Talk:UC Davis School of Law/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed Edits to Update and Improve Accuracy

Dear Wikipedia Editors, In order to provide the best and most accurate information possible to Wikipedia readers, I would like to point out some out of date and inaccurate information on the UC Davis School of Law page and suggest some edits. Because I am an employee of the law school and I wish to respect Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest rules, I will not post these changes myself. Rather, I hope you will agree that the proposed edits will result in a page that is significantly more accurate and better serves the readership and either make the changes or let me know how to have them made. Here are the problems and proposed edits:

1) In the “Certificate Programs” section, the final sentence of the third paragraph is outdated and should be edited to include the new certificate in Intellectual Property: “Certificate programs are offered in Public Service Law, Environment Law, Pro Bono Service, and Intellectual Property.[1]

 Done

2) In the section on “Rankings and academics,” the second sentence of the first paragraph makes reference to the 2014 U.S. News & World Report rankings and should be updated to reflect the 2015 rankings. I would suggest: “In 2015, U.S. News & World Report placed UC Davis 31st in its ranking of more than 200 American Bar Association-approved law schools.[2] King Hall also placed 23rd in the U.S. News rankings of "Most Diverse Law Schools."[3]

Please go ahead and update the ranking number directly each year.

3) Also in the first paragraph of the “Rankings and Academics” section, the final sentence makes reference to 2011 rankings in National Jurist. I would suggest replacing it with a sentence on the 2015 rankings: “In January 2015, National Jurist magazine gave UC Davis School of Law a grade of “A” in its “Diversity Honor Roll.”[4]”

Ditto

4) Also in the “Rankings and academics” section, the third paragraph incorrectly references a 2008 article. According to 2015 statistics vetted by the American Bar Association and listed in the latest U.S. News & World Report rankings, UC Davis has a lower student/faculty ratio than any UC law school except UC Irvine, which also has a smaller enrollment. (USNWR lists the ratios at Irvine at 7.9 to 1, Davis as 10 to 1; UCLA as 10.2 to 1; Berkeley as 13.3 to 1; Hastings as 14.1 to 1.) I would suggest changing this sentence to: “UC Davis has the smallest student body and the lowest student/faculty ratio of any UC law school except UC Irvine.”[5]

I don't understand what you mean. The 2008 reference doesn't appear to have anything to do with the teacher to student ratio, so the explanation of the error doesn't make sense to me

5) Also in the “Rankings and academics” section, the fourth paragraph begins with a statement that inaccurately references the 2014 U.S. News & World Report listing of “Priciest public law schools.” For a more accurate, up-to-date, and balanced assessment, I would suggest deleting the sentence and replacing it with correct information from the current rankings: “UC Davis has been ranked as the fifth most-expensive public law school in the nation by U.S. News & World Report.[6] However, the magazine also reports that based upon median grant amounts, no public law school offers more financial aid.[7]

 Done

6) Also in the “Rankings and academics” section, the fourth paragraph ends with a sentence marked [citation needed]. Here is a suggested citation: http://www.theaggie.org/2009/10/05/law-school-expands-loan-repayment-assistance-program/

 Done

7) The section on “Bar Passage Rate” can be improved by adding a sentence reflecting the most recent numbers: “For July 2014, 86% of first-time test takers passed the California Bar Exam.”[8]

 Done

8) The “Expansion” section needs to be updated to reflect the fact that the law school has completed its building expansion project. I would suggest the following:

The law school recently completed a $30 million expansion project[9] that added an additional wing to its building, increasing assignable space by nearly 30 percent to provide for additional classrooms, offices, and a new courtroom, named the Paul and Lydia Kalmanovitz Appellate Courtroom in honor of a $1 million gift to the project from the Kalmanovitz Charitable Foundation. The courtroom is used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, California Supreme Court, and California Court of Appeal, as well as moot court and mock trial competitions for students. The project also included major renovations to the previously existing structure that improved aesthetics and traffic flow and provided the infrastructure necessary for new technologies.

This looks fine to me, but I'm confused as to why citation 9 is only used for the first half-sentence. What is the source for the rest of it?

Citations: [1] https://law.ucdavis.edu/academics/certificates/ [2] http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+2 [3] http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-school-diversity-rankings?int=a8e509 [4] http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cypress/nationaljurist1114/#/24 [5] http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/university-of-california-davis-03017 [6] http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/public-cost-rankings?int=98ee08 [7] http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/finaid-public-rankings?int=98ee08 [8] http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/01/08/uc-davis-ranks-no-4-in-bar-exam-pass-rate-mcgeorge.html [9] http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/08/30/daily50.html?ana=from_rss

Thank you for considering these proposed edits. Sorry to send such a long list, but I wanted to be thorough! If I can provide any further information, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soj Nitram (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please ping me when you've had a chance to respond to some of the straggling items. CorporateM (Talk) 04:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposing to delete the new section about a coffee cart

