Talk:Law school

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jantkiew.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate law school from law school in the United States

I've separated the two articles. I think "law school" needs its own treatment as it is used elsewhere than the US and it also is frequently used to refer to legal education in general. --PullUpYourSocks 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this split was a bad idea to begin with, and time is proving me right. Now we have a huge redundant overlapping mess between [[law school and Law school in the United States. Anyone have the time to clean this up? Thought not. Way to go, PullUpYourSocks.

The better solution at this point is to get rid of Law school in the United States through AfD and then fix this article so it is more inclusive. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of garbage in this article in violation of WikiProject:Countering systemic bias

The article Law school in the United States was created specifically because Law school was becoming too U.S.-specific. Now there is a lot of U.S.-specific junk accumulating in this article again. If someone doesn't generalize those statements to cover all or most law schools worldwide and support those assertions with citations to reliable sources, I am deleting them in a couple of weeks.

If any of the people who inserted those bad statements into this article is too damned lazy or busy to bring them into compliance with WikiProject:Countering systemic bias, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, then that's just too bad. As Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Go get yourself a blog. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with AM01NU06

Just discovered the edit war in progress. I concur with AM01NU06 and disagree with Wordbuilder. Texas Tech is a second-tier joke of a university and so is its law school. As far as most Americans are concerned, Texas Tech is just another tech school like Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. It's the kind of place people end up at because they were too busy goofing off in high school to get good grades in order to attend a decent research university like UC, UTexas, or UVa. Harvard is the best law school to lead the article with a photograph of, because of its overwhelming impact on all other first- and second-tier American law schools since it supplies the majority of their faculty. Also, the last time I checked, Texas Tech's law school hasn't been featured in any feature films yet while Harvard can brag about two (Legally Blonde and the Paper Chase). --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I would assume good faith but your post shows your obvious bias—"joke of a university", "kind of place people end up at because they were too busy goofing off in high school to get good grades in order to attend a decent research university", etc. Nevertheless, if you can cite a Wikipedia guideline or policy that states that special priveleges should be given to images of subjects that have been featured in films, then I'm willing to reconsider my position. But, so far, this issue boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT from both AM01NU06 and you. In the meantime, see WP:NPA, since what you say about those who attend Texas Tech, Georgia Tech, and Viriginia Tech are definitely personal attacks. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm focusing on notability. Texas Tech just really isn't that notable as a university because its faculty, alumni, and students are lucky to get a few dozen press stories a year (mostly in Texas publications) for their meager accomplishments while the dramatic accomplishments of Harvard are mentioned in hundreds of TV, newspaper, and magazine news stories. Harvard supplies the faculty for many other elite institutions and thus sets the trends for them.

Harvard is a global brand with universal name recognition among even moderately educated people worldwide. Harvard is located in a major world city, Boston, which is the primary metropolis in New England and home to an international airport. Texas Tech is located in a flyover city called Lubbock, and neither the school nor the city have much name recognition outside of the U.S. Harvard is highly selective; Texas Tech is not. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to be abused by promoters in order to raise the public profile of second-tier institutions which they ended up attending due to their inability to attend an academically superior institution.--Coolcaesar (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about fame, not Wikipedia's standard of notability. Can you cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline stating that using images of well-known subjects is more desirable than using images of less-known subjects? Indeed, if fame was the threshold for inclusion, this encyclopedia would be nothing more than a guide to popular culture. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP. Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising, self-promotion, or propaganda. What part of the word soapbox don't you understand? Read the WP:NOT policy. What you're doing is somewhat akin to what MyWikiBiz was doing by promoting businesses on Wikipedia. WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR together imply that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, we describe things as they are, not as they should be or as we wish they could be. Putting a picture of Texas Tech at the top of the article on such a general subject implies that it is a typical example of a law school when it is not. Of course, I would have no problem with a picture of Texas Tech leading the article if the caption were qualified to more accurately indicate that Texas Tech is typical in the sense of typically mediocre.

See also WP:NPOV. Your arguments in favor of Texas Tech are loaded with personal bias in violation of the neutral point of view policy.

