerns about academic standards after complaints relating to delivery of the courses at LSBF and fbt but makes specific reference to poor quality in the Birmingham branch. Referred to in the wikipedia article as the LSBF group. The exit strategy means that the are still students on the university of wales courses. A validation agreement is not cancelled overnight as students are on a course of study. This is why the qaa request a response within six weeks as students are still studying these course as part of an exit strategy, hence this is current and significant news. 2. The report is an investigation into concerns about standards and quality. The report continues to refer to FBT/LSBF throughout the document not to just FBT. 3. Agreed this should be edited - I believe it refers to the delivery of an unapproved pathway as if t was validated. Perhaps the wording should be toned down but the premise appears to be sound. 4. The entire document refers to fbt/LSBF and the article should be updated to reflect this. The full document refers to a range of issues directly related to quality hence the reason for the investigation. I think when complaints are about the English language ability of staff etc... then this is categorically education standards. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Newsroom/PressReleases/Pages/Concern-University-of-Wales-LSBF.aspx (Inside education (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

Further a quick visit to http://www.fbt-global.com confirms that indeed it is part of lsbf. Hence the reference to LSBF / FBT. In the absence or indeed with the lack of requirement for either an LSB group or lsbf/fbt wikipedia page it makes sense to have these sections located here. (Inside education (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

The information about the Quality Assurance Agency report is now posted in three different parts of the article. Do you think there’s a reasonable need for that? Also, I think the section "QAA Assesment" is delivering misinformation because the report is totally based on a visit to FBT, a company which is part of the LSBF Group, but it's not the London School of Business and Finance.

Finally, the information regarding London Metropolitan University is not directly related to LSBF. It’s clearly stated in the article that LSBF has other academic partners and I believe the temporary suspension of LondonMet does not have much to do with LSBF, as they (LSBF) continue in the UKBA list as highly trusted sponsors. (Finchly87 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

It shouldn't be in three places in the article, but it should certainly be in the article somewhere. I think that the section "QAA Assesment" is actually the best place for it and pretty reasonable in its wording. The report clearly applied to LSBF even if it was based on a vistit to FBT. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree (in part), specifically the information is current news for the institute, part of its history and its academic assessment and protocol in the context of present format and menu's. So far I agree with the shortening of the "in the media" section although specific wording may need to be adjusted. The media section is specifically for media mentions so it is expanded by such articles. Regarding the connection of London Met and LSBF, as London Met were supposed to be issuing CAS (Confirmation of acceptance for studies) a letter used for international students to apply for their tier 4 visa to come to the uk. As LSBF is a college with primarily international students this is directly relevant, as it will affect it's ability to recruit such students. Just because the other University partners are not mentioned it does not mean it should be removed as this page is a work in progress and it is open to editors to add this information at a later date. (Inside education (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

I think the QAA report should be mentioned as part of the school’s history, not as part of the academics section. The way the report is currently presented gives a very different idea of what it actually represents. To devote a whole paragraph in a short article to a report which deals with student complaints is excessive. Also, as the media section has been deleted, is it relevant to include the mention on the Times Higher Education? After reading the report, I have amended the section, replacing it to a more objective version. Please let me know your feedback. Finchly87 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am personally neutral as to whether the QAA report goes in History or Academics, an argument can be made for either. I agree that there is a danger of an undue treatment if the text on the report is too long. A single paragraph of four to five lines would seem about right in terms of length. Less and it can't be explained properly, more and it is getting into undue and possibly even attack territory.

The THE mention should in my view go in the text.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Take a look at the article to see an updated version of the paragraph (including mentions to the Time Higher and Wales Online articles) and let me know if everyone is in agreement.--Finchly87 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is not governed by the overall length of individual sections. It is for contributors to add content and expand stub sections. The point relating to "undue treatment", is not relevant as we are trying to expand this article. To limit a particular section limits the growth of the overall article. From the History of edits from Finchly87 (without violating WP:NPA) they have historically reduced the content in the text rather than adding, including reverts for deletion. The section in reference to the QAA is specifically related to content in the website of the QAA and articles related to the QAA. In the currently edited format it fails to mention the scope and context of the concerns and also loses the language and strength of the report. This violates WP:NPOV. Quotations from the article should be kept in their original context. The current opening "The QAA, a self-regulating body overseeing Higher Education in the UK", appears to belittle the status of the QAA who are regulators for Quality in higher education. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ABOUTUS/Pages/default.aspx. The report should remain in both. It is part of the current history and also expanded on in the institutes academic section. The continual deletion and editing of the QAA section violates WP:NPOV. The report summary stated in its opening paragraphs "QAA took the decision to carry out a full investigation under its concerns scheme and the investigation team identified a number of weaknesses on the part of FBT/LSBF, including institutional immaturity and inadequate understanding of the expectations of a UK higher education provider". the current section is inconsistent with this. The QAA section is present to show the findings of the QAA report and not as an opportunity to explain or change the context of the report. To consider a QAA report as an attack on the LSBF is comparable to considering the Police arresting a criminal as an attack on the criminal. The QAA are the highest authority on education in England and Wales and as such their findings should be treated with the respect they deserve as the highest level of evidence. The Times Higher Education publication is one of the most respected education news media in the UK. (Inside education (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC))