It's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Numerous statements in the text are unsourced and appear to be clear violations of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar:I stumbled across this why looking for something about UC Davis Law Review, and kinda agree with your assessment. There's lots of hyperbole which makes it seem as if this content was added by either a current or former student. It almost has an urban legend kinda feel and comparing it to the Reichstag Fire seems a bit much for Wikipedia. While I've got no reason to believe there wasn't a fire, the current content seems to be more of an exercise in creative writing than and encylopedic discussion of the event. I could see possibly mention this in a single properly sourced sentence or small paragraph if it did receive some coverage in independent reliable sources, but not a whole section of the article as it currently stands. Maybe adding a Template:Please see to some WikiProjects would be a good way to get some more feedback? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed it as undue, and the repeated mention of milk was just too strange. (The ridiculous Reichstag fire reference at the start of that section invited an invocation of Godwin's law.) Jonathunder (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. At some point, someone needs to get around to expanding this article to discuss the history of this law school, but it's not a priority for me right now. I have been focusing on the history of the newer UC campuses in preparation for circling back to the more important task of improving the articles on the history of UCLA and UC Berkeley. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I reversed the deletion and added the section back. If other editors take issue with the tone or references those are easy enough to change, but multiple external sources are cited. This is clearly a real event and a major fire is a significant enough incident in the history of the law school (especially considering that elsewhere the page deals with things like a remodel of the building) that it should not be removed altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.181.177 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it should. It's so badly written that it's rubbish. Don't add it back unless you get consensus here. Jonathunder (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur with User:Jonathunder. Thanks for getting rid of that garbage and for applying semi-protection to the article. Much appreciated. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe the coffee cart section needs to be re-inserted. There does not seem to be any dispute that it described a real event. (Four obviously legitimate external sources were cited.) Nor should there be any dispute that the event is at least as significant as other things described in the page. (If a cosmetic remodel of the premises merits a section, then so does a major fire with suspicious origins occurring on the premises.) So the entire dispute seems to be with the tone of the addition. Should you wish to revise the description of the event, that is fine. But to delete the event altogether simply makes the page less informative by removing all mention of an actual occurrence of relative significance. The correctness of my argument in this regard is made incredibly apparent by simply looking at any other event. If the section of the World War One page dealing with the Battle of Verdun was oddly written, it should be revised, not simply deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:8102:6120:E083:82EF:D9A3:61CF (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The most ludicrous statement is "Nor should there be any dispute that the event is at least as significant as other things described in the page." That is so ludicrous and indefensible on its face that the only logical inference is that you are trying to deliberately vandalize this article with a frivolous tangent.

What's relevant to a law school and therefore relevant to an encyclopedia article about it are matters like its founding, history, faculty, alumni, library, building, etc. Support services like coffee carts are tangents. Many law schools don't even offer coffee or other kinds of fresh food on site because they are next door to a foodservice facility shared with other graduate schools. For example, UCLA Law is next to Lu Valle Commons, which hosts a small food court at ground level and a branch of the UCLA Store in the basement. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The page contains an entire section about an expansion of the building that appears in tone and content to have been ripped straight from a press release. Although I do not take issue with that, my point is that a major fire occurring on the law school premises is at least as important a piece of information as the fact that an alumni gift was used to fund a remodel. Again, if someone wishes to edit the tone or content, be my guest. But to remove altogether any mention of an event that clearly happened amounts to an arbitrary exercise of authority. Again, if the World War One page's section on the Battle of Verdun was oddly written, it should be rewritten, not deleted. This is a section about a suspicious fire that is amply supported by external evidence, not a section about extraterrestrials probing the dean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.181.177 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a passage about a minor fire in the exterior courtyard a decade ago which has virtually nothing to do with the law school's operations.

Also, at least 80% of the assertions in the contested passage are rank speculation for which there is zero support in any of the cited references. Under Wikipedia core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, the burden is always on the editor attempting to change a long-established version of an article to submit reasonably coherent prose in which every potentially controversial statement is expressly or impliedly supported by a citation to a reliable source. It is not other editors' problem to go rooting for truffles buried in a mountain of garbage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The facts that a fire occurred on a particular date, that the coffee cart burned, and that the fire was of suspicious origins were all amply established by the four external sources cited. I intend to ensure that this page contains at least those facts. There is no objective basis, apart from your personal belief that this event is unimportant, to exclude those facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:8102:6120:986A:A479:DD83:68ED (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Further, the fact that the fire occurred several years ago is not a valid basis to omit any mention whatsoever of it on this page. The purpose of a wikipedia page should be to provide information about the current status and history of the law school.

Merge proposal

Please use this space to discuss the proposed merge of California International Law Center into this article. Pinging @Skyerise:, who initiated the proposal. Joyous! Noise! 21:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)