Finally, your argument lacks common sense. There are several hundred law schools in the United States. Should we put all of their pictures in this article? After all, you said fame is not the threshold for inclusion.

Also, site is a noun. The verb is cite. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I should qualify my suggested caption further. I hadn't realized that Texas Tech's law school is ranked so low that it's in the third tier where U.S. News doesn't bother to give an actual numeric rank or the actual score (to avoid humiliating the school further). After all, the schools ranked 99 and 100 got only 38 points on a scale from 0 to 100, which means a school with no rank or score did even worse than that. So I would say Texas Tech is a "typical third-tier school" while Harvard is an example of a "typical first-tier school." --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct regarding "site" vs. "cite". That was a typo which I have now corrected. You mention WP:POV but write things such as "Texas Tech is a second-tier joke of a university and so is its law school", "It's the kind of place people end up at because they were too busy goofing off in high school to get good grades in order to attend a decent research university", "Texas Tech is typical in the sense of typically mediocre", etc. All of which are clearly POV. You wish to replace the existing image because the subject is not a "typical example of a law school". Harvard, as you point out, is highly selective, so how can you argue that it's a "typical example of a law school"? Finally, if my "argument lacks common sense" because there "are several hundred law schools in the United States" and they cannot all be pictured, so does yours in that you, too, are arguing in favor of a picture of a law school. There is no Wikipedia policy on this. If there were, articles such as insect, animal, and many more would be devoid of illustrations. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remembered to return to this issue; I recently switched jobs and moved. The problem is that you are completely ignoring and failing to discuss WP:SOAP, which I have repeatedly pointed out to you. READ IT. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda, advocacy, recruitment, or advertising. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and all the other first-tier schools are inherently notable. Texas Tech is not (again, as far as most people know or care, it's just one of many "tech" schools) and that is why your insistence on leading the article with a picture of a no-name school counts as propaganda or advertising. The only reason you would argue this issue so vigorously is probably because you are a promoter hoping to raise the profile of your underfunded third-rate alma mater by placing its name and photograph in a highly visible place on Wikipedia. Did you even bother to apply to a nice school which educated people outside of Texas actually have a mental image of (without having to resort to a reference book), like UTexas at Austin? Or a school which has a few members of the periodic table of elements named after it (UC Berkeley)?

Anyway, the only reason I care about this issue is because as a historian and attorney, I believe that sources of information should be accurate as possible in all respects including the importance they actually or apparently place on things. If I have a POV, that is it. And that means that the article on law schools should lead with a photograph of a law school which is already notable in its own right so that the photograph does not essentially come across as shameless advertising. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing popularity with notability. If the school is not notable by Wikipedia standards, then nominate its article for deletion. If it is deleted as non-notable, then the image here should probably go as well. You continue to show your WP:IDON'TLIKEIT-type bias with statements such as "Did you even bother to apply to a nice school which educated people outside of Texas actually have a mental image of (without having to resort to a reference book), like UTexas at Austin? Or a school which has a few members of the periodic table of elements named after it (UC Berkeley)?" →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just returned from my seventh vacation this year (see the lovely new photo at Popular, Inc. for my latest contribution to the encyclopedia).

Again you evade the issue, which is that you are engaging in advertising and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. You refuse to deal with that issue because you know your position is indefensible, which is why you try to pretend it doesn't exist. Even if I have a bias in favor of elitism and excellence, SO WHAT. The last time I checked, that's what intellectual endeavors like Wikipedia in general are supposed to be in favor of. Unless you have no problem with being the subject of neurosurgery by a guy who got a C+ in gross anatomy and went to a fourth-tier Caribbean medical school, or you don't mind being the subject of a libelous biography by someone who got a C in historiography at an agricultural college, or you don't mind if Wikipedia becomes as laughably distorted and inaccurate as Uncyclopedia (check it out some time, it's a hilarious parody of Wikipedia). To paraphrase an old joke, a Wikipedia article is only as good as its last edit.