The section was badly written, confused and too long. No one is going to reasonably question that the report be included in the article, however the text about it must be of a quality appropriate for WP, and must also be of an appropriate and not undue length.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ that "no one is going to reasonably question that the report be included in the article." Having reviewed multiple articles concerning both publicly-funded and privately-funded HEIs, which were the subject of an investigation under the QAA's Concerns Scheme , I found only one other article that mentions a Concerns report (Kingston , which is anything but comparable given the level of publicity, including the discussion at a Parliamentary Select Committee, that affair has attracted). There are very good reasons for this, especially when the institution is subject to another, more comprehensive form of review by QAA. On balance, to maintain appropriate length and quality of content for a general article, it is appropriate to mention the most recent comprehensive report, not every single report ever published. Accordingly, it is most appropriate to cite the QAA REO report, which includes references to the Concerns investigation, and to remove the Concerns report from this section. The alternative, of editing multiple other articles to reference QAA Concerns reports, to ensure consistency, is simply nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.75.12 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a few changes onto the QAA Assessment section in order to make it better balanced and more up to date with the latest news related to the LSBF.Mezzenga (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Gallery of building photographs

As it appears that the school only uses very small parts of these buildings is there any point in the section at all? Should it be removed all together?Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed all but the main Holborn building, since only a small part of the others are occupied I agree that the images could be misleading and undue.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The campuses in Holborn and New Court are both entirely occupied by LSBF. I have included the picture of the New Court campus, which is where the majority of the London students attend classes.Finchly87 (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing the section "Controversy: fraud and deception"

The section "Controversy: fraud and deception" is being removed multiple times for no reason over a period of several days. Could the edit-warring stop? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That section is not reliably sourced - the only sources are message boards and youtube, which are not neutral, published sources. Given that the content is potentially controversial, I don't think it should be included unless more suitable sources can be found. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed two posts and placed them in the history section of our site. This was around old partnerships and the issue we had with our Tier 4 licence. As I understand it the top section is around the School itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MenoPorsche (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

LSBF's visa status is still suspended as of August 2014, and the investigation is still on-going, so this clearly should be in the first section. The partnerships can go into history, I agree.Arandomstring (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Clean up

London School of Business and Finance is one of a suite of articles which includes LSBF's associated institutions (which are all owned by the same company) and their personnel. They have all been created and/or heavily edited by editors with a clear conflict of interest. There is also a considerable history of sockpuppetry. Following a multi-editor discussion at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts (owned by the same company as LSBF), I am beginning clean up of this article. It is out-of-date, misleading, disorganized, repetitive and in places verges on the advertorial. It also has excessive, redundant "references", many of which are unformatted bare urls and/or contain broken links. I have begun by reducing the number of images, re-positioning and resizing the remaining ones and adding a link to the remaining images on Commons in the "External links" section. I have also copyedited the lede for readability and encyclopedic tone, and cleaned up the "External lectures" section, removing redundant references and links to individual YouTube videos (a link to the LSBF official YouTube channel has been added to "External links" instead), and formatting the remainder. In the coming week, I will tackle the "History" section, currently an incoherent and out-of-date mess. Voceditenore (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Your work and that of Justlettersandnumbers have definitely improved the article. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Organisation and administration section

I have trimmed, clarified, and updated this section, removing advertorial and adding proper references. LSBF is owned by Global University Systems (GUS). The school's website obfuscates the fact that while some of their so-called "educational partners" are completely independent, e.g. Edexcel and Concordia University Chicago, most of them are actually owned by GUS. The obfuscation was also apparent in the previous version of the WP article with descriptions of LSBF and St Patrick's College, London (also owned by GUS) being described as "working together in a 'friendly' alliance cooperation called The Central London Campus Alliance (CLCA)". Voceditenore (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Academics section

The bizarre subsection on its "Programmes" was three times longer than that Harvard Business School. This is undue weight for an institution of LSBF's stature which has no degree-awarding powers. Much of what was in that section was also out-of-date and cluttered with advertorial. I have simplified the "Programmes" subsection to an updated 'bare essentials' summary, removing material that is appropriate to a recruitment brochure but not an encyclopedia article. Note also that Global University Systems is in the process of restructuring all its holdings. According to its director of organisational development, within two years GUS plans to have phased out all degree and professional qualification provision at LSBF (see "Global University Systems to restructure"). I have also removed the "Rankings" subsection which merely stated that it isn't ranked. In the first place, institutions which do not have their own degree-awarding powers are not ranked on the major lists. Secondly, the references were simply links to three major ranking lists which... er... do not list LSBF. I have rewritten, re-referenced, and updated the "QAA assessments" subsection, summarising the 2012 kerfuffle, and adding a summary of the most recent QAA assessment (March 2015). Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Campuses and locations section

This has been updated, referenced independently, and significantly truncated to remove advertorial and detail that is appropriate to a recruitment brochure but not an encyclopedia article. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

History section

This is now in the process of being re-written. As a preliminary step I have removed advertorial fluff (referenced to press-releases) and out-of-date and/or trivial information, etc. It will be re-expanded with some of the material potentially restored (copyedited and independently referenced) and new material added. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've completed the re-write of the "History" section and removed the {{COI}} template from the article as no longer applicable. Voceditenore (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)