The point is that some things can be objectively measured and valued vis-a-vis one another, and trying to represent them as what they are not amounts to using Wikipedia as a soapbox in violation of the policies I have cited above. If you actually think those hypotheticals I have described are perfectly fine, then I can't help you, and this issue is clearly beyond negotiation (or mediation). If you cannot concede the obvious, I will then attempt to substitute a photograph of a more representative law school which I have no personal interest in (e.g. Virginia or Michigan), and if you countermand that, we will have to go to arbitration to have ArbCom impose a resolution. Please see User:Ericsaindon2 for what happened the last time I took a user to ArbCom for attempting to insert original research and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. (He was temporarily banned, then repeatedly violated the ban with numerous sockpuppets and was permanently banned as a result.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Which undergrad degrees are typically held?

Which undergrad degrees are typically held by students entering law school? Is there a statistic? Are there special undergrad degrees that specifically prepare for law school? Please add this information. -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

People (and the books they write) give all kinds of advice from "philosophy will give you the reasoning skills that law school wants" to "Don't believe the philosophy myth". Umm, as for statistics... I have never seen a breakdown of that in Princeton review or on any law school website. gren グレン 14:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted another major deficiency in the legal education articles

Just spotted another major deficiency in the legal education articles; apart from the UK and the U.S., nearly all of the information on other countries merely describes the general requirements for a degree but does not describe the specific curriculum requirements. As can be seen from comparing Bar Vocational Course, Legal Practice Course, and Law school in the United States, it's fairly obvious that there are clear structural differences between UK and U.S. curricula (and not just in terms of the substantive law). For example, client interviewing and advising receive only a little coverage in first-year Lawyering Skills in the U.S., and most schools have a divide in the clinical courses between trial advocacy versus appellate advocacy (both of which are optional, because so many attorneys go on to become transactional or in-house lawyers who have no need of either skill) versus the UK difference between criminal and civil litigation. The criminal litigation requirement also looks funny to Americans, since the vast majority of law school graduates specialize in civil litigation and thus have no need for training in how to actually litigate in the criminal justice system; the first-year course in substantive criminal law is considered adequate to teach lawyers how to spot criminal law issues so they can refer them to a criminal law specialist if necessary.

I suspect that there are a lot more substantive differences if one could compare the U.S. or UK to other countries, but the problem is that editors from countries outside the U.S. and UK haven't added any information about the curricula in their countries to Wikipedia! --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Why is this article and Legal education two separate articles? It would appear with some work they could be merged into one article as they address the same topic. What do you think? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Legal education and profession related articles are becoming increasingly repetitive (e.g. practice of law, lawyer, legal education, law school, etc). It'd be great if you could start consolidating some content! Misterx2000 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur as to the legal education articles but disagree as to the legal profession articles for the reasons given at Talk:Lawyer. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If any of the articles were to become as important or good as Coolcaesar believes, it might be necessary to consolidate them first. They need considerable improvement, and consolidating them, at least temporarily, may allow their parts to be more clearly drafted and tightened. Merge away! Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure about merging. As the articles are written at present, a merge is definitely a good choice. I think the ideal subjects are quite different though, and should ideally remain separate articles. "Legal education" should discuss what the name suggests: how people obtain legal educations, including other perspectives (reading law, for instance). "Law school" on the other hand should discuss things such as how schools are administered, the admissions process, accreditation, ranking, where faculty comes from, research that goes on in law schools, etc., in addition to describing how one obtains a legal education at such institutions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I belive Legal education article is supposed to have wider scope than just Law school. Law school article name needs to be changed to plural Law schools so that article may have more detailed and specialised focus.Law schools article supposed to cover just law schools across the globe And brief part of Law schools can be encorporated in to this Legal education article.

As far as Country wise sections need to be redrafted in to broader tentatively thinking of categories some thing like Legal education in North Amrerica; South America; rest of African continet; Arab and Islamic countries; Common wealth countries; Rest of Asia countris ( non-commonwealth) ; Rest of West Europe ; East Europe.

But certainly I am for separate articles for Law schools and Legal Education since for both of them scope focus is not exactly the same.

Mahitgar (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Controversies

The controversies section does not exist in the "law school in the united states article" and therefore should either be merged with it or not, but deletion of the "controversies" is not appropriate without consensus in my opinion. Please share your view as well and let's reach a consensus with the community. Johnybegood365 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

First, WP:BRD does indeed state that it's acceptable to remove others' bold additions; that's what a revert is. So don't use that as an excuse to edit war with multiple editors.

Second, you and your friends have indeed added this material to Law school in the United States. It's in the "Post Graduate Employment" section that you have so recently added and heavily edited. I don't have any major issues with the material being placed in that article but as it's focused solely on the U.S. it doesn't really belong in this article except maybe in a very, very truncated (one or two sentences) form. ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

ElKevbo, thanks for continuing this conversation in the discussion section as opposed to having some sort of edit war. I assure you I did not create the "controversies" section in this article, it's been around for either months or years. There are two new paragraphs in the section, so I felt WP:BRD for the entire section composed of many paragraphs was inappropriate, but I'm certainly open to your interpretation as well. Also, it appears there is a lot of information contained in the "controversies" section that does not exist in the post graduate employment section of "law school in the united states" which is why I'm doubly nervous about deleting the whole section. You made a good suggestion about creating a brief summary of the "controversies" section in this article and merging the detailed version with "law school in the united states". I think that is very reasonable. Johnybegood365 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the controversies section is too big relatie to the rest of the article, and also very one-sided. Many of the sources are not reliable, and include advertising for a website that solicits donations, called "Law School Transparency" (run by two unemployed recent law school graduates). I've tried to improve the section with better citations and more balance, removing advertising. I've also tried to expand the main section on U.S. law schools to include government and non-profit data on outcomes. There have been several attempts to remove this data without explanation (i.e., vandalism).

Particular lawsuits

User Berknyc81 seeks to add info regarding two lawsuits involving 2 US law schools. This article is not the appropriate forum for such minutia. One of the lawsuits is already mentioned in the Thomas Jefferson article and the topic of the other lawsuit has been raised in the Thomas Cooley article. I deleted the material with reasons stated in the edit comment line. I've asked Berknyc81 to provide justification here for inclusion of the material.--S. Rich (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I think the lawsuits are relevant information that prospective law students and attorneys will be interested in, and will be one of the reasons that those individuals are reading this particular article. Certainly, I check this article, from time to time, with the intent to read the controversies section and only that section. Most of the rest of the article is, frankly, not all that interesting to me. The lawsuits, while current events, add context to the controversies, which are very real, surrounding legal education. In an effort to maintain Wikipedia as a most effective tool for providing information, I think they should remain, unless it can be shown that they somehow detract from or confuse the reader's understanding about "law school." While the suits are not pretty, I think they add nuance to the picture, much the way the "Trial of Tears" may add nuance to an article about American History. It's not attractive or pleasant, but relevant and very important. Ben (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

I concur with S. Rich and disagree with Ben on this issue. The information on those lawsuits is primarily relevant to the particular law schools at issue and to the article on Law school in the United States. It is not relevant to law schools at the global level, because there is no evidence that other law schools in other countries currently have those problems. (The underlying issue is that the U.S. is one of the few developed countries where private postsecondary education is allowed to operate with complete independence from the government. Most developed countries either outlawed or heavily regulate private postsecondary education because of the kind of serious problems still seen in the U.S. with those institutions.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Re the Alaburda lawsuit against Thomas_Jefferson_School_of_Law, it will likely be dismissed based on the demurrer on file. At that point, the case becomes one of past mere interest and not notability, even for the TJSOL article. A bar pass rate or graduates' employment rate does not measure the quality of the school or instruction. Think about it -- a lot of individuals all received the exact same instruction, read the same books, has the same professors, and took the same exams. Some did better than others. Only the quality of the individuals differed and Alaburda happened to graduate at a time when economic conditions were lousy. Even the top tier schools have grads who don't pass the bar or can't get a job. Should we include stories about those individuals even if they are published? No. The article is about the school and/or legal education in general, not the failures of certain individuals and the lawsuits that they file as a result of those failures.--S. Rich (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How would you measure the "quality of the school or instruction" Mr. S. Rich? Given the artificial tuition inflation caused directly by the practice of the government guaranteeing student loans in the form of legislative prohibitions against bankruptcy, I think law schools need to provide a better justification for their continued existence, especially given the lousy economy and the lack of mechanisms to create a downward pressure on tuition in response to the graduate's diminished earning potential.

Full disclosure. I have law loans, but the terms of the private loans were changed by Congress in 2005, after I was two years in. No more bankruptcy protections. Things went south for me after I graduated. I could not pass the California bar exam. Still owe 55k in private and 70 in federal loans after 5 years. And I've paid every penny as agreed. Berknyc81 (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Berknyc81 is incorrect about bankruptcy law. Student loans are still dischargeable in bankruptcy if the debtor can show "undue hardship", and several law grads have. Moreover, federal loan forgiveness is available through income based repayment and pay-as-you-earn programs, which cap repayment as a share of income for a limited number of years.

Abraham Lincoln "studied with nobody" yet went on in a fairly successful career. It all comes down to the talents of the individual, not the institution they attended. Some people make better decisions (or are luckier) than others, but that does not give editors an opportunity (or excuse) to use WP to Right Great Wrongs.--S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Platitudes and lectures, coming from a man with a vested interest in a law school, I do not find particularly persuasive. I intend to keep updating this page to provide public information for anyone who is willing to perform due dilligence when researching the decision to attend law school. I wish such information was available to me, when I decided to enroll Berknyc81 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's hilarious. I passed the California bar exam on my first try (it's really not that hard). Try one of those states where anyone who can sign his name can pass the bar, like Nevada or North Dakota. Also, as with most failed applicants, the way you write immediately reveals why you failed the bar. All three sentences have stylistic or grammar errors: (1) passive voice and lack of foundation; (2) bad word choice --- the phrase should be "for anyone who is interested in performing due diligence before making the decision to attend law school"; and (3) bad syntax --- should be "I wish such information had been available to me when I made my decision to enroll." A competent attorney has to be able to write nearly perfectly under extreme time pressure. Clients deserve nothing less.

Also, even if that information should be on WP at all, it should be be in Law school in the United States, not here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If my writing style is more important than the substance of my arguments, then I'm glad I failed the bar. But don't expect me to be silent, especially when my money is involvedBerknyc81 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln??? That's the best you can offer, S. Rich? "A decline of elitist attitudes surrounding the election of President ANDREW JACKSON in 1828 prompted a change in the attorney licensing system. State legislatures divested the authority granted attorneys and reclaimed control of bar admission standards, which became far less stringent and far less exclusive. Apprenticeships remained the most common form of legal study, but by 1860, only nine states required any form of LEGAL EDUCATION for ADMISSION TO THE BAR. Written bar examinations, when required, were cursory." ref It's doubtful that autodidact Lincoln would have been permitted to practice in any other age. (And you, sir, wouldn't have to spout a pedestrian platitude about talent if you'd been admitted to a better law school. Talent might have helped there.) You're spot-on WP policy, though. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly this discussion got off onto tangents (ad hominem) about writing style, bankruptcy, autodidacts, etc. It has not properly addressed the question of whether the United States focused "Controversy" section belongs in this article devoted to law study around the world. Except for the Paul Campos blog section (which I have spruced up), the section duplicates the Controversy section in the United States law school article. Moreover, law study in the US is properly referenced in the US section of this article. As the section gets longer (with every added controversy) it becomes more and more WP:UNDUE. --S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

S.Rich, first, let me thank you for working cooperately and within the confines of "wikilaw." But let me ask a blunt question of you. Are you concerned more about the integrity of this wikipedia article or in your personal investment in a law school? Although this controversy section has indeed grown very large, and is US specific, other people are free to do original research regarding the state of legal education in other countries.Berknyc81 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And you just revealed your intent to violate one of Wikipedia's most essential core policies, Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not and cannot be a first publisher of original research. Plus, I concur with S. Rich that any alleged "controversy" about U.S. law schools should be addressed in the article directed to that subject. This article is a high-level overview of the concept of law schools worldwide in general. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But how can one person (or encyclopedia) monopolize the definition of an amorphous concept such as "law school" which will vary across countries and over time? It was a poor choice of words to use "original research." I meant to say that other editors were free to include factual information regarding legal education in other countries. In this case, I would argue that the inclusion of factual information and current events in this article is more relevant and useful to the public than a static, unchanging recitation of historical facts. If wikipedia editors disagree with my position, perhaps this page should be locked until the controversy is resolved. Berknyc81 (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the particular subsection on controversy in US law schools is the US-centric nature of the material. It is laid out in the Law school in the United States article, and that is where it should stay.--S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

while I maintain my position that the appropriate remedy for unflattering factual information about law schools in the Unites States is inclusion of more factual information about legal education in other countries to provide balance to the article, I agree that your edits to the indexing were needed.Berknyc81 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at this link.

Can somebody with more experience in this topic please check the link in this sentence of the article "Scamblogs have appeared in recent years bringing attention to what they consider to be misleading employment statistics." and check if it points to a reputable source. Thanks SybilleY (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that link ;-) I also removed it now here from my comment on the talk page SybilleY (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Vitiello as a source -- is RS

He qualifies as WP:RS. While the particular material is WP:SPS, Vitiello is a professor at an ABA school (McGeorge) [1] and has published texts with West Publishing. See: OCLC 800041220 for just one. Thus he is a "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The particular deleted material needs to be reconciled with what his particular article says, and cleaned up for citation format. --S. Rich (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You neglected to include the sentence that follows in WP:SELFPUB: "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Further, note carefully that the phrase you quoted says "may" and not "must." This material may be reliable but it's not worth including until it's published by someone else.

I am guessing that this is a draft or a work-in-progress of an article that will be or has been submitted to a law journal; my understanding of the law discipline is that it's very common to publicly release drafts and works-in-progress. It might also be a pre-print. Whatever the case, until it's peer-reviewed and accepted it shouldn't be added to any article as anything more than a single carefully written and attributed sentence at most. ElKevbo (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a mole-hill. The supported sentence is about how exams in law school are conducted and graded. (Law school classes often include debates about controversial topics and blind grading of exams serves/helps to assure that attribution does not influence the outcomes of either the debates or grades.) This is very basic info, but needed to explain the procedure. (The sentences in the article could be written better, but the question before us is one of RS.) Regarding Vitiello's "article", no peer-review of that info is needed to establish RS. (What sort of review/acceptance could there be -- parsing data or what?) We do not need something that comes from a scholarly journal. A newspaper or magazine story would suffice!--S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a newspaper or magazine story would suffice. But we don't have that. All we have here is what appears to be a draft or work-in-progress self-published document. If it's such basic info then surely it can be found somewhere where it's actually been published, right? ElKevbo (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Vitiello is RS. The material meets the criteria as above. You are seeking to add criteria to the guidance with your characterizations of draft/work in progress/pre-print. Analysis: SPS=yes, but not dispositive; topic of the article=yes; established expert=yes; relevant field=yes; previously published (not necessarily this particular article or info)=yes; by reliable 3rd party publisher=yes. No other criteria is presented; and certainly not peer-reviewing or acceptance. The contributing editor met his/her WP:BURDEN. Removing Vitiello's stuff for lack of RS is not appropriate.--S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. We're not addressing WP:RS but WP:DUE. An entire paragraph devoted to one self-published document? ElKevbo (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh back at you. You removed the reference based on RS. The SPS argument is debunked. Not enough material in the paragraph? Expand it.--S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No. As clearly stated above, there is already too much material in this article based on this one self-published source. It deserves one sentence at best. ElKevbo (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you saying? "too much material"?? The Vitiello material is confined to one sentence. And why repeat the SPS comment? As above, that argument is debunked. By "expand the paragraph" I was suggesting that you or others could do so ... with references other than Vitiello if you so desired. (I did not mean to imply that Vitiello's stuff should be the only supporting material for a paragraph.)--S. Rich (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

1. There is a three sentence paragraph attributed to the source.

2. The SPS comment is repeated because it's a single, weak source that shouldn't be used out of proportion to its weight.

3. I have no desire to expand that or any other paragraph in this article as it's not an area of significant interest to me. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's one sentence now. (I apologize -- I mis-read and didn't see the other sentences.) SPS and DUE are two separate criteria. These are apples & oranges -- they should not be mixed. E.g., "It's SPS because it is UNDUE" or "It's UNDUE because it is SPS." (Purely SPS stuff can be removed irregardless [sic] of its' weight.) By comparison, it's entirely possible to have an over-abundance of the very best RS in an article creating UNDUE problems. --S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I think that one sentence is an appropriate weight to give to this source.

And of course we use judgment and context to evaluate how much weight to give any particular source! The venue in which a source was published is a natural part of that decision process. If everything else is equal, it's natural to give less weight to a self-published source that has not been through the reviewing and editing processes that other venues impose on authors. I also think it's perfectly natural to place less trust in a scholarly paper that hasn't been through any of the normal quality check processes (peer review, editorial selection or solicitation, etc.) for that genre. ElKevbo (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

The section on criticism of law schools violates several Wikipedia policies, including: (1) Information must be verifiable -Many of the cites are to blogs and other unreliable sources. Much of the objective information (i.e., numbers, percentages) is inaccurate. (2) No disproportionate criticism -The criticism of law schools is 10 times as long as the description of law schools. (3) No original research Again, lots of stringing material together here. (4) Information must be noteworthy Off the cuff remarks and this one guy I knows blog or horror story are not noteworthy. Peer reviewed Empirical research in noteworthy.

I've tried to fix some of these problems, but it's a mess. Wikipedia is not a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.189.16 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.228.6 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Law School Transparency

Law School Transparency is not a reliable source per wikipedia policy. See quote below of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources:

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth."

It is also advertising, since the site requests donations, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. I've replaced the reference to Law School Transparency with a link to ABA data.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.189.16 (talk • contribs) 07:44, June 14, 2013

---

Restored information relevant to prospective law students. Feel free to create another section about the positive aspects of law school. Wikipedia is meant to provide as much information to the public as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The information you want to restore is particular to US law schools. As this article is about law schools in general, we cannot fill it with such info. The info for prospective students is certainly available in the US law school article and in articles about individual law schools. For more info, see WP:BIAS and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Economic Value of a Law Degree

An editor removed references to an article called "The Economic Value of a Law Degree" on the grounds that draft articles should not be cited in wikipedia. This not the correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources

Under Wikipedia policy, posting to SSRN constitutes publication. The article is authored by two well regarded, university based empirical researchers, and it has been widely covered in the national press.

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/07/the-economic-value-of-law-degree-week-1-summary.html

Therefore, inclusion in Wikipedia is appropriate under Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.187.213 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please include some of the national coverage in the article. As it stands, it's just a self-published source and readers have no reason to trust that it's anything more than an unreviewed draft article that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

And next time, please add those sources first or at least open discussion in Talk before immediately jumping into an edit war. This is some handy advice that you should take to heart. ElKevbo (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The link to the "Economic Value of a Law Degree" artile was broken. Without a working link to the article, the information it purports to contain cannot be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I am attempting to remove all systemic bias from this article. Let's keep the ongoing controversy surrounding legal education in the US confined to the main article section "Law School in the United States." Agreed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The link to the article works. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2250585

Restoring the reference to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.36.6 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So instead of continuing this discussion and abiding by the very reasonable requests that were made you have continued to edit war? That's not acceptable. And it doesn't do anything to address the comments made above by Brknyc81. ElKevbo (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Berk's objection was to a broken link, which has been restored. The fact that law degree holders make far more money than similar bachelor's degree holders isn't controversial, and it's not a source of "systemic bias". It's an empirical fact verifiable from a range of official government data sources. In the extensive public discussion of the article, there have been no serious criticisms of either the data or the methods used by the authors. The only criticism is that claims that data should not be used because the future might be different from the past. But all facts and data are about the past, and if we didn't look at data and facts about the past, there would be no need for encyclopedias like Wikipedia.

As for BerkNYC's objections to "systemic bias", Note that WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias calls for including more information about omitted topics when appropriate, not deleting relevant information when some sections of an article are underdeveloped. "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles)"

But, to address any concerns, I've also added references, with links to national press coverage in the NY Times, Washington Post, and the Atlantic Monthly.

The section on Law School in the United States is shorter than the sections on law schools in Canada or India, neither of which has a legal market (or legal education market) comparable to the United States in terms of size or global influence. The section on the United States should be at least as long as the section on these countries, and this research is a great place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.178.48 (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the post-law school employment details lower in Law school in the United States‎ (out of the lede & into its own section) and done some cleanup there. These details, in this article, are not appropriate. We want an informative article that gives a global view of law schools. – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The United States is the single largest legal market in the world, with most international transactional work done there and many multi-jurisdictional cases settled there. Foreign students from across the world come to the United States for masters degrees and to work. Multinational organizations like the World Bank and the IMF work to harmonize the rest of the world's legal system with that of the U.S.

The section on the United States, by sheer word count, is very small relative to the entire article--even the sections on India and Canada are bigger. A global article about law should reflect the disproportionate importance and size of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.178.48 (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Income Based Repayment

BerkNYC added unreliable information from the tabloid above the law and a biased and unreliable claim by a think tank-funded by the private student loan industry. The authors of those articles do not have relevant academic training in statistics or finance, but rather have a background in political communication and lobbying. They have never published in academic journals. These are not reliable sources per wikipedia policy.

I've replace these sources with objective, scholarly sources that use official government data.

Quotes from the Wikipedia policy:

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. . . . They simply publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of reliable journals. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant citation index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.178.48 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll say it again -- this stuff about particular issues in US based law schools is not global in outlook and is inappropriate for this article. Go ahead and add material to the US article (and refine it IAW WP guidelines) but don't be surprised when all of the WP:BATTLEGROUND nonsense here gets reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to trim the U.S. section, it's probably fine to cut the entire paragraph on IBR. See response above re: Global importance of the U.S. However, information about outcomes after legal education is important. If anything, the sections on other countries should be expanded with information on outcomes in those countries. Note that WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias calls for including more information about omitted topics when appropriate, not deleting relevant information when some sections of an article are underdeveloped "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles)"

--108.46.178.48 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

At the same time WP:TERSE calls for us to be good writers. Adding US specific info does not serve to globalize anything. And we are not "omitting" anything once we add information to the proper place. In this regard, the US law school article is the place for it. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TERSE refers to a tight prose style, not to content. It is not a grounds for deletion of substantive material. The section in question includes a large amount of relevant information in very few words. Compare the U.S. section to the Canadian section or the Indian section. The U.S. section uses fewer words and conveys more information. But if you think you can improve style without changing the content, go for it.--108.46.178.48 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Canada does not have its own article, so we should expect more info. India can be/should be trimmed. WP:OSE does not excuse lousy writing here. – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:OSE "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists [or does not] does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it. . . . In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article." In other words, pointing to the lack of a separate article on Canada or the existence of a separate article on the U.S. is not a convincing argument, and we need to focus on the content within this article. I think the writing is clear. If you'd like to improve the prose style, you can do that without changing content, but you haven't put forward any arguments for deleting the content. I've removed the IBR discussion, but left the rest. I think this is a reasonable compromise.--108.46.178.48 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether article name can be in plural

Sorry, for my ignorance about exact english grammar rules in this respect ; but is it not possible to have article name in plural ?

Mahitgar (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No. We only use plurals for article names if the subject of the article is actually named that way (e.g., The Birds (film)). --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability of law school Deans

I have opened discussion as to whether a law school Dean of a major academic institution should be considered notable, here.--2604:2000:E010:1100:8069:D17F:7325:3D9 (